2014 Arizona Youth Survey Apache County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Apache County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Apache county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 393 35.6 362 47.4 143 31.8 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 409 37.0 228 29.8 185 41.2 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 303 27.4 174 22.8 121 26.9 11,541 23.9 1,105 100.0 764 100.0 449 100.0 48,244 100.0 All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 530 48.5 369 49.2 221 49.7 23,460 49.1 Female 562 51.5 381 50.8 224 50.3 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 33 25.6 20 17.4 3 3.6 989 5.3 African American 6 4.7 0 0.0 1 1.2 574 3.1 Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0 220 1.2 40 31.0 42 36.5 44 53.0 6,067 32.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 7 5.4 8 7.0 12 14.5 1,027 5.5 43 33.3 44 38.3 23 27.7 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 615 66.1 391 65.1 147 41.8 1,274 4.5 5 0.5 1 0.2 2 0.6 1,790 6.4 2 0.2 2 0.3 3 0.9 1,459 5.2 1 0.1 1 0.2 1 0.3 260 0.9 267 28.7 171 28.5 178 50.6 20,587 73.4 30 3.2 16 2.7 19 5.4 2,413 8.6 11 1.2 19 3.2 2 0.6 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 129 11.7 115 15.1 83 18.5 18,649 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 931 84.3 601 78.7 352 78.4 28,051 58.1 1,105 100.0 764 100.0 449 100.0 48,244 100.0 Total Students** Percent ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Apache County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Apache County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Apache County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Apache County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Apache County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Apache County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Apache County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Apache County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Apache County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Apache County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Apache County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Apache County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Apache County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Apache County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Apache County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Apache County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Apache County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Apache County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Apache County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 13 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 50 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 76 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Apache County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 28 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 49 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 81 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Apache County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 29 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 42 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 84 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Apache County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 9 Students** Sample (Rx): 8 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 65 Students** Sample (Rx): 39 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 64 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Apache County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 43 Students** Sample (Rx): 27 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 63 Students** Sample (Rx): 30 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 71 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Apache County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 22 Students** Sample (Rx): 12 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 38 Students** Sample (Rx): 24 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 53 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 40.9 39.6 40.3 37.6 34.0 43.0 42.9 41.8 42.9 41.5 49.1 46.9 46.9 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 41.9 34.0 24.8 29.2 31.1 40.1 41.0 35.8 34.8 37.8 26.9 25.2 28.1 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 35.9 29.7 24.2 29.6 30.7 30.6 35.1 29.6 36.6 38.6 24.3 33.6 24.3 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 37.3 35.7 56.1 31.8 36.7 26.6 23.9 26.4 20.6 23.7 23.9 32.1 38.6 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 46.2 44.4 33.3 41.2 40.3 37.7 31.5 30.9 35.4 40.0 34.4 28.8 35.1 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 45.7 46.9 56.1 51.0 49.3 34.6 36.6 39.8 41.2 39.9 31.7 33.3 34.2 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 50.3 51.6 40.5 36.7 35.4 45.6 46.9 44.0 36.8 37.6 44.3 46.0 31.8 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 18.7 23.3 20.7 21.2 23.7 22.7 29.5 24.2 32.8 39.6 24.0 32.3 16.1 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 43.4 42.0 47.0 43.2 49.1 38.0 43.4 42.4 44.6 53.5 44.4 43.7 33.0 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 56.1 56.6 50.8 44.6 41.1 55.1 54.6 54.2 44.3 42.5 49.0 43.5 46.6 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 36.2 37.3 45.5 45.0 38.2 33.7 27.9 33.7 51.6 40.4 30.9 28.7 44.5 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 43.5 36.1 27.5 33.4 34.5 44.9 46.5 30.8 36.6 39.8 44.1 32.9 36.4 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 38.0 34.1 16.8 19.8 23.5 34.7 36.2 24.2 22.4 36.1 32.3 32.0 15.3 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 31.9 27.9 20.3 21.4 24.7 28.4 33.6 21.7 29.8 35.5 24.8 22.6 21.8 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 37.0 37.5 24.5 31.7 34.7 41.1 38.5 28.4 36.1 41.0 42.5 35.5 38.7 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 54.4 48.8 40.0 56.9 37.9 39.2 49.0 43.0 58.4 40.1 38.2 39.9 43.5 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 68.1 61.6 41.1 43.6 44.8 57.8 62.3 45.9 41.5 45.5 54.8 46.9 47.1 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 47.1 40.5 25.5 29.7 30.7 40.5 46.8 32.8 34.7 34.7 36.8 27.6 18.5 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 41.9 40.1 34.8 41.9 37.1 36.7 37.7 32.0 49.0 42.1 44.8 41.7 46.2 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 32.4 31.2 8.9 10.4 14.7 26.5 21.4 15.4 8.4 13.3 20.3 15.8 9.6 7.0 10.7 40.8 36.8 25.2 24.9 22.4 23.7 19.7 22.3 23.3 23.5 22.1 16.3 18.3 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 40.1 42.8 42.7 31.4 40.9 54.6 51.1 50.6 35.0 45.2 61.0 55.5 54.9 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 51.0 48.0 48.2 53.3 54.8 46.8 44.6 49.1 47.8 48.0 59.7 56.2 53.2 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 59.4 61.0 62.3 62.2 62.5 57.5 60.5 59.5 57.2 56.2 61.6 57.5 60.4 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 60.2 62.1 58.2 60.0 61.9 62.8 56.0 53.7 53.6 54.3 61.4 59.7 59.5 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 66.1 63.9 74.1 64.7 68.7 63.1 67.7 69.6 66.6 69.5 60.5 67.4 75.0 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 54.8 57.1 58.6 53.7 56.9 66.0 70.8 68.1 62.5 63.4 53.7 52.6 45.8 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 63.2 69.8 66.4 69.6 65.8 74.1 79.1 82.0 75.8 70.2 65.6 72.8 62.2 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 59.3 54.2 54.3 47.9 60.5 58.8 59.1 59.9 53.5 61.7 68.1 65.0 47.1 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 47.7 50.4 52.1 42.7 49.0 45.6 51.6 51.6 51.9 52.0 40.1 51.5 51.7 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 64.6 65.4 73.0 61.3 61.4 70.9 75.9 77.5 63.6 60.1 67.8 69.6 68.9 56.2 52.2 63.8 57.6 62.2 54.8 42.6 62.8 66.2 72.4 61.6 46.0 64.4 59.2 61.7 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 41.1 33.4 24.8 31.5 27.8 56.3 54.1 38.3 52.9 52.1 65.1 57.5 47.0 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 39.0 35.7 19.7 15.8 14.8 45.2 50.5 39.9 25.6 25.7 57.5 54.7 37.6 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 28.1 24.1 12.1 14.9 16.5 40.9 46.8 43.4 32.4 35.8 50.5 52.5 33.3 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.3 3.4 2.1 1.6 2.5 3.4 5.1 4.4 4.7 5.4 5.8 6.3 2.6 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 3.4 3.4 2.1 1.6 1.7 4.4 1.9 2.7 3.0 3.3 8.9 8.1 3.4 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 13.8 14.3 7.8 9.0 10.8 11.2 8.9 3.3 6.6 8.7 7.5 11.9 5.1 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 1.3 0.6 2.8 0.5 1.4 1.8 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.6 3.4 3.8 0.0 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 1.6 2.0 0.7 0.6 1.0 2.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.0 3.1 0.6 1.7 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 3.1 5.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 3.7 5.2 6.6 4.4 5.7 7.9 5.7 4.3 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 2.4 1.1 0.7 1.5 1.1 1.8 2.8 2.2 1.9 1.3 0.7 2.5 0.9 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 15.2 9.7 8.5 7.0 n/a 17.6 16.6 13.8 12.0 n/a 21.2 16.6 12.8 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 4.2 2.0 2.1 1.6 4.2 3.4 1.4 2.8 5.3 8.1 6.2 5.1 1.7 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 10.5 4.6 2.9 3.9 n/a 5.8 4.3 4.4 6.3 n/a 7.5 5.1 2.6 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 19.9 12.0 9.9 9.3 n/a 19.4 17.5 14.9 15.0 n/a 22.6 18.5 14.5 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 16.8 7.1 7.1 5.8 n/a 9.4 11.9 8.3 8.2 n/a 11.9 11.5 10.3 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 3.7 4.3 2.3 n/a n/a 8.5 4.4 4.2 n/a n/a 14.1 5.1 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 20.4 16.1 9.3 13.4 10.2 29.0 25.3 15.8 27.8 25.7 38.1 28.9 25.6 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 17.4 14.7 8.5 5.7 4.5 15.4 24.1 14.8 10.1 9.1 27.3 24.8 21.4 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 10.4 5.8 5.8 4.3 2.8 13.3 9.7 14.3 7.5 6.4 15.8 12.4 16.4 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 13.6 13.7 5.7 6.9 7.0 24.0 23.6 22.0 16.8 18.0 26.0 18.8 13.7 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.9 2.2 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 5.0 6.0 2.1 3.1 2.3 4.2 0.9 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 0.8 1.7 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 1.4 2.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.0 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.8 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 7.6 5.2 4.3 3.8 n/a 8.4 7.1 7.2 5.4 n/a 8.6 4.5 6.0 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 2.1 0.3 1.4 0.8 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.6 2.1 2.8 2.7 0.6 1.7 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 5.5 1.5 1.4 1.7 n/a 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.6 n/a 2.1 0.6 1.7 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 11.3 5.4 4.3 4.9 n/a 9.4 8.5 7.7 7.1 n/a 8.6 5.1 8.5 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 10.5 3.7 3.5 3.1 n/a 5.2 6.2 2.8 3.7 n/a 5.1 1.9 5.1 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 2.3 1.4 0.9 n/a n/a 4.8 0.0 0.8 n/a n/a 3.2 0.0 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 13.4 10.6 7.1 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 4.3 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 19.4 16.1 10.9 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.5 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 25.3 16.1 14.5 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 4.3 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 7.3 4.9 4.3 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 24.7 22.5 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 8.8 7.3 3.8 20.6 21.5 22.3 n/a 27.8 24.9 1.4 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 20.8 19.9 24.0 1.6 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 10.5 10.6 3.4 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 27.1 27.3 15.7 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.6 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 22.6 16.6 6.3 8.4 7.8 32.9 33.2 20.8 16.5 14.7 31.9 26.3 21.7 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 24.4 21.9 12.0 14.3 13.4 16.0 21.4 15.8 9.6 11.2 14.0 13.7 5.0 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 8.3 6.5 3.5 3.6 3.1 9.2 8.9 9.8 7.7 7.2 8.4 6.6 8.3 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 5.9 2.5 0.7 1.7 2.2 5.2 3.2 4.9 2.1 2.7 1.7 1.2 2.5 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 9.0 6.2 2.8 5.0 4.8 8.9 5.0 4.3 6.0 6.0 9.7 4.8 9.2 5.9 5.8 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them 16.8 11.5 5.6 9.8 12.9 15.7 9.9 12.0 8.9 11.8 15.1 7.2 7.6 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 15.2 10.1 14.1 5.5 5.4 10.0 5.8 7.6 5.6 5.5 9.4 5.4 18.5 5.6 5.5 1.8 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.9 2.5 0.5 0.0 0.8 1.2 1.7 0.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 Carried a handgun to school ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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 often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** Grade 10 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 93.8 87.4 88.7 88.5 93.2 93.0 91.8 92.0 97.6 94.8 94.9 94.1 1 time 2.6 6.7 5.7 5.2 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.4 1.0 2.3 3.4 2.3 2-3 times 1.8 2.2 2.1 3.4 1.3 1.8 2.7 2.1 0.7 1.2 0.0 1.2 4-5 times 0.3 1.4 2.1 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.8 0.6 6-7 times 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 8-9 times 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 12 or more times 0.8 0.0 1.1 1.5 1.8 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 84.5 85.1 80.4 78.8 87.9 91.1 88.1 93.6 92.4 94.3 2.5 1.1 1.1 0 times 70.0 1 time 12.0 11.7 9.9 8.3 10.6 11.5 5.5 4.5 6.1 2.9 5.9 2-3 times 10.4 9.8 4.2 4.1 5.8 5.8 3.8 2.3 1.7 2.3 0.8 1.4 4-5 times 5.2 2.8 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.6 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 6-7 times 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 1.3 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0 times 61.4 59.4 49.3 59.8 74.6 70.0 73.9 71.6 86.1 82.0 80.5 83.0 1 time 12.0 10.4 8.5 10.3 8.5 7.9 3.8 6.7 5.4 2.9 4.2 4.1 2-3 times 10.7 11.2 14.8 12.0 7.0 8.8 7.6 9.3 4.8 5.2 3.4 5.9 4-5 times 6.3 4.8 7.0 5.1 3.5 4.0 4.3 3.8 1.7 2.9 5.1 2.0 6-7 times 1.8 2.5 5.6 2.5 1.0 3.5 2.2 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 8-9 times 1.3 1.4 2.8 1.8 1.3 0.9 2.2 1.4 0.3 1.2 2.5 0.7 10-11 times 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 12 or more times 6.0 9.8 11.3 7.8 4.0 4.0 5.4 5.0 1.4 5.2 4.2 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 65.7 73.8 n/a n/a 80.9 82.0 n/a n/a 87.2 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 13.3 10.5 n/a n/a 6.0 6.2 n/a n/a 5.1 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 13.3 8.8 n/a n/a 4.9 6.2 n/a n/a 3.4 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 3.5 2.3 n/a n/a 1.6 1.6 n/a n/a 1.7 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.7 1.0 n/a n/a 1.6 0.9 n/a n/a 1.7 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 1.4 0.7 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.3 n/a n/a 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 2.1 2.5 n/a n/a 3.8 2.4 n/a n/a 0.9 2.2 88.5 88.4 87.3 90.1 89.2 92.9 89.1 93.9 94.2 93.5 90.7 95.7 1.8 0 days 72.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 day 5.5 5.1 7.7 4.7 5.3 2.2 4.9 2.8 3.4 4.2 9.3 2-3 days 1.8 3.4 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.1 2.7 2.0 1.7 0.6 0.0 1.2 4-5 days 2.3 1.4 2.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 6 or more days 1.1 1.8 1.7 0.0 1.0 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.8 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.8 93.2 91.5 85.8 95.8 92.9 94.1 87.4 94.4 95.2 88.7 89.8 94.5 1 day 2.3 3.1 5.0 1.9 2.5 0.0 1.5 1.7 2.4 0.8 2-3 days 2.1 1.7 2.1 0.8 1.3 1.8 1.1 0.7 1.2 2.5 4-5 days 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 0 days 6 or more days 2.1 3.4 5.7 1.1 2.8 4.1 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 69.7 10.7 7.0 4.8 1.1 1.4 0.6 4.8 65.5 12.7 7.7 3.5 2.8 1.4 0.0 6.3 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 76.4 9.8 6.7 0.9 0.4 1.8 0.4 3.6 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2010 1.1 2.2 1.1 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.5 8.2 2.5 1.4 7.1 5.9 2.8 79.2 4.9 6.6 3.3 1.1 2.2 0.5 2.2 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 78.5 4.7 5.8 5.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 3.5 77.1 9.3 4.2 3.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 4.2 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 63.9 62.8 41.5 54.6 45.5 58.8 57.8 46.7 52.6 43.8 63.0 53.9 50.4 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 2.8 4.5 2.8 3.7 4.2 4.8 1.8 2.2 4.2 4.0 2.7 6.6 2.5 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 14.0 18.0 11.3 20.7 19.1 16.8 15.8 13.1 21.1 18.3 11.5 21.6 13.6 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 35.1 27.2 14.8 25.1 23.4 27.9 31.4 18.5 23.8 23.0 27.9 21.8 23.5 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 38.6 28.9 18.3 29.1 25.0 33.4 27.0 21.7 28.9 24.7 32.1 25.5 23.9 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 28.0 37.1 14.1 23.6 20.8 22.0 21.7 19.8 18.3 15.9 22.0 19.4 10.2 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 27.2 22.4 19.1 23.8 14.3 22.6 18.5 9.8 19.7 12.5 24.7 18.7 10.3 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 29.1 32.5 19.7 26.2 19.6 26.4 21.3 26.6 25.7 18.4 26.4 19.9 25.2 21.5 16.9 7.0 6.5 2.1 5.0 5.8 5.6 7.7 3.8 4.6 5.5 5.4 3.6 1.7 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size* 76 50 13 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 5.3 2.0 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 2.6 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 2,574 81 49 28 3,493 84 42 29 4,131 15.4 7.4 6.2 0.0 7.1 7.6 6.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 6.0 7.7 4.7 1.2 2.0 3.6 3.5 2.4 2.4 0.0 5.4 2.6 6.0 15.4 4.5 6.2 4.1 7.1 3.0 3.6 0.0 6.9 3.7 25.0 26.0 23.1 14.5 30.9 22.4 28.6 25.3 50.0 38.1 31.0 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 7.9 14.0 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 15.4 19.8 6.2 8.2 14.3 16.7 9.5 11.9 10.3 17.1 21.1 24.0 38.5 20.5 19.8 24.5 10.7 16.2 15.5 16.7 17.2 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 17.1 24.0 23.1 15.4 24.7 30.6 35.7 21.5 31.0 31.0 34.5 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 25.0 26.0 15.4 19.8 16.0 26.5 25.0 26.3 16.7 21.4 6.9 21.6 I got it at a party. 25.0 26.0 53.8 33.8 34.6 38.8 46.4 45.6 44.0 35.7 48.3 50.9 I took it from home. 21.1 18.0 23.1 25.2 9.9 12.2 14.3 21.8 3.6 2.4 13.8 15.2 5.3 6.0 0.0 7.5 8.6 4.1 10.7 9.2 4.8 2.4 0.0 5.7 39.5 46.0 30.8 26.3 29.6 32.7 46.4 17.8 28.6 23.8 37.9 13.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. State 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 State 2014 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 65 9 2,261 63 43 2,880 38 22 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 4.6 0.0 10.9 0.0 7.0 13.4 2.6 9.1 17.7 Friends 64.6 66.7 69.5 81.0 100.0 77.8 78.9 72.7 78.2 Family/relatives 20.0 11.1 16.8 23.8 11.6 14.7 18.4 31.8 11.9 Parties 18.5 44.4 25.0 22.2 23.3 28.4 15.8 18.2 27.5 Home 4.6 11.1 6.3 3.2 2.3 5.3 10.5 4.5 5.5 School 13.8 0.0 14.8 25.4 23.3 12.3 18.4 13.6 7.6 Other 32.3 44.4 28.1 25.4 11.6 21.4 21.1 27.3 21.0 Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 64 39 8 1,130 71 30 27 1,428 53 24 12 1,596 Friends 62.5 48.7 50.0 47.1 53.5 60.0 85.2 56.3 58.5 54.2 75.0 59.4 Family/relatives 29.7 28.2 37.5 14.8 16.9 13.3 11.1 17.3 22.6 25.0 16.7 16.7 Parties 15.6 12.8 25.0 20.4 22.5 20.0 25.9 21.6 22.6 12.5 25.0 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 25.0 15.4 37.5 26.1 19.7 20.0 18.5 25.9 22.6 12.5 16.7 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 15.6 15.4 25.0 12.9 18.3 13.3 14.8 16.2 22.6 33.3 0.0 17.7 School 26.6 5.1 12.5 11.9 15.5 20.0 25.9 12.4 18.9 8.3 25.0 11.7 Other 25.0 12.8 0.0 17.9 26.8 23.3 25.9 14.2 32.1 8.3 25.0 13.8 Over the Internet 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.8 0.0 11.1 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 1.6 0.0 0.0 8.6 4.2 3.3 7.4 5.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 87.4 135 80.8 172 80.9 115 80.1 201 85.3 217 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 88.1 135 76.7 172 80.9 115 81.1 201 81.6 217 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 73.8 130 61.4 171 60.9 115 66.0 197 64.2 215 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 84.3 134 73.8 172 81.6 114 75.5 200 82.4 216 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 92.2 116 95.8 165 97.3 112 95.8 192 94.4 197 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 95.7 116 95.8 165 95.5 112 95.3 192 95.9 197 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 98.2 114 93.3 164 94.6 111 94.8 191 95.4 194 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 96.5 115 95.1 164 98.2 112 95.8 191 96.9 196 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 88.8 125 79.8 168 73.5 113 82.7 196 79.6 206 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 92.7 124 79.2 168 68.1 113 82.6 195 78.6 206 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 91.0 122 61.3 168 64.6 113 74.2 194 69.3 205 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 91.8 122 85.6 167 85.7 112 86.5 193 88.7 204 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 9.3 140 15.8 183 25.6 117 16.2 216 16.4 220 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 8.5 141 14.8 183 21.4 117 14.8 216 14.0 221 used marijuana Marijuana 5.7 140 22.0 182 13.7 117 17.2 215 11.8 220 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 4.3 141 7.7 181 8.5 117 5.1 215 8.2 220 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: Never alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 69.5 55.4 50.2 67.6 58.3 State 2014 82.7 78.5 46.9 55.4 67.2 47.1 11.0 7.9 10.3 15.1 17.4 11.5 13.1 14.8 13.4 14.7 13.2 2-3 times 10.2 8.6 3.6 6.7 16.1 19.2 12.1 15.2 18.6 19.7 8.6 19.4 4-6 times 4.2 3.5 2.2 2.1 5.9 7.0 2.7 6.7 9.0 5.7 6.0 9.4 7-10 times 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.7 2.8 1.4 2.2 2.3 3.8 0.6 0.9 3.4 More than 10 times 3.4 1.7 2.9 1.7 4.8 4.7 3.8 4.4 6.9 5.1 2.6 7.5 Never 74.4 76.8 85.5 86.5 67.9 55.8 78.0 79.6 63.6 65.4 75.9 73.9 Once 20.2 10.6 11.9 5.8 6.8 13.0 10.4 8.4 7.2 14.7 9.2 2-3 times 6.0 6.4 2.2 3.7 6.9 10.1 2.7 5.3 13.4 10.5 6.0 6.8 4-6 times 4.7 2.6 1.4 1.2 4.8 3.8 2.7 2.5 5.2 5.2 0.9 3.1 7-10 times 1.6 1.2 0.7 0.5 2.3 2.4 2.7 1.2 3.8 0.0 1.7 1.6 More than 10 times 2.8 1.2 4.3 1.3 5.1 7.7 3.3 3.1 6.9 7.8 0.9 5.4 Never 68.3 67.6 83.3 75.5 57.0 45.6 55.5 57.5 51.0 58.9 69.2 54.1 Once 10.6 9.9 10.1 8.3 9.2 13.7 12.1 11.4 14.1 8.6 10.3 10.5 2-3 times 7.3 6.1 2.2 6.6 10.9 13.2 7.1 10.8 11.0 7.9 6.8 12.0 4-6 times 4.2 5.2 2.2 3.3 8.7 9.8 6.6 6.7 7.9 9.9 6.0 6.8 7-10 times 3.4 4.4 0.0 1.7 4.6 4.4 4.9 3.8 7.9 4.6 2.6 3.8 11.1 6.2 6.7 2.2 4.6 9.7 13.2 13.7 9.8 7.9 9.9 5.1 12.7 Never 87.5 87.7 92.7 88.4 83.1 82.0 84.0 82.6 86.5 87.6 87.9 82.1 Once 5.7 5.9 2.9 5.5 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.6 3.1 5.2 6.0 6.7 2-3 times 2.9 3.2 2.2 2.7 5.4 4.4 3.3 4.3 3.8 2.6 4.3 5.0 4-6 times 1.6 0.6 1.5 1.5 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.8 2.0 0.9 2.1 7-10 times 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.0 More than 10 times 1.8 1.2 0.7 1.7 1.8 2.9 1.1 2.6 2.4 2.6 0.0 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 33.9 30.6 33.1 30.5 74.8 28.1 37.6 35.2 67.4 27.4 36.8 39.2 Once 16.4 15.0 8.3 11.6 25.2 21.4 16.5 14.4 32.6 13.7 16.7 15.6 Twice 6.9 4.1 5.3 4.6 0.0 10.5 5.9 6.9 0.0 7.5 4.4 7.6 Three times 4.8 3.2 0.8 2.3 0.0 9.5 5.3 3.5 0.0 2.7 2.6 3.8 Four or more times 6.9 6.5 4.5 4.6 0.0 7.6 8.8 6.3 0.0 15.8 6.1 6.7 I never get offers 31.2 40.6 48.1 46.4 0.0 22.9 25.9 33.6 0.0 32.9 33.3 27.1 Never 38.0 32.6 34.8 33.6 1.4 30.8 40.4 37.1 1.8 32.7 38.3 41.5 Once 12.5 11.0 8.3 9.4 98.6 18.8 13.3 13.2 98.2 10.9 12.2 14.2 Twice 6.9 7.1 3.8 4.3 0.0 11.1 6.0 7.0 0.0 9.5 7.0 8.1 Three times 4.0 3.6 1.5 2.2 0.0 5.3 3.0 3.6 0.0 5.4 1.7 4.0 1.1 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 7.2 4.5 1.5 3.7 0.0 9.6 10.8 5.4 0.0 5.2 5.2 I never get offers 31.4 41.2 50.0 46.7 0.0 24.5 26.5 33.7 0.0 29.9 35.7 26.9 Never 39.7 34.0 34.1 35.4 0.3 37.0 45.8 46.0 0.7 43.2 45.2 53.3 Once 12.3 12.7 9.1 8.5 99.7 18.3 10.2 9.7 99.3 5.5 11.3 9.2 Twice 4.8 4.7 2.3 3.2 0.0 7.2 6.6 3.9 0.0 6.8 2.6 3.9 Three times 5.9 2.7 2.3 1.9 0.0 5.3 3.6 2.3 0.0 3.4 0.9 2.3 Four or more times 4.3 3.8 2.3 3.7 0.0 8.7 6.0 4.0 0.0 10.3 4.3 3.7 I never get offers 33.1 42.0 50.0 47.3 0.0 23.6 27.7 34.2 0.0 30.8 35.7 27.6 Never 44.7 38.1 37.1 38.2 1.4 40.3 47.0 49.7 39.7 45.6 57.0 Once 9.8 11.0 5.3 6.8 98.6 14.6 12.7 7.8 98.9 9.6 9.6 7.6 Twice 4.3 4.5 2.3 2.4 0.0 6.8 5.4 2.9 0.0 5.5 5.3 3.0 Three times 3.5 1.8 0.8 1.5 0.0 4.4 1.2 1.7 0.0 4.1 0.0 1.8 Four or more times 5.3 3.6 3.0 3.3 0.0 9.2 6.6 3.3 0.0 8.9 4.4 2.7 41.1 51.5 47.8 0.0 24.8 27.1 34.6 0.0 32.2 35.1 27.9 I never get offers 47 State 2014 74.1 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. County 2014 11.7 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 Once More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 32.4 1.1 11.6 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 79.4 85.1 87.3 87.7 80.5 86.5 92.9 89.1 88.6 90.8 89.6 7.3 4.2 6.4 8.6 6.8 3.3 5.0 10.1 1.8 4.2 4.7 3 to 5 times 4.4 3.7 2.8 2.5 4.7 2.7 1.6 2.6 3.7 5.4 3.3 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.5 1.7 2.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.1 3.4 2.4 0.8 1.2 10 to 19 times 0.5 1.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.9 20 to 29 times 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.0 30 to 39 times 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.2 40+ times 1.3 0.3 1.4 1.0 2.2 0.9 Never 29.3 37.7 34.5 48.7 32.8 41.9 43.5 54.3 1 or 2 times 28.3 27.3 35.2 26.4 21.5 23.9 26.1 3 to 5 times 14.7 19.2 16.2 12.8 16.6 16.2 15.2 6 to 9 times 11.3 8.7 4.2 5.4 11.5 11.3 10 to 19 times 5.7 2.0 3.5 2.8 6.1 20 to 29 times 2.8 1.4 2.1 1.2 30 to 39 times 0.5 0.6 1.4 40+ times 7.5 3.1 2.8 81.4 90.7 1 or 2 times 9.3 3 to 5 times 3.4 6 to 9 times 10 to 19 times 1.1 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 1.1 2.0 0.6 0.8 1.3 36.1 48.2 68.1 65.8 22.6 21.7 25.3 15.1 17.9 12.7 20.4 15.1 9.2 9.4 7.6 5.2 10.4 7.8 5.0 3.1 2.7 5.4 2.3 6.0 1.8 1.7 1.6 3.4 1.4 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.8 0.0 0.7 0.4 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.3 6.4 2.3 1.1 1.5 3.7 0.0 0.8 1.2 93.0 89.8 84.0 91.0 91.3 92.4 82.9 95.2 94.2 94.5 5.9 4.9 6.0 7.9 5.4 3.3 4.2 9.1 3.6 1.7 3.0 2.0 0.0 1.9 3.4 1.4 3.3 1.4 3.4 0.6 1.7 0.9 1.8 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 2.3 0.3 1.4 0.6 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.1 88.9 91.8 95.8 91.5 90.4 93.7 94.6 93.7 90.9 97.6 94.2 94.6 1 or 2 times 5.9 5.6 2.1 5.4 3.7 4.1 3.3 3.8 5.4 1.2 3.3 3.2 3 to 5 times 2.3 0.8 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.5 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.7 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 10 to 19 times 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 64.7 56.4 72.3 Once 12.0 13.9 7.3 8.9 11.6 4-6 times 4.2 7-10 times 0.8 More than 10 times Grade 10 County 1.1 Grade 10 County 52.2 11.2 12.3 13.5 7.3 9.6 11.6 6.5 2.2 3.4 2.4 0.0 0.9 9.4 9.2 10.9 5.9 Never n/a n/a 51.5 Once n/a n/a 2-3 times n/a n/a 4-6 times n/a 7-10 times Grade 10 State 60.8 Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 70.4 56.5 59.5 69.0 13.1 10.5 10.9 8.8 10.3 7.8 14.5 10.2 10.4 14.0 7.4 13.8 10.3 4.9 4.3 6.3 3.5 5.6 8.8 2.6 3.0 2.1 3.9 1.7 1.0 2.5 4.1 0.9 0.8 11.6 11.6 8.0 4.1 10.5 11.5 3.4 2.6 48.0 n/a n/a 55.7 57.8 n/a n/a 69.2 68.2 16.9 17.8 n/a n/a 13.7 15.7 n/a n/a 10.3 12.9 15.4 17.2 n/a n/a 14.8 14.9 n/a n/a 12.0 11.4 n/a 7.4 6.8 n/a n/a 5.5 4.7 n/a n/a 4.3 3.4 n/a n/a 2.9 2.8 n/a n/a 3.3 2.1 n/a n/a 0.9 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 5.9 7.5 n/a n/a 7.1 4.8 n/a n/a 3.4 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 3.8 7.6 n/a n/a 4.2 6.0 n/a n/a 5.4 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 9.1 12.4 n/a n/a 10.1 14.8 n/a n/a 8.9 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 29.5 27.6 n/a n/a 29.2 34.3 n/a n/a 26.8 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 27.3 21.5 n/a n/a 20.8 n/a n/a 23.2 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 30.3 30.9 n/a n/a 35.7 n/a n/a 35.7 21.9 2-3 times 69.0 Grade 10 County 57.6 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2010 9.8 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 80.9 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 75.5 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Cochise County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Cochise County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Cochise county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 696 70.4 736 44.0 660 38.0 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 151 15.3 694 41.5 606 34.9 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 142 14.4 244 14.6 472 27.2 11,541 23.9 All Students Surveyed* 989 100.0 1,674 100.0 1,738 100.0 48,244 100.0 Students By Gender Male 478 49.0 808 49.4 802 47.9 23,460 49.1 Female 497 51.0 829 50.6 874 52.1 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 29 5.5 61 6.2 60 5.9 989 5.3 African American 12 2.3 26 2.7 31 3.0 574 3.1 3 0.6 8 0.8 7 0.7 169 0.9 Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 4 0.8 10 1.0 4 0.4 220 1.2 151 28.6 329 33.7 502 49.1 6,067 32.5 32 6.1 59 6.0 53 5.2 1,027 5.5 297 56.3 484 49.5 365 35.7 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Number Percent Number Percent 9 2.1 13 26 6.1 47 13 3.1 5 1.2 306 72.0 388 64.0 61 14.4 80 13.2 5 1.2 58 9.6 14 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent 2.2 7 1.1 1,274 4.5 7.8 41 6.6 1,790 6.4 13 2.2 20 3.2 1,459 5.2 7 1.2 9 1.4 260 0.9 429 68.6 20,587 73.4 105 16.8 2,413 8.6 2.2 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 528 53.4 977 58.4 1,022 58.8 18,649 Percent 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 425 43.0 606 36.2 625 36.0 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 989 100.0 1,674 100.0 1,738 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Cochise County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Cochise County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Cochise County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Cochise County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Cochise County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Cochise County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Cochise County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Cochise County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Cochise County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Cochise County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Cochise County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 109 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 113 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 119 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Cochise County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 158 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 194 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 34 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Cochise County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 159 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 102 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 53 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Cochise County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 81 Students** Sample (Rx): 47 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 61 Students** Sample (Rx): 43 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 70 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Cochise County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 91 Students** Sample (Rx): 65 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 124 Students** Sample (Rx): 76 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 21 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Cochise County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 85 Students** Sample (Rx): 51 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 41 Students** Sample (Rx): 28 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 26 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 38.5 38.4 42.5 37.6 34.0 45.8 48.8 43.6 42.9 41.5 61.0 52.5 51.2 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 37.5 36.0 30.4 29.2 31.1 53.8 42.9 35.3 34.8 37.8 35.0 36.6 26.1 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 35.8 37.8 35.0 29.6 30.7 40.4 44.1 38.8 36.6 38.6 45.5 38.7 33.3 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 36.4 38.8 38.2 31.8 36.7 36.8 29.3 21.4 20.6 23.7 38.4 26.9 31.4 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 45.9 44.4 44.6 41.2 40.3 42.6 42.6 35.3 35.4 40.0 48.2 33.1 31.0 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 52.2 51.0 55.2 51.0 49.3 42.3 43.1 37.9 41.2 39.9 41.7 37.3 36.4 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 40.8 45.0 44.7 36.7 35.4 52.6 41.8 39.8 36.8 37.6 45.3 40.9 32.1 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 28.0 26.7 22.7 21.2 23.7 46.1 39.2 31.2 32.8 39.6 41.6 36.7 27.7 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 49.0 45.9 50.1 43.2 49.1 57.6 50.8 42.5 44.6 53.5 51.1 49.4 37.8 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 46.2 51.4 52.6 44.6 41.1 52.6 44.4 47.3 44.3 42.5 49.3 34.9 40.7 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 38.7 36.8 50.5 45.0 38.2 45.2 48.2 47.4 51.6 40.4 45.7 33.9 40.6 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 45.9 37.2 40.6 33.4 34.5 45.7 48.2 37.6 36.6 39.8 55.8 38.3 32.3 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 34.4 28.4 23.2 19.8 23.5 30.7 26.3 23.5 22.4 36.1 36.0 25.6 21.5 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 29.2 29.4 25.5 21.4 24.7 36.7 36.5 29.9 29.8 35.5 28.1 27.3 21.6 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 41.2 33.4 37.3 31.7 34.7 48.6 47.5 35.7 36.1 41.0 46.4 34.7 27.6 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 48.8 49.0 58.7 56.9 37.9 39.2 49.4 55.0 58.4 40.1 45.8 46.2 57.5 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 58.4 58.7 51.5 43.6 44.8 55.3 48.5 49.8 41.5 45.5 60.6 45.9 39.3 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 43.3 41.5 35.9 29.7 30.7 39.7 39.7 36.9 34.7 34.7 44.5 41.3 24.7 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 51.1 47.3 49.0 41.9 37.1 46.0 51.1 47.8 49.0 42.1 54.7 60.1 55.9 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 25.3 15.9 12.1 10.4 14.7 18.9 16.4 6.7 8.4 13.3 16.8 17.8 6.3 7.0 10.7 31.7 32.9 35.1 24.9 22.4 24.5 26.7 25.6 23.3 23.5 27.7 25.8 19.1 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 30.7 33.9 28.1 31.4 40.9 43.4 39.3 36.9 35.0 45.2 34.0 47.9 38.1 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 49.4 48.2 50.4 53.3 54.8 54.9 45.1 50.5 47.8 48.0 55.0 57.1 57.3 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 57.5 59.0 63.2 62.2 62.5 61.1 50.4 58.7 57.2 56.2 48.1 61.1 60.9 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 61.1 59.8 55.4 60.0 61.9 53.8 46.9 56.3 53.6 54.3 46.9 61.4 54.0 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 60.5 49.6 58.1 64.7 68.7 61.9 60.4 64.0 66.6 69.5 61.9 63.9 68.7 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 53.2 52.7 50.4 53.7 56.9 67.3 53.1 61.4 62.5 63.4 45.0 58.8 46.3 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 60.2 64.1 63.4 69.6 65.8 72.5 69.2 76.0 75.8 70.2 48.5 68.9 68.5 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 57.6 47.0 42.4 47.9 60.5 57.4 50.5 53.7 53.5 61.7 51.8 57.9 52.1 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 37.4 39.8 39.3 42.7 49.0 43.8 49.0 47.7 51.9 52.0 36.9 44.4 38.1 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 64.7 58.2 57.3 61.3 61.4 57.9 60.5 66.2 63.6 60.1 50.4 55.6 53.3 56.2 52.2 50.7 52.7 53.7 54.8 42.6 52.7 50.4 63.5 61.6 46.0 36.2 66.0 61.0 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 54.7 46.6 41.1 31.5 27.8 68.8 63.6 57.6 52.9 52.1 77.9 70.7 67.0 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 31.6 24.9 19.4 15.8 14.8 41.0 34.7 31.5 25.6 25.7 60.3 55.8 42.6 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 20.5 15.4 16.9 14.9 16.5 26.8 30.3 31.0 32.4 35.8 44.6 40.5 34.8 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 3.1 1.4 2.2 1.6 2.5 4.7 4.1 3.2 4.7 5.4 12.3 3.7 4.1 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 4.2 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.7 8.7 3.9 3.5 3.0 3.3 13.8 7.1 4.7 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 16.4 10.0 11.8 9.0 10.8 14.2 10.3 7.2 6.6 8.7 13.1 6.2 3.4 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.5 1.4 3.9 1.6 0.7 1.1 1.6 3.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 1.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.0 2.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.0 2.3 1.3 0.2 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 5.4 2.6 4.9 2.1 1.8 7.9 4.9 3.2 4.4 5.7 11.6 7.5 4.1 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 2.5 1.0 2.6 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.5 1.7 1.9 1.3 0.8 1.3 1.1 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 12.1 10.9 10.3 7.0 n/a 24.6 15.1 13.2 12.0 n/a 22.5 17.6 13.5 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 4.0 2.8 2.6 1.6 4.2 9.5 4.0 5.2 5.3 8.1 7.0 3.3 4.3 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 8.6 5.4 4.3 3.9 n/a 11.1 7.6 6.8 6.3 n/a 18.9 7.9 7.3 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 17.7 12.9 12.6 9.3 n/a 27.8 18.0 14.8 15.0 n/a 26.4 21.6 15.6 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 10.5 7.4 6.5 5.8 n/a 14.3 11.3 8.4 8.2 n/a 13.4 13.7 10.3 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 6.3 2.8 2.3 n/a n/a 9.4 2.7 4.2 n/a n/a 9.1 6.4 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 27.8 19.6 18.5 13.4 10.2 33.3 37.3 28.6 27.8 25.7 55.0 45.8 38.4 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 12.6 9.8 6.3 5.7 4.5 18.2 16.6 13.5 10.1 9.1 42.0 31.5 18.6 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 4.2 1.6 4.8 4.3 2.8 10.8 5.0 9.0 7.5 6.4 18.0 14.0 6.7 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 10.9 5.8 8.3 6.9 7.0 13.5 14.9 12.9 16.8 18.0 21.1 14.5 13.1 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.5 0.9 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.7 1.7 1.1 2.3 2.1 0.4 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 3.1 1.6 0.5 0.9 0.8 5.4 3.3 1.3 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 6.5 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.3 3.2 3.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.3 1.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 2.8 1.2 2.3 0.8 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.3 1.3 1.2 2.4 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 5.1 6.4 4.8 3.8 n/a 7.9 8.3 6.7 5.4 n/a 8.6 8.8 6.7 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.5 1.7 1.7 0.8 1.4 2.4 1.8 1.3 2.1 2.8 1.6 1.3 1.1 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 3.5 3.8 1.7 1.7 n/a 2.4 3.9 2.0 2.6 n/a 8.7 2.5 3.0 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 7.9 8.4 5.5 4.9 n/a 10.3 9.7 7.6 7.1 n/a 12.5 10.4 8.6 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 5.3 4.5 4.0 3.1 n/a 7.9 5.2 4.1 3.7 n/a 3.9 5.0 4.5 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 3.2 0.8 0.9 n/a n/a 6.3 0.5 0.8 n/a n/a 4.2 1.5 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 17.8 10.7 9.1 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 4.6 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 20.0 22.7 16.0 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.1 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 37.4 31.1 20.3 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 2.8 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 7.1 4.4 4.5 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 30.7 25.4 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 12.8 11.1 6.6 22.4 21.5 22.3 n/a 29.2 30.2 3.9 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 23.9 19.9 24.0 1.5 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 19.7 23.1 12.8 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 38.8 40.0 29.1 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.2 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 12.5 10.7 9.9 8.4 7.8 23.4 18.7 17.2 16.5 14.7 21.3 16.0 13.1 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 20.2 19.6 18.7 14.3 13.4 18.4 11.5 11.7 9.6 11.2 15.7 11.9 7.1 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 5.3 4.2 4.8 3.6 3.1 10.7 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.2 15.6 6.6 6.2 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 3.6 3.5 1.7 1.7 2.2 10.9 2.7 2.0 2.1 2.7 5.0 0.4 1.7 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 9.7 7.2 8.4 5.0 4.8 18.0 8.8 7.2 6.0 6.0 7.2 6.6 6.9 5.9 5.8 17.9 10.9 12.1 9.8 12.9 23.3 10.5 8.5 8.9 11.8 17.1 9.9 6.6 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 6.6 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.4 16.0 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 12.8 9.1 6.2 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.9 2.1 2.2 1.0 0.8 1.2 2.2 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.2 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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 often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 0 times 91.0 89.5 85.5 88.5 88.8 84.2 92.0 92.0 93.2 83.8 95.9 94.1 1 time 4.7 5.8 5.1 5.2 5.2 4.5 3.0 3.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 2.3 2-3 times 2.9 2.3 4.5 3.4 3.0 2.6 1.8 2.1 1.5 1.7 0.6 1.2 4-5 times 0.8 0.6 1.2 1.0 0.0 3.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.7 0.9 0.6 6-7 times 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.8 0.3 0.4 1.5 10.4 0.6 0.5 8-9 times 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 12 or more times 0.5 0.7 1.4 1.1 1.5 2.6 1.8 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.9 79.2 81.9 81.3 85.1 80.6 86.2 89.6 91.1 85.7 91.8 95.5 94.3 2.5 1.1 State 2014 1 time 11.1 8.7 8.2 8.3 12.7 6.0 6.4 4.5 6.8 2.9 1.7 2-3 times 6.8 5.8 6.3 4.1 5.2 3.1 1.5 2.3 6.0 4.1 1.5 1.4 4-5 times 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.6 1.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 6-7 times 0.6 0.4 1.2 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 10-11 times 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 0.2 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.8 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.7 0 times 58.4 59.4 56.2 59.8 64.9 71.7 73.4 71.6 81.2 78.6 82.8 83.0 1 time 12.5 10.7 8.3 10.3 8.2 6.6 6.5 6.7 5.3 7.8 4.3 4.1 2-3 times 14.8 13.1 14.4 12.0 12.7 8.5 9.4 9.3 5.3 6.2 5.2 5.9 4-5 times 4.9 4.4 5.2 5.1 3.7 3.8 2.7 3.8 2.3 1.2 1.9 2.0 6-7 times 1.4 2.8 3.2 2.5 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.6 1.0 8-9 times 0.5 1.2 2.8 1.8 0.0 0.9 0.7 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.3 10-11 times 1.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 2.2 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.2 12 or more times 6.4 8.3 9.2 7.8 6.7 6.6 5.0 5.0 3.8 2.9 4.1 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 68.0 73.8 n/a n/a 80.9 82.0 n/a n/a 87.6 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 11.5 10.5 n/a n/a 7.4 6.2 n/a n/a 4.3 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 11.1 8.8 n/a n/a 6.0 6.2 n/a n/a 4.5 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 2.0 2.3 n/a n/a 1.5 1.6 n/a n/a 0.9 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.9 1.0 n/a n/a 1.0 0.9 n/a n/a 0.2 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 1.4 0.7 n/a n/a 0.7 0.4 n/a n/a 0.4 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.2 0.3 n/a n/a 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a 0.2 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 5.0 2.5 n/a n/a 2.3 2.4 n/a n/a 1.9 2.2 0 days 91.6 93.1 89.8 90.1 92.5 89.6 91.0 93.9 94.0 88.5 96.1 95.7 1 day 5.8 3.7 4.9 4.7 3.0 5.4 4.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 0.9 1.8 2-3 days 1.7 1.7 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.0 2.2 5.8 2.1 1.2 4-5 days 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.4 6 or more days 0 days 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 95.8 86.5 92.3 94.2 94.4 89.6 94.2 93.3 94.5 1.7 1.9 3.8 2.1 1.7 1.5 2.2 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.0 1.3 0.8 1.1 0.7 1.3 1.3 0.4 1.5 0.3 1.3 0.5 2.2 0.4 0.9 94.5 95.0 95.5 1 day 2.0 2.7 2-3 days 1.8 0.7 4-5 days 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.5 6 or more days 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 8.3 3.9 2.0 2.5 5.2 2.5 3.4 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 71.4 9.4 9.2 4.3 1.5 1.0 0.3 2.9 71.7 6.2 8.3 4.2 2.0 2.2 0.6 4.8 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 72.2 7.4 8.6 2.7 2.7 1.5 0.3 4.6 79.5 5.8 6.7 2.0 1.2 0.7 0.2 4.0 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 81.9 7.0 4.1 1.6 0.4 1.2 1.2 2.5 83.3 3.9 4.5 2.6 1.3 0.2 0.4 3.9 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2012 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 64.9 59.4 56.9 54.6 45.5 65.0 59.5 55.1 52.6 43.8 63.0 65.6 51.7 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 5.7 5.0 5.4 3.7 4.2 4.4 7.3 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.3 10.7 5.3 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 23.5 21.4 21.0 20.7 19.1 21.9 24.1 21.9 21.1 18.3 25.5 24.7 23.0 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 29.6 31.9 27.0 25.1 23.4 30.7 26.5 27.9 23.8 23.0 31.9 34.4 24.5 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 37.4 30.3 33.3 29.1 25.0 43.1 32.0 27.3 28.9 24.7 42.2 41.2 30.7 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 26.3 24.2 25.3 23.6 20.8 16.2 21.9 20.1 18.3 15.9 15.7 16.1 18.8 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 26.4 22.5 22.7 23.8 14.3 25.9 21.1 18.3 19.7 12.5 22.2 21.0 17.4 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 28.6 24.5 27.6 26.2 19.6 26.7 26.8 26.4 25.7 18.4 30.4 32.8 23.8 21.5 16.9 9.0 8.7 8.3 5.0 5.8 9.6 11.9 12.0 4.6 5.5 15.8 15.6 10.7 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Sample size* Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 119 113 109 2,574 34 194 158 3,493 53 102 159 4,131 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 8.4 9.7 3.7 7.4 14.7 12.9 14.6 7.6 7.5 27.5 13.8 10.5 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 4.2 1.8 1.8 4.7 2.9 5.2 3.8 3.5 5.7 27.5 9.4 5.4 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. 4.2 4.4 5.5 4.5 8.8 4.6 3.8 3.0 0.0 7.8 1.9 3.7 22.7 25.7 24.8 14.5 35.3 29.4 26.6 25.3 35.8 35.3 30.8 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 9.2 20.4 18.3 19.8 23.5 13.9 11.4 16.7 3.8 6.9 11.9 17.1 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 19.3 16.8 33.0 20.5 17.6 16.0 17.1 16.2 20.8 19.6 12.6 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 15.1 18.6 26.6 15.4 29.4 22.7 25.9 21.5 26.4 26.5 22.0 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 15.1 22.1 23.9 19.8 20.6 21.1 22.8 26.3 7.5 12.7 17.6 21.6 I got it at a party. 44.5 46.0 49.5 33.8 47.1 55.7 58.9 45.6 45.3 56.9 49.1 50.9 I took it from home. 21.8 23.0 16.5 25.2 14.7 17.0 19.0 21.8 3.8 9.8 11.3 15.2 8.4 7.1 9.2 7.5 11.8 7.2 4.4 9.2 5.7 3.9 0.6 5.7 16.0 18.6 32.1 26.3 26.5 16.0 13.3 17.8 17.0 21.6 10.1 13.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 61 81 2,261 124 91 2,880 41 85 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 6.6 7.4 10.9 8.9 8.8 13.4 9.8 4.7 17.7 Friends 54.1 77.8 69.5 75.8 74.7 77.8 56.1 80.0 78.2 Family/relatives 11.5 23.5 16.8 16.9 12.1 14.7 7.3 7.1 11.9 Parties 27.9 48.1 25.0 28.2 26.4 28.4 34.1 21.2 27.5 Home 8.2 11.1 6.3 2.4 5.5 5.3 4.9 1.2 5.5 School 14.8 24.7 14.8 12.1 9.9 12.3 7.3 9.4 7.6 Other 44.3 44.4 28.1 26.6 20.9 21.4 31.7 18.8 21.0 Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 70 43 47 1,130 21 76 65 1,428 26 28 51 1,596 Friends 57.1 53.5 61.7 47.1 81.0 56.6 55.4 56.3 80.8 60.7 58.8 59.4 Family/relatives 24.3 20.9 17.0 14.8 14.3 11.8 9.2 17.3 23.1 10.7 13.7 16.7 Parties 28.6 25.6 42.6 20.4 33.3 26.3 10.8 21.6 19.2 21.4 19.6 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 24.3 30.2 29.8 26.1 38.1 32.9 18.5 25.9 19.2 14.3 21.6 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 17.1 14.0 12.8 12.9 28.6 14.5 21.5 16.2 26.9 14.3 9.8 17.7 School 15.7 18.6 42.6 11.9 33.3 11.8 13.8 12.4 7.7 0.0 7.8 11.7 Other 20.0 20.9 25.5 17.9 28.6 14.5 10.8 14.2 3.8 17.9 11.8 13.8 4.3 0.0 6.4 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 12.9 2.3 19.1 8.6 9.5 13.2 3.1 5.0 7.7 25.0 13.7 5.7 Over the Internet Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 78.7 639 81.0 583 79.1 459 72.9 767 85.1 855 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 81.6 642 86.8 584 86.1 461 82.2 769 86.9 858 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 62.4 628 51.3 569 48.2 448 48.5 753 61.3 835 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 81.3 640 82.7 585 80.2 459 78.6 768 83.7 857 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 95.3 615 91.2 566 87.0 446 90.6 732 92.3 840 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 98.9 616 96.5 567 90.6 446 94.4 733 96.8 841 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 95.2 610 93.8 561 91.9 443 91.6 727 95.7 832 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 97.7 613 94.9 566 95.3 447 95.9 732 96.1 839 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 77.3 621 66.0 568 63.6 448 67.5 741 71.8 838 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 84.3 618 74.4 566 62.7 448 70.5 738 79.5 836 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 73.6 617 58.8 565 58.7 446 60.8 737 69.0 833 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 87.8 614 84.8 567 83.4 446 83.6 737 87.5 832 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 18.5 647 28.6 591 38.4 469 27.2 779 28.3 868 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 6.3 648 13.5 593 18.6 467 14.1 779 10.3 868 used marijuana Marijuana 8.3 641 12.9 589 13.1 459 12.7 772 9.8 856 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 5.5 650 7.6 593 8.6 467 4.6 782 9.3 867 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: Never alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 64.7 58.3 State 2014 68.1 78.5 55.4 48.9 56.2 34.6 35.3 47.0 47.1 14.8 12.2 10.3 13.8 13.8 12.5 13.1 14.3 14.5 15.2 13.2 2-3 times 12.9 7.8 10.6 6.7 13.8 17.0 15.6 15.2 22.6 16.6 20.4 19.4 4-6 times 4.2 4.2 5.1 2.1 9.2 8.1 7.4 6.7 12.0 14.5 7.7 9.4 7-10 times 0.9 1.6 0.9 0.7 2.3 3.9 1.7 2.3 3.8 7.1 2.6 3.4 More than 10 times 4.2 3.4 3.1 1.7 5.4 8.3 6.6 4.4 12.8 12.0 7.1 7.5 Never 72.2 76.5 82.0 86.5 62.8 67.3 72.6 79.6 51.1 47.5 65.9 73.9 Once 12.8 12.8 8.5 6.8 10.9 10.0 12.5 8.4 6.8 15.0 12.4 9.2 2-3 times 7.2 4.6 5.1 3.7 11.6 9.1 7.4 5.3 9.0 12.5 10.3 6.8 4-6 times 3.6 2.1 1.2 1.2 1.6 6.1 2.7 2.5 6.8 8.3 3.0 3.1 7-10 times 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.5 1.6 2.3 2.0 1.2 8.3 3.3 2.8 1.6 More than 10 times 3.4 3.4 1.9 1.3 11.6 5.1 2.7 3.1 18.0 13.3 5.6 5.4 Never 74.2 75.4 70.5 75.5 68.2 62.1 61.3 57.5 65.4 62.3 66.4 54.1 Once 7.8 9.5 9.5 8.3 9.3 9.6 12.3 11.4 11.3 10.9 9.7 10.5 2-3 times 6.1 5.1 5.9 6.6 7.0 8.9 8.4 10.8 5.3 10.0 8.8 12.0 4-6 times 3.9 2.7 4.7 3.3 5.4 5.8 5.2 6.7 4.5 4.2 3.9 6.8 7-10 times 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.6 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.5 2.9 3.0 3.8 5.8 5.8 7.4 4.6 8.5 9.9 8.8 9.8 9.0 9.6 8.2 12.7 Never 86.4 89.4 84.2 88.4 83.7 84.3 86.0 82.6 84.2 85.7 88.1 82.1 Once 5.5 6.0 7.0 5.5 5.4 7.2 5.2 7.6 6.0 6.3 3.9 6.7 2-3 times 3.3 2.1 3.7 2.7 3.1 2.5 3.2 4.3 4.5 3.0 3.2 5.0 4-6 times 1.7 0.4 1.2 3.1 2.5 0.8 2.0 3.0 1.7 2.6 2.1 7-10 times 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.0 More than 10 times 2.2 1.8 3.0 1.7 3.9 2.8 3.0 2.6 1.5 3.0 1.7 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 30.6 29.6 28.7 30.5 65.5 33.4 32.1 35.2 52.2 28.3 31.2 39.2 Once 14.9 14.1 14.8 11.6 34.5 15.5 15.0 14.4 47.8 17.6 17.4 15.6 Twice 7.6 6.0 5.5 4.6 0.0 9.1 7.9 6.9 0.0 9.9 8.7 7.6 Three times 2.9 4.0 2.4 2.3 0.0 4.7 4.6 3.5 0.0 3.9 3.3 3.8 Four or more times 7.4 7.0 7.3 4.6 0.0 10.1 7.9 6.3 0.0 12.0 9.1 6.7 I never get offers 36.6 39.2 41.3 46.4 0.0 27.2 32.5 33.6 0.0 28.3 30.4 27.1 Never 35.2 39.3 34.3 1.1 Grade 8 Grade 10 35.8 32.9 33.6 4.3 Once 13.1 10.5 13.4 9.4 95.7 Twice 6.6 5.7 4.4 4.3 Three times 2.9 3.0 2.7 Grade 12 36.6 37.1 3.5 38.7 41.5 11.4 13.7 13.2 96.5 11.9 12.6 14.2 0.0 9.4 7.4 7.0 0.0 11.9 8.7 8.1 2.2 0.0 4.8 4.0 3.6 0.0 5.9 3.5 4.0 6.0 6.0 5.9 3.7 0.0 6.6 6.0 5.4 0.0 8.9 5.2 5.2 I never get offers 36.2 38.9 40.7 46.7 0.0 28.4 32.3 33.7 0.0 27.1 31.3 26.9 Never 38.8 45.0 44.6 37.7 35.7 35.4 0.9 46.0 2.6 42.5 47.0 53.3 Once 11.8 9.8 10.8 8.5 99.1 12.1 11.3 9.7 97.4 15.0 10.4 9.2 Twice 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.2 0.0 4.6 3.8 3.9 0.0 6.4 3.9 3.9 Three times 2.3 3.6 2.1 1.9 0.0 2.8 2.2 2.3 0.0 1.7 3.0 2.3 Four or more times 6.2 6.2 6.2 3.7 0.0 5.6 5.5 4.0 0.0 5.2 4.3 3.7 I never get offers 37.4 39.0 41.7 47.3 0.0 29.9 32.6 34.2 0.0 29.2 31.3 27.6 Never 40.2 44.6 39.4 40.4 38.2 2.6 48.7 47.2 49.7 0.0 Once 10.1 9.2 8.1 6.8 97.4 8.8 10.3 7.8 100.0 Twice 5.4 3.0 2.5 2.4 0.0 4.7 3.4 2.9 Three times 1.7 3.5 2.1 1.5 0.0 3.3 1.9 Four or more times 6.1 5.3 5.4 3.3 0.0 5.3 36.6 39.6 41.5 47.8 0.0 29.2 I never get offers 47 State 2014 68.2 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. County 2014 13.1 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 Once More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 49.8 57.0 11.2 7.6 7.6 0.0 5.2 3.9 3.0 1.7 0.0 3.0 2.6 1.8 4.1 3.3 0.0 6.9 4.1 2.7 33.0 34.6 0.0 29.2 32.0 27.9 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 89.6 83.6 84.5 87.7 74.3 82.8 90.5 89.1 78.4 87.7 89.1 9.8 7.2 6.4 9.0 8.3 4.7 5.0 9.4 6.2 5.4 3 to 5 times 2.5 3.6 3.5 2.5 5.6 3.6 2.0 2.6 0.7 2.1 1.1 6 to 9 times 1.3 0.4 10 to 19 times 1.3 20 to 29 times 0.6 30 to 39 times 0.1 40+ times 1.8 1.2 0.7 1.8 1.3 0.5 0.7 6.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.0 4.2 1.8 0.5 Never 27.4 37.2 35.2 48.7 23.1 37.9 44.3 1 or 2 times 28.4 26.2 26.3 26.4 28.0 23.1 3 to 5 times 21.9 19.2 16.3 12.8 20.3 18.9 6 to 9 times 7.6 7.7 10.9 5.4 14.7 10 to 19 times 6.1 5.7 4.5 2.8 20 to 29 times 2.4 1.8 2.3 30 to 39 times 0.7 0.3 40+ times 5.4 2.0 81.6 84.5 2.2 1.6 1.9 1.2 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.8 0.4 1.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 1.1 5.0 1.2 54.3 33.6 47.7 58.2 65.8 24.0 22.6 29.3 24.7 22.5 17.9 15.2 12.7 18.6 19.8 11.3 9.4 9.2 8.0 5.2 5.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 4.9 4.6 4.5 2.3 7.9 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.2 2.1 2.2 1.2 1.0 2.1 0.8 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.3 3.7 2.3 7.0 3.0 2.3 1.5 2.1 2.5 0.9 1.2 87.4 89.8 76.2 88.9 89.3 92.4 83.5 88.4 94.2 94.5 1.1 1.1 4.7 2.0 1.1 1.3 1 or 2 times 9.6 10.1 7.1 6.0 12.2 5.8 5.7 4.2 10.8 7.0 3.2 3.0 3 to 5 times 3.2 1.8 2.8 1.9 3.4 2.1 2.3 1.4 3.6 2.9 0.4 0.9 6 to 9 times 2.6 1.4 0.6 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.5 10 to 19 times 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 5.4 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 40+ times 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.5 88.6 90.6 89.3 91.5 82.4 91.2 92.2 93.7 93.5 93.0 94.6 94.6 1 or 2 times 7.4 6.2 6.6 5.4 12.7 4.9 5.0 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.2 3 to 5 times 1.7 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 2.1 6 to 9 times 0.5 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.4 0.4 0.2 10 to 19 times 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 2.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 64.7 54.4 62.5 Once 13.6 14.0 12.7 2-3 times 9.8 13.4 4-6 times 4.4 7-10 times 2.1 More than 10 times Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County 60.8 Grade 10 County 55.4 Grade 10 State 67.6 Grade 12 County Grade 12 County 1.1 Grade 12 County 0.9 0.3 Grade 12 State 70.4 68.7 51.1 72.7 75.5 11.2 11.5 12.1 10.1 10.5 12.2 14.3 9.8 7.8 11.1 9.6 10.0 15.2 9.8 10.4 5.3 16.0 8.7 10.3 5.9 5.6 3.4 5.4 5.9 6.0 3.5 3.1 6.8 3.0 3.0 2.7 0.9 0.9 3.1 2.1 1.5 1.0 0.8 3.0 1.5 0.8 5.5 9.6 7.2 5.9 9.2 9.3 5.0 4.1 9.9 8.9 4.3 2.6 Never n/a n/a 43.4 48.0 n/a n/a 56.3 57.8 n/a n/a 64.8 68.2 Once n/a n/a 19.5 17.8 n/a n/a 14.7 15.7 n/a n/a 11.6 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 14.7 17.2 n/a n/a 16.7 14.9 n/a n/a 12.9 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 7.1 6.8 n/a n/a 4.6 4.7 n/a n/a 4.3 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 4.5 2.8 n/a n/a 1.7 2.1 n/a n/a 2.1 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 10.8 7.5 n/a n/a 6.1 4.8 n/a n/a 4.3 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 6.8 7.6 n/a n/a 5.9 6.0 n/a n/a 7.0 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 12.0 12.4 n/a n/a 14.8 14.8 n/a n/a 13.3 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 26.8 27.6 n/a n/a 27.9 34.3 n/a n/a 33.6 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 20.7 21.5 n/a n/a 21.6 n/a n/a 20.1 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 33.7 30.9 n/a n/a 29.8 n/a n/a 26.0 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2010 7.8 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 85.2 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Coconino County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Coconino County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Coconino county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 533 44.0 319 63.2 198 55.0 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 370 30.5 74 14.7 79 21.9 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 309 25.5 112 22.2 83 23.1 11,541 23.9 1,212 100.0 505 100.0 360 100.0 48,244 100.0 All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 612 51.1 264 52.7 192 53.6 23,460 49.1 Female 585 48.9 237 47.3 166 46.4 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 32 10.6 9 5.2 13 13.5 989 5.3 African American 2 0.7 5 2.9 2 2.1 574 3.1 Asian 3 1.0 0 0.0 1 1.0 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 3 1.0 5 2.9 2 2.1 220 1.2 76 25.3 62 35.8 31 32.3 6,067 32.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 27 9.0 9 5.2 8 8.3 1,027 5.5 158 52.5 83 48.0 39 40.6 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 360 40.9 88 27.5 87 34.1 1,274 4.5 22 2.5 4 1.3 2 0.8 1,790 6.4 10 1.1 4 1.3 3 1.2 1,459 5.2 3 0.3 1 0.3 0 0.0 260 0.9 409 46.4 203 63.4 151 59.2 20,587 73.4 57 6.5 19 5.9 11 4.3 2,413 8.6 20 2.3 1 0.3 1 0.4 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 301 24.8 173 34.3 96 26.7 18,649 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 881 72.7 320 63.4 255 70.8 28,051 58.1 1,212 100.0 505 100.0 360 100.0 48,244 100.0 Total Students** Percent ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Coconino County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Coconino County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Coconino County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Coconino County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Coconino County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Coconino County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Coconino County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Coconino County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Coconino County, Grade 10 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 27 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Coconino County, Grade 12 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 28 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Coconino County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 17 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 31 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 82 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Coconino County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 16 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 27 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 97 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Coconino County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 27 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 46 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 115 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Coconino County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 31 Students** Sample (Rx): 10 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 33 Students** Sample (Rx): 28 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 55 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Coconino County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 13 Students** Sample (Rx): 8 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 16 Students** Sample (Rx): 6 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 42 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Coconino County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 23 Students** Sample (Rx): 19 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 44 Students** Sample (Rx): 28 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 68 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 34.3 35.8 37.3 37.6 34.0 43.6 46.5 40.0 42.9 41.5 48.5 57.5 48.7 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 31.6 29.3 34.8 29.2 31.1 40.4 39.4 34.2 34.8 37.8 35.1 42.5 43.6 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 30.4 27.4 23.2 29.6 30.7 36.0 33.8 30.3 36.6 38.6 39.7 49.5 44.9 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 33.7 32.2 33.0 31.8 36.7 23.7 31.0 23.7 20.6 23.7 31.4 39.0 39.0 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 38.4 47.1 51.9 41.2 40.3 37.4 30.0 28.4 35.4 40.0 37.1 40.8 34.7 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 49.2 45.0 45.9 51.0 49.3 37.1 30.0 31.1 41.2 39.9 31.3 36.5 36.0 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 42.4 31.2 41.8 36.7 35.4 50.3 51.4 26.7 36.8 37.6 45.1 63.2 40.3 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 21.3 20.1 22.5 21.2 23.7 32.1 40.0 38.2 32.8 39.6 35.0 59.0 36.7 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 51.3 46.2 40.2 43.2 49.1 45.4 51.4 53.9 44.6 53.5 49.7 63.8 49.4 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 45.5 39.0 50.0 44.6 41.1 52.4 47.9 44.9 44.3 42.5 49.2 68.8 55.8 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 37.2 44.1 43.0 45.0 38.2 31.7 29.7 43.6 51.6 40.4 30.5 49.1 48.8 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 41.2 33.0 33.7 33.4 34.5 42.3 45.8 32.9 36.6 39.8 40.3 44.6 45.7 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 33.3 18.6 23.3 19.8 23.5 37.3 32.4 11.4 22.4 36.1 36.8 49.1 36.3 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 29.3 18.6 22.9 21.4 24.7 33.0 30.1 29.1 29.8 35.5 36.2 42.9 39.2 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 42.7 32.2 31.8 31.7 34.7 45.8 46.6 35.4 36.1 41.0 46.6 50.0 35.0 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 51.9 53.4 57.4 56.9 37.9 40.2 45.8 62.2 58.4 40.1 49.0 65.1 75.9 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 62.9 50.3 56.5 43.6 44.8 60.3 47.9 39.5 41.5 45.5 56.3 64.0 51.3 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 38.8 34.7 32.5 29.7 30.7 45.5 38.4 28.9 34.7 34.7 43.4 46.8 45.0 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 42.7 32.4 30.7 41.9 37.1 36.2 48.6 39.2 49.0 42.1 49.5 47.3 50.6 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 21.0 12.1 10.4 10.4 14.7 26.6 11.1 5.3 8.4 13.3 22.4 25.5 17.1 7.0 10.7 37.5 25.0 28.4 24.9 22.4 33.5 28.4 17.7 23.3 23.5 33.6 48.2 31.7 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 38.2 41.0 37.0 31.4 40.9 43.3 51.4 38.2 35.0 45.2 44.4 42.5 37.2 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 51.6 58.1 58.4 53.3 54.8 52.5 55.9 57.5 47.8 48.0 59.0 56.4 56.6 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 62.7 61.4 57.7 62.2 62.5 58.5 62.9 64.9 57.2 56.2 63.0 57.4 61.3 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 65.3 63.9 60.2 60.0 61.9 61.1 52.9 63.5 53.6 54.3 64.8 47.5 57.3 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 70.5 58.1 65.1 64.7 68.7 71.2 63.5 77.2 66.6 69.5 73.9 58.0 75.0 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 50.2 52.5 59.1 53.7 56.9 74.0 74.3 82.3 62.5 63.4 61.4 52.7 70.9 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 67.5 73.0 69.8 69.6 65.8 75.3 76.4 80.3 75.8 70.2 61.8 58.9 51.3 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 58.0 42.2 51.6 47.9 60.5 62.9 58.9 57.9 53.5 61.7 68.9 50.9 51.3 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 47.9 38.7 46.4 42.7 49.0 43.8 52.1 60.8 51.9 52.0 44.4 32.1 42.7 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 66.4 63.6 70.3 61.3 61.4 69.0 62.2 67.1 63.6 60.1 63.6 54.5 58.0 56.2 52.2 62.9 62.0 64.6 54.8 42.6 66.8 71.6 73.4 61.6 46.0 67.8 58.0 61.0 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 42.5 27.7 29.2 31.5 27.8 62.8 60.8 46.1 52.9 52.1 73.7 81.8 71.6 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 30.3 18.4 19.7 15.8 14.8 52.5 36.1 21.1 25.6 25.7 57.7 67.6 48.8 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 22.9 14.8 25.8 14.9 16.5 43.7 39.2 23.7 32.4 35.8 53.3 60.9 51.3 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 3.0 0.7 0.5 1.6 2.5 3.9 5.4 1.3 4.7 5.4 7.9 17.3 20.0 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 2.3 0.7 2.1 1.6 1.7 5.6 5.4 0.0 3.0 3.3 11.8 13.6 13.9 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 18.2 7.5 3.6 9.0 10.8 11.0 12.2 3.9 6.6 8.7 8.2 12.7 6.3 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.7 2.7 0.0 1.1 1.6 4.9 3.6 2.5 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.1 2.7 0.0 1.1 1.0 2.6 1.8 2.5 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 3.0 1.3 3.1 2.1 1.8 4.5 8.1 1.3 4.4 5.7 11.6 17.3 15.0 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.6 1.0 0.5 1.5 1.1 1.1 2.7 0.0 1.9 1.3 2.3 0.9 1.3 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 11.2 5.9 7.3 7.0 n/a 17.5 16.2 8.0 12.0 n/a 21.9 29.1 21.3 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 3.1 2.3 1.0 1.6 4.2 4.0 5.4 2.7 5.3 8.1 5.3 10.0 11.3 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 8.4 3.0 3.1 3.9 n/a 7.6 6.8 6.6 6.3 n/a 8.6 11.8 13.8 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 17.1 9.5 9.4 9.3 n/a 21.7 18.9 13.2 15.0 n/a 25.5 32.7 26.3 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 10.1 8.5 5.2 5.8 n/a 12.4 14.9 2.6 8.2 n/a 11.9 19.1 15.0 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 3.6 1.6 2.3 n/a n/a 13.5 1.3 4.2 n/a n/a 15.3 5.0 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 18.0 9.8 10.9 13.4 10.2 32.6 31.1 28.0 27.8 25.7 45.2 53.2 35.0 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 12.6 6.9 7.8 5.7 4.5 17.8 13.9 6.7 10.1 9.1 26.7 35.1 32.9 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 5.8 1.6 6.8 4.3 2.8 12.1 18.3 6.7 7.5 6.4 11.2 18.9 14.8 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 10.3 5.0 10.3 6.9 7.0 19.1 18.9 14.5 16.8 18.0 25.1 35.5 29.1 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.1 2.0 4.5 3.8 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 3.3 3.6 7.6 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 6.9 2.6 0.5 3.1 2.3 3.4 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 3.6 2.5 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 1.5 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.7 2.7 1.3 1.3 1.2 2.0 5.5 2.5 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 4.2 3.0 2.6 3.8 n/a 7.0 5.4 2.7 5.4 n/a 8.6 12.8 8.8 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.7 0.3 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 2.1 2.8 2.3 3.6 6.3 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 3.6 1.0 1.0 1.7 n/a 2.8 0.0 1.3 2.6 n/a 2.6 3.6 6.3 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 7.6 3.9 4.7 4.9 n/a 10.1 6.8 3.9 7.1 n/a 10.9 14.5 12.5 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 5.9 3.6 1.6 3.1 n/a 5.1 8.1 1.3 3.7 n/a 5.3 9.2 6.3 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 1.7 1.0 0.9 n/a n/a 1.4 0.0 0.8 n/a n/a 9.0 0.0 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 11.3 4.0 5.2 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 2.1 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 18.8 22.2 7.9 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.9 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 26.4 23.2 18.8 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 8.8 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 5.3 3.3 3.1 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 26.4 18.1 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 8.3 16.7 7.9 21.9 21.5 22.3 n/a 27.2 37.5 1.0 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 21.3 19.9 24.0 3.9 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 14.8 15.2 15.0 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 26.5 30.4 25.3 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.6 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 15.3 8.7 8.4 8.4 7.8 27.6 19.7 8.9 16.5 14.7 30.3 31.3 25.0 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 17.3 13.4 25.5 14.3 13.4 15.4 9.6 7.6 9.6 11.2 12.0 11.7 18.5 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 5.7 3.6 5.3 3.6 3.1 9.5 9.6 9.2 7.7 7.2 14.7 15.2 13.6 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 3.6 3.2 1.6 1.7 2.2 3.8 1.4 1.3 2.1 2.7 4.6 0.9 3.7 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 7.9 4.8 7.3 5.0 4.8 10.0 4.2 2.5 6.0 6.0 13.3 11.6 11.0 5.9 5.8 17.7 9.0 7.8 9.8 12.9 13.6 12.3 7.7 8.9 11.8 13.3 10.8 9.9 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 5.5 5.8 10.4 5.5 5.4 7.0 6.8 5.1 5.6 5.5 8.2 6.4 12.2 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.2 2.0 0.0 2.5 1.4 1.2 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 88.7 89.0 88.5 95.0 87.8 89.9 92.0 96.4 92.0 95.1 94.1 4.0 3.5 7.3 5.2 4.1 6.8 5.1 3.4 2.0 5.4 3.7 2.3 2-3 times 3.8 4.5 2.1 3.4 0.3 1.4 1.3 2.1 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.2 4-5 times 0.9 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 6-7 times 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 8-9 times 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.9 0.0 1.1 0.6 2.7 2.5 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 times 71.5 84.4 80.3 85.1 81.3 83.8 93.6 91.1 90.1 86.6 90.1 94.3 1 time 12.2 2.6 4.5 6.9 7.1 6.2 2.5 4.1 2.6 2.3 2.3 5.4 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 12.6 8.9 8.8 8.3 12.1 2-3 times 9.4 4.8 6.7 4.1 4.7 4-5 times 3.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 6-7 times 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.7 56.8 83.0 1.1 65.1 58.5 59.8 73.3 60.8 78.5 71.6 88.4 78.6 83.8 1 time 14.1 6.4 15.0 10.3 8.6 9.5 6.3 6.7 3.3 2.7 3.8 4.1 2-3 times 10.8 11.9 13.0 12.0 7.2 9.5 7.6 9.3 5.3 8.0 5.0 5.9 2.0 4-5 times 5.1 5.4 4.7 5.1 4.4 6.8 1.3 3.8 1.0 5.4 2.5 6-7 times 3.0 2.2 3.1 2.5 0.8 5.4 2.5 1.8 0.3 0.9 0.0 1.0 8-9 times 1.9 1.3 2.1 1.8 0.6 0.0 2.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.7 10-11 times 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 12 or more times 7.4 7.1 3.6 7.8 4.2 6.8 0.0 5.0 1.3 4.5 3.8 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 70.5 73.8 n/a n/a 78.2 82.0 n/a n/a 87.7 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 16.6 10.5 n/a n/a 6.4 6.2 n/a n/a 6.2 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 5.7 8.8 n/a n/a 5.1 6.2 n/a n/a 2.5 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 5.7 2.3 n/a n/a 2.6 1.6 n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.0 1.0 n/a n/a 1.3 0.9 n/a n/a 0.0 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.7 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.5 0.3 n/a n/a 2.6 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 1.0 2.5 n/a n/a 3.8 2.4 n/a n/a 2.5 2.2 89.6 90.1 88.6 90.1 93.9 97.3 94.9 93.9 96.7 98.2 95.0 95.7 1 day 5.5 4.2 5.7 4.7 3.3 2.7 2.5 2.8 1.6 0.9 0.0 1.8 2-3 days 2.5 2.2 4.1 3.3 2.2 0.0 2.5 2.0 0.0 0.9 3.8 1.2 4-5 days 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 0 days 1.7 2.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 1.3 0.8 92.8 96.5 96.9 95.8 93.3 93.2 94.9 94.4 93.4 91.9 93.9 94.5 1 day 4.3 1.9 0.5 1.9 2.2 2.7 0.0 1.5 1.6 2.7 0.0 2-3 days 2.1 0.3 2.6 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.0 1.2 4-5 days 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.2 6 or more days 0.6 1.3 0.0 1.1 2.8 2.7 1.3 2.5 3.9 5.4 3.7 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 73.9 10.8 6.1 2.5 1.9 1.0 0.3 3.5 67.9 12.4 9.8 3.6 1.6 1.6 0.0 3.1 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 68.9 6.8 14.9 2.7 1.4 2.7 0.0 2.7 83.5 5.1 6.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 75.9 6.3 9.8 2.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.7 77.5 8.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 2.5 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 State 2014 89.8 0 times During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 12 County 2012 1 time 12 or more times During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 1.1 1.1 0.5 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 66.5 54.2 52.1 54.6 45.5 58.2 54.1 46.1 52.6 43.8 61.1 61.6 47.6 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 2.8 4.2 1.5 3.7 4.2 2.7 1.4 2.7 4.2 4.0 2.0 3.6 7.3 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 20.9 16.6 13.0 20.7 19.1 14.6 20.3 9.3 21.1 18.3 16.8 26.8 17.1 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 34.2 26.1 28.4 25.1 23.4 28.3 30.1 26.3 23.8 23.0 27.5 29.5 27.2 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 38.3 29.1 30.4 29.1 25.0 30.1 21.9 28.9 28.9 24.7 40.3 37.5 28.0 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 26.5 26.8 24.2 23.6 20.8 21.4 13.5 13.2 18.3 15.9 13.1 19.6 2.5 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 24.7 19.3 25.5 23.8 14.3 17.5 17.6 9.3 19.7 12.5 19.0 21.4 16.0 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 36.5 25.0 24.9 26.2 19.6 28.5 31.1 25.0 25.7 18.4 23.9 28.6 20.7 21.5 16.9 5.7 5.6 4.1 5.0 5.8 3.8 4.1 3.9 4.6 5.5 5.2 3.6 4.9 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size* 82 31 17 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 3.7 9.7 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 1.2 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 2,574 97 27 16 3,493 115 46 27 4,131 5.9 7.4 3.1 3.7 0.0 7.6 8.7 6.5 3.7 10.5 9.7 0.0 4.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.5 2.2 3.7 5.4 3.7 9.7 11.8 4.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 3.0 5.2 2.2 3.7 3.7 26.8 22.6 23.5 14.5 29.9 37.0 25.0 25.3 47.8 37.0 25.9 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 7.3 9.7 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 17.6 19.8 10.3 14.8 25.0 16.7 10.4 13.0 14.8 17.1 23.2 16.1 17.6 20.5 25.8 14.8 6.3 16.2 13.9 17.4 22.2 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 13.4 22.6 11.8 15.4 25.8 14.8 6.3 21.5 32.2 28.3 33.3 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 14.6 29.0 11.8 19.8 21.6 7.4 31.3 26.3 19.1 15.2 25.9 21.6 I got it at a party. 35.4 35.5 17.6 33.8 38.1 44.4 25.0 45.6 40.0 45.7 55.6 50.9 I took it from home. 29.3 29.0 17.6 25.2 13.4 7.4 18.8 21.8 6.1 10.9 18.5 15.2 I took it from a store or someone else's home. 11.0 16.1 0.0 7.5 8.2 3.7 0.0 9.2 5.2 4.3 3.7 5.7 I got it some other w ay. 30.5 38.7 17.6 26.3 24.7 11.1 6.3 17.8 14.8 19.6 29.6 13.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. State 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 State 2014 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 33 31 2,261 16 13 2,880 44 23 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 12.1 3.2 10.9 6.3 7.7 13.4 13.6 21.7 17.7 Friends 66.7 58.1 69.5 68.8 69.2 77.8 54.5 60.9 78.2 Family/relatives 21.2 19.4 16.8 12.5 15.4 14.7 20.5 13.0 11.9 Parties 18.2 6.5 25.0 31.3 23.1 28.4 13.6 17.4 27.5 Home 6.1 9.7 6.3 6.3 7.7 5.3 6.8 17.4 5.5 School 36.4 6.5 14.8 18.8 7.7 12.3 11.4 13.0 7.6 Other 48.5 38.7 28.1 25.0 30.8 21.4 43.2 65.2 21.0 Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 55 28 10 1,130 42 6 8 1,428 68 28 19 1,596 Friends 54.5 57.1 50.0 47.1 64.3 66.7 37.5 56.3 54.4 53.6 47.4 59.4 Family/relatives 32.7 17.9 10.0 14.8 26.2 0.0 0.0 17.3 23.5 14.3 10.5 16.7 Parties 27.3 14.3 0.0 20.4 28.6 66.7 12.5 21.6 25.0 25.0 21.1 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 30.9 28.6 20.0 26.1 28.6 0.0 37.5 25.9 17.6 32.1 31.6 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 16.4 28.6 0.0 12.9 16.7 0.0 12.5 16.2 22.1 21.4 5.3 17.7 School 29.1 28.6 0.0 11.9 19.0 16.7 0.0 12.4 14.7 3.6 10.5 11.7 Other 16.4 28.6 20.0 17.9 16.7 16.7 12.5 14.2 22.1 14.3 36.8 13.8 Over the Internet Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 1.8 10.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 1.9 10.9 14.3 0.0 8.6 2.4 0.0 12.5 5.0 2.9 14.3 10.5 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 74.7 190 78.4 74 78.5 79 74.3 179 78.4 162 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 74.1 189 83.8 74 77.2 79 75.4 179 78.9 161 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 57.6 184 48.6 72 33.3 78 47.4 175 53.2 158 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 75.5 188 75.3 73 72.2 79 72.5 178 76.9 160 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 95.1 183 92.1 76 83.3 78 87.5 176 96.2 159 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 97.8 182 98.7 76 83.5 79 93.2 177 96.2 158 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 93.9 180 90.7 75 83.1 77 87.4 174 94.9 156 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 97.8 182 96.1 76 93.7 79 95.5 177 97.5 158 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 85.5 186 76.3 76 47.4 78 71.8 177 77.6 161 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 88.0 183 75.0 76 46.2 78 73.3 176 78.0 159 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 73.0 185 60.5 76 42.3 78 58.8 177 67.5 160 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 89.8 186 84.2 76 76.9 78 83.6 177 87.6 161 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 10.9 192 28.0 75 35.0 80 26.7 180 12.7 165 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 7.8 192 6.7 75 32.9 79 16.6 181 9.2 163 used marijuana Marijuana 10.3 194 14.5 76 29.1 79 21.3 183 9.1 164 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 4.7 192 3.9 76 12.5 80 7.1 182 5.5 164 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 71.0 75.4 63.2 58.3 40.5 27.9 48.1 47.1 Once 13.4 21.6 16.0 13.2 Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. 16.7 17.1 13.1 16.1 6.7 18.8 18.1 9.2 15.2 23.0 23.4 19.8 19.4 4-6 times 3.6 1.0 1.0 2.1 5.3 13.9 6.6 6.7 9.5 13.5 6.2 9.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 2.8 2.8 1.3 2.3 4.6 5.4 3.7 3.4 2.7 2.6 0.0 1.7 5.3 2.8 2.6 4.4 6.3 8.1 6.2 7.5 Never 75.0 82.8 83.2 86.5 65.0 72.2 82.9 79.6 65.0 54.1 58.0 73.9 Once 1.1 10.4 8.6 10.5 6.8 11.2 9.7 5.3 8.4 7.9 12.6 6.2 9.2 2-3 times 7.2 3.3 5.3 3.7 10.6 9.7 6.6 5.3 8.6 15.3 11.1 6.8 4-6 times 3.6 2.0 1.2 3.9 4.2 1.3 2.5 6.3 5.4 7.4 3.1 7-10 times 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.5 4.8 1.4 1.3 1.2 2.0 2.7 0.0 1.6 More than 10 times 2.8 2.6 0.0 1.3 4.5 2.8 2.6 3.1 10.2 9.9 17.3 5.4 Never 73.1 74.7 72.8 75.5 56.0 54.2 62.7 57.5 54.2 45.0 48.1 54.1 Once 9.8 8.9 8.4 8.3 14.0 13.9 12.0 11.4 12.0 9.0 12.3 10.5 2-3 times 5.7 6.3 5.8 6.6 8.1 8.3 5.3 10.8 9.3 11.7 6.2 12.0 4-6 times 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.3 6.2 5.6 10.7 6.7 6.0 11.7 8.6 6.8 7-10 times 2.7 2.0 2.6 1.7 5.0 9.7 1.3 3.8 6.0 2.7 1.2 3.8 1.1 5.7 5.3 7.3 4.6 10.6 8.3 8.0 9.8 12.6 19.8 23.5 12.7 Never 89.0 89.1 90.6 88.4 84.9 84.5 80.3 82.6 84.1 80.0 72.8 82.1 Once 4.6 4.3 6.3 5.5 5.9 4.2 13.2 7.6 6.6 6.4 8.6 6.7 2-3 times 3.2 2.0 1.0 2.7 4.5 4.2 3.9 4.3 4.3 7.3 3.7 5.0 4-6 times 0.6 0.3 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.3 2.0 2.3 1.8 3.7 2.1 7-10 times 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.7 1.0 More than 10 times 1.9 3.0 0.5 1.7 2.2 4.2 1.3 2.6 1.7 4.5 7.4 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 35.7 31.7 38.0 30.5 70.8 24.6 36.5 35.2 63.3 34.9 44.3 39.2 Once 16.5 11.3 12.8 11.6 29.2 15.9 17.6 14.4 36.7 16.5 13.9 15.6 Twice 5.6 4.0 6.4 4.6 0.0 10.1 4.1 6.9 0.0 15.6 8.9 7.6 Three times 3.5 3.3 3.2 2.3 0.0 5.8 2.7 3.5 0.0 2.8 5.1 3.8 Four or more times 3.3 8.3 4.3 4.6 0.0 7.2 8.1 6.3 0.0 11.9 5.1 6.7 I never get offers 35.5 41.3 35.3 46.4 0.0 36.2 31.1 33.6 0.0 18.3 22.8 27.1 Never 37.2 31.3 44.4 33.6 0.8 28.6 37.1 3.4 37.3 43.8 41.5 Once 13.8 11.1 8.0 9.4 99.2 11.4 15.1 13.2 96.6 15.5 15.0 14.2 Twice 6.0 4.7 4.3 4.3 0.0 12.9 4.1 7.0 0.0 6.4 10.0 8.1 Three times 3.1 4.0 4.3 2.2 0.0 8.6 4.1 3.6 0.0 11.8 5.0 4.0 1.1 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 37.0 3.7 6.1 3.7 3.7 0.0 4.3 5.5 5.4 0.0 9.1 2.5 5.2 I never get offers 36.1 42.8 35.3 46.7 0.0 34.3 34.2 33.7 0.0 20.0 23.8 26.9 Never 40.8 44.5 52.6 53.3 38.4 42.2 35.4 0.6 29.0 47.2 46.0 1.3 Once 11.5 5.7 12.8 8.5 99.4 21.7 6.9 9.7 98.7 Twice 3.7 3.7 2.7 3.2 0.0 4.3 2.8 3.9 Three times 3.3 4.0 3.2 1.9 0.0 1.4 2.8 Four or more times 4.1 5.7 2.7 3.7 0.0 7.2 I never get offers 36.5 42.4 36.4 47.3 0.0 Never 40.9 37.7 47.6 38.2 0.6 Once 11.6 7.7 7.0 6.8 99.4 Twice 3.5 2.7 3.2 2.4 Three times 2.9 3.7 1.6 Four or more times 3.7 5.4 37.3 42.8 I never get offers 47 45.8 13.8 11.5 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. 53.9 10.3 8.5 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. 78.5 10.5 8.1 More than 10 times other drugs? 76.4 11.8 State 2014 2-3 times More than 10 times marijuana? Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 7-10 times cigarettes? Grade 8 County 2010 11.8 11.5 9.2 0.0 8.2 5.1 3.9 2.3 0.0 5.5 1.3 2.3 4.2 4.0 0.0 9.1 6.4 3.7 36.2 36.1 34.2 0.0 20.9 23.1 27.6 35.7 50.5 50.7 49.7 2.0 61.5 57.0 11.4 5.6 7.8 98.0 11.7 9.0 7.6 0.0 5.7 2.8 2.9 0.0 8.1 1.3 3.0 1.5 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.6 2.6 1.8 4.3 3.3 0.0 8.6 2.8 3.3 0.0 5.4 2.6 2.7 36.4 47.8 0.0 35.7 38.0 34.6 0.0 20.7 23.1 27.9 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 89.6 85.3 87.4 87.7 83.8 86.3 88.6 89.1 82.7 83.8 87.8 7.7 7.3 6.4 8.6 4.1 7.6 5.0 6.8 4.5 2.4 4.7 3 to 5 times 3.6 2.6 3.1 2.5 1.6 4.1 2.5 2.6 4.2 5.4 7.3 2.0 2.9 1.8 2.4 1.2 2.0 1.8 0.0 0.8 6 to 9 times 2.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.4 0.0 10 to 19 times 2.3 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.6 0.0 1.3 0.6 20 to 29 times 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 40+ times 2.6 2.6 0.0 1.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.3 Never 32.1 52.1 52.6 48.7 36.3 52.1 69.6 54.3 45.4 55.4 65.9 65.8 1 or 2 times 29.5 27.2 28.1 26.4 28.7 19.2 13.9 22.6 23.5 17.9 13.4 17.9 3 to 5 times 15.0 10.5 7.8 12.8 15.7 16.4 11.4 12.7 16.3 14.3 6.1 9.4 6 to 9 times 8.6 3.8 5.2 5.4 8.7 5.5 3.8 5.2 4.9 8.0 7.3 3.1 10 to 19 times 5.3 3.5 1.6 2.8 6.0 2.7 0.0 2.3 4.6 1.8 6.1 1.6 20 to 29 times 3.8 0.3 3.1 1.2 1.6 0.0 1.3 1.0 2.0 0.9 0.0 0.7 30 to 39 times 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 1.1 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.3 40+ times 4.7 1.9 1.0 2.3 1.9 2.7 0.0 1.5 2.6 0.9 1.2 1.2 83.2 90.7 89.0 89.8 83.5 90.4 96.2 92.4 87.9 89.3 92.7 94.5 1 or 2 times 9.0 6.1 4.7 6.0 10.0 4.1 0.0 4.2 5.5 8.9 4.9 3.0 3 to 5 times 1.9 1.6 3.7 1.9 1.9 4.1 1.3 1.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 6 to 9 times 2.3 0.3 1.6 1.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 10 to 19 times 1.3 0.3 0.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 1.3 0.5 2.0 0.0 1.2 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.5 1.1 89.8 95.2 93.8 91.5 88.9 91.8 94.9 93.7 92.7 92.0 91.5 94.6 1 or 2 times 6.2 3.2 4.7 5.4 7.6 5.5 2.5 3.8 3.3 4.5 6.1 3.2 3 to 5 times 1.7 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.0 1.3 1.2 2.6 2.7 0.0 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 2.4 0.3 10 to 19 times 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.3 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State 1.1 Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Never 58.8 53.3 67.7 Once 16.9 18.8 13.4 11.2 11.5 2-3 times 10.6 16.1 6.5 9.6 4-6 times 3.8 3.3 4.3 7-10 times 0.9 1.0 61.0 More than 10 times 8.9 7.6 Never n/a Once 2-3 times Grade 10 County 55.7 Grade 10 State Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 67.6 70.4 64.7 49.1 76.3 17.1 14.9 10.5 12.7 17.3 7.5 75.5 7.8 8.3 12.9 9.5 10.4 11.3 12.7 11.3 10.3 3.4 6.9 8.6 4.1 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 0.9 1.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 5.5 1.3 0.8 7.0 5.9 10.6 5.7 4.1 4.1 6.7 10.9 1.3 2.6 n/a 50.0 48.0 n/a n/a 50.0 57.8 n/a n/a 59.3 68.2 n/a n/a 19.3 17.8 n/a n/a 17.1 15.7 n/a n/a 12.3 12.9 n/a n/a 16.1 17.2 n/a n/a 18.4 14.9 n/a n/a 16.0 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 3.6 6.8 n/a n/a 9.2 4.7 n/a n/a 6.2 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 2.1 2.8 n/a n/a 2.6 2.1 n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 8.9 7.5 n/a n/a 2.6 4.8 n/a n/a 4.9 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 5.9 7.6 n/a n/a 9.5 6.0 n/a n/a 7.7 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 8.1 12.4 n/a n/a 13.5 14.8 n/a n/a 14.1 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 22.0 27.6 n/a n/a 56.8 34.3 n/a n/a 30.8 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 21.5 21.5 n/a n/a 9.5 n/a n/a 28.2 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 42.5 30.9 n/a n/a 10.8 n/a n/a 19.2 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2010 7.8 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 80.3 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 County 2010 1.1 21.1 23.8 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Gila County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Gila County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Gila county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 289 40.5 435 47.3 71 18.0 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 224 31.4 282 30.7 215 54.6 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 201 28.2 202 22.0 108 27.4 11,541 23.9 All Students Surveyed* 714 100.0 919 100.0 394 100.0 48,244 100.0 Students By Gender Male 308 43.8 455 50.2 190 49.0 23,460 49.1 Female 395 56.2 451 49.8 198 51.0 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 19 6.6 16 5.3 10 6.3 989 5.3 African American 14 4.9 7 2.3 4 2.5 574 3.1 1 0.4 5 1.7 1 0.6 169 0.9 Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 1 0.4 0 0.0 3 1.9 220 1.2 90 31.3 137 45.5 75 47.2 6,067 32.5 12 4.2 17 5.7 9 5.7 1,027 5.5 151 52.4 119 39.5 57 35.9 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 192 48.9 184 32.3 66 31.7 1,274 4.5 2 0.5 6 1.1 3 1.4 1,790 6.4 4 1.0 10 1.8 9 4.3 1,459 5.2 2 0.5 2 0.4 1 0.5 260 0.9 167 42.5 334 58.6 113 54.3 20,587 73.4 20 5.1 29 5.1 15 7.2 2,413 8.6 6 1.5 5 0.9 1 0.5 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 288 40.3 301 32.8 159 40.4 18,649 Percent 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 393 55.0 570 62.0 208 52.8 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 714 100.0 919 100.0 394 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Gila County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Gila County, Grade 8 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 12 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Gila County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Gila County, Grade 10 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 14 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Gila County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Gila County, Grade 12 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 16 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Gila County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Gila County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Gila County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Gila County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Gila County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Gila County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Gila County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Gila County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Gila County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Gila County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Gila County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Gila County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Gila County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 8 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 102 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 81 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Gila County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 43 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 76 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 65 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Gila County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 40 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 68 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 62 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Gila County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 15 Students** Sample (Rx): 9 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 89 Students** Sample (Rx): 34 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 41 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Gila County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 50 Students** Sample (Rx): 17 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 51 Students** Sample (Rx): 27 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 46 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Gila County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 24 Students** Sample (Rx): 16 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 40 Students** Sample (Rx): 33 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 30 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 44.4 50.5 49.2 37.6 34.0 55.6 55.6 54.3 42.9 41.5 61.2 56.0 57.9 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 52.1 50.9 42.2 29.2 31.1 58.6 47.2 54.1 34.8 37.8 50.4 42.5 45.8 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 54.5 43.2 46.0 29.6 30.7 54.3 40.9 33.7 36.6 38.6 47.6 44.3 41.7 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 48.3 44.2 44.4 31.8 36.7 31.9 32.6 31.2 20.6 23.7 31.3 49.7 36.5 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 54.5 57.6 40.0 41.2 40.3 37.4 37.8 41.5 35.4 40.0 43.4 34.7 43.2 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 57.6 47.0 51.7 51.0 49.3 38.0 43.0 44.7 41.2 39.9 39.5 43.7 27.4 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 66.8 60.0 60.9 36.7 35.4 51.8 48.5 51.2 36.8 37.6 51.8 48.0 40.7 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 35.9 31.1 30.6 21.2 23.7 33.2 42.0 41.6 32.8 39.6 35.0 45.3 32.6 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 53.4 45.7 54.8 43.2 49.1 50.3 50.2 43.9 44.6 53.5 48.1 53.8 46.3 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 60.2 46.5 52.2 44.6 41.1 51.2 52.1 50.0 44.3 42.5 45.6 45.1 51.0 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 45.3 46.7 56.3 45.0 38.2 35.3 47.6 49.5 51.6 40.4 45.7 46.0 62.3 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 53.0 42.1 49.3 33.4 34.5 48.2 39.9 35.0 36.6 39.8 50.5 45.1 41.2 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 50.9 42.2 36.2 19.8 23.5 47.1 38.4 37.6 22.4 36.1 46.0 39.6 30.1 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 40.1 36.5 38.0 21.4 24.7 40.1 36.7 32.2 29.8 35.5 35.2 40.0 30.8 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 46.3 41.2 36.6 31.7 34.7 45.3 46.1 37.7 36.1 41.0 44.9 49.5 35.0 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 60.4 62.2 76.1 56.9 37.9 46.9 56.1 63.5 58.4 40.1 49.7 62.8 60.2 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 71.2 61.4 71.8 43.6 44.8 68.5 50.4 47.3 41.5 45.5 62.6 52.3 44.7 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 60.6 55.5 45.1 29.7 30.7 56.8 47.3 47.7 34.7 34.7 44.9 38.5 28.2 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 54.7 47.3 61.8 41.9 37.1 46.2 49.1 55.1 49.0 42.1 54.6 60.4 56.2 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 29.8 22.7 15.6 10.4 14.7 31.0 17.8 16.8 8.4 13.3 21.4 17.7 12.6 7.0 10.7 56.1 37.5 46.5 24.9 22.4 34.4 28.3 25.0 23.3 23.5 24.5 33.5 29.2 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 34.1 31.5 31.3 31.4 40.9 39.1 39.8 37.9 35.0 45.2 33.9 41.4 31.9 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 41.4 38.2 44.1 53.3 54.8 38.1 46.5 41.9 47.8 48.0 43.2 52.4 49.5 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 56.0 49.0 60.7 62.2 62.5 54.9 54.3 44.0 57.2 56.2 45.0 55.5 48.9 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 53.6 47.4 55.9 60.0 61.9 54.9 53.2 44.8 53.6 54.3 53.3 51.9 49.5 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 55.7 51.2 56.3 64.7 68.7 62.9 53.1 49.5 66.6 69.5 52.5 57.3 49.5 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 49.8 43.8 36.6 53.7 56.9 65.6 52.7 49.8 62.5 63.4 40.3 45.7 45.7 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 57.6 59.3 57.7 69.6 65.8 68.7 73.8 80.9 75.8 70.2 48.3 53.4 54.5 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 46.5 44.7 47.1 47.9 60.5 55.9 53.5 46.8 53.5 61.7 58.9 56.9 42.7 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 40.9 45.5 48.6 42.7 49.0 36.8 50.0 46.1 51.9 52.0 28.4 43.9 42.7 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 57.4 53.7 47.1 61.3 61.4 55.6 57.0 52.2 63.6 60.1 51.5 48.2 55.2 56.2 52.2 47.1 40.3 47.9 54.8 42.6 52.7 49.6 45.8 61.6 46.0 31.3 48.5 46.2 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 61.6 48.5 54.4 31.5 27.8 67.4 62.5 51.9 52.9 52.1 74.9 67.7 72.8 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 46.9 38.3 32.4 15.8 14.8 50.7 45.5 36.9 25.6 25.7 58.3 55.1 50.5 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 38.4 28.8 23.5 14.9 16.5 45.5 40.8 41.3 32.4 35.8 54.5 45.3 48.5 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.4 2.5 1.5 1.6 2.5 6.7 4.0 2.1 4.7 5.4 8.1 5.8 12.7 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 3.6 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 4.3 3.6 2.1 3.0 3.3 11.0 10.1 9.8 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 16.5 14.2 23.9 9.0 10.8 10.5 14.0 8.0 6.6 8.7 9.9 13.2 9.8 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.4 1.9 2.0 0.5 1.1 1.6 4.1 2.1 4.9 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 5.3 2.1 4.9 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.1 1.8 7.7 5.2 3.2 4.4 5.7 6.4 7.0 10.8 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.8 1.0 3.0 1.5 1.1 2.9 2.8 1.1 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.6 2.9 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 13.4 9.7 10.4 7.0 n/a 23.4 13.2 6.5 12.0 n/a 22.8 19.8 19.6 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.6 4.2 2.4 3.6 0.5 5.3 8.1 3.5 4.3 9.8 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 14.1 3.6 4.5 3.9 n/a 11.0 6.0 2.7 6.3 n/a 7.6 7.0 10.8 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 22.4 11.5 11.9 9.3 n/a 26.3 17.2 8.1 15.0 n/a 24.0 21.4 22.5 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 9.7 7.4 4.5 5.8 n/a 12.5 7.7 4.3 8.2 n/a 9.4 9.1 12.7 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 9.5 3.0 2.3 n/a n/a 15.7 6.0 4.2 n/a n/a 16.8 7.8 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 33.9 29.0 20.6 13.4 10.2 40.9 33.9 26.9 27.8 25.7 50.6 43.5 44.7 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 21.0 20.5 14.9 5.7 4.5 26.8 19.3 14.9 10.1 9.1 28.2 32.3 26.7 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 7.6 6.9 14.9 4.3 2.8 8.9 9.6 10.9 7.5 6.4 12.7 13.3 24.0 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 23.7 17.3 14.9 6.9 7.0 24.9 17.7 20.7 16.8 18.0 16.6 18.0 19.6 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.6 0.5 1.7 1.1 1.2 0.0 4.9 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.9 0.8 4.1 1.1 4.0 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 6.5 4.8 13.4 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.2 2.1 1.3 1.3 0.6 2.1 2.0 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.5 3.9 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.6 1.0 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.5 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.1 4.9 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 6.9 4.6 9.0 3.8 n/a 9.1 6.4 4.3 5.4 n/a 11.1 8.0 8.8 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.1 0.5 1.5 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.0 2.1 2.8 0.6 0.0 3.0 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 5.4 1.0 3.0 1.7 n/a 3.3 1.6 2.2 2.6 n/a 1.8 1.6 3.9 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 11.2 5.6 9.0 4.9 n/a 9.1 8.0 5.9 7.1 n/a 12.3 8.0 9.8 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 6.9 4.1 1.5 3.1 n/a 6.7 4.5 2.2 3.7 n/a 5.3 3.2 4.9 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 5.5 0.0 0.9 n/a n/a 7.3 1.6 0.8 n/a n/a 7.0 2.0 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 22.7 17.8 11.8 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 3.0 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 30.0 16.1 14.6 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.7 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 32.6 25.6 28.7 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 8.9 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 8.7 8.6 7.2 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 42.5 33.3 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 13.7 6.7 6.3 22.9 21.5 22.3 n/a 36.1 31.1 1.5 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 24.2 19.9 24.0 2.6 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 16.4 15.9 18.0 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 34.4 28.4 29.7 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.9 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 26.3 18.9 18.8 8.4 7.8 34.4 23.3 24.3 16.5 14.7 27.8 30.1 14.6 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 30.3 22.4 34.3 14.3 13.4 22.6 15.4 11.8 9.6 11.2 19.6 12.8 10.7 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 8.8 7.2 10.1 3.6 3.1 10.0 7.6 9.9 7.7 7.2 13.8 11.6 9.9 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 4.2 4.3 5.7 1.7 2.2 4.1 4.6 3.0 2.1 2.7 8.0 2.0 4.9 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 11.8 8.7 7.1 5.0 4.8 12.6 9.1 4.4 6.0 6.0 18.4 12.8 5.8 5.9 5.8 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them 19.3 12.3 15.9 9.8 12.9 14.3 13.3 15.7 8.9 11.8 17.3 12.4 9.7 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 9.5 8.4 12.9 5.5 5.4 9.4 6.8 10.3 5.6 5.5 12.6 14.3 11.7 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.9 2.8 1.9 1.0 0.8 1.2 2.6 2.0 3.9 1.4 1.2 ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon 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 w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 82.3 85.9 88.5 93.1 88.3 89.8 92.0 92.9 94.9 94.3 94.1 8.6 7.0 5.2 3.7 5.1 5.8 3.4 4.4 1.5 3.8 2.3 2-3 times 3.9 4.1 4.2 3.4 2.3 3.6 1.0 2.1 2.0 1.0 1.2 4-5 times 2.1 1.7 2.8 1.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 6-7 times 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.8 1.5 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 8-9 times 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.7 1.9 0.0 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 0 times 68.5 74.9 68.6 85.1 86.2 87.8 83.1 91.1 87.3 90.9 90.5 94.3 1 time 13.3 12.3 21.4 8.3 8.8 5.5 9.7 4.5 8.3 4.0 3.8 2.5 2-3 times 11.8 8.3 5.7 4.1 3.2 3.0 4.8 2.3 2.8 3.0 4.8 1.4 4-5 times 3.6 2.6 1.4 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.4 6-7 times 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 0.4 0.2 1.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 1.2 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.7 83.0 1.1 51.7 53.5 59.8 74.2 66.3 64.9 71.6 84.6 84.3 88.6 11.5 9.2 8.5 10.3 9.2 8.1 7.7 6.7 5.5 3.0 0.0 4.1 2-3 times 12.2 12.0 11.3 12.0 8.3 7.3 10.6 9.3 6.0 7.6 5.7 5.9 4-5 times 5.8 8.0 4.2 5.1 1.4 5.1 4.8 3.8 1.5 1.9 2.0 6-7 times 1.4 3.5 4.2 2.5 0.0 2.6 1.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 8-9 times 0.7 3.1 2.8 1.8 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.7 10-11 times 0.4 0.0 2.8 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 12 or more times 7.6 12.5 12.7 7.8 5.5 9.5 9.6 5.0 2.2 2.0 1.0 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 60.6 73.8 n/a n/a 85.0 82.0 n/a n/a 91.4 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 15.5 10.5 n/a n/a 6.3 6.2 n/a n/a 1.9 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 16.9 8.8 n/a n/a 4.3 6.2 n/a n/a 1.0 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.4 2.3 n/a n/a 1.4 1.6 n/a n/a 0.0 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 2.8 1.0 n/a n/a 1.4 0.9 n/a n/a 1.0 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.7 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 n/a n/a 1.9 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.3 n/a n/a 0.5 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 2.8 2.5 n/a n/a 1.0 2.4 n/a n/a 2.9 2.2 87.5 88.8 87.3 90.1 89.3 94.5 89.4 93.9 92.9 94.9 99.0 95.7 1 day 6.5 5.0 5.6 4.7 4.2 3.8 2.8 2.7 0.5 1.0 1.8 2-3 days 4.3 4.0 2.8 3.3 3.7 2.6 4.8 2.0 2.7 3.6 0.0 1.2 4-5 days 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 60.4 1.1 1 time 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.8 0.7 2.8 1.0 1.9 90.7 89.2 95.8 95.8 93.1 87.8 1 day 6.1 3.9 1.4 1.9 3.2 2-3 days 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.8 1.4 4-5 days 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 6 or more days 2.5 4.1 2.8 1.1 2.3 8.1 6.8 2.5 2.2 4.1 8.6 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 64.2 9.2 9.7 4.5 1.2 1.9 0.7 8.5 73.2 12.7 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 5.6 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 69.2 9.5 8.4 4.4 2.6 1.5 0.0 4.4 77.4 6.3 5.8 2.4 4.3 0.0 0.5 3.4 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 74.6 7.1 9.1 4.1 0.5 1.0 0.5 3.0 85.7 3.8 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.8 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 0 days ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 State 2014 7.5 0 times During the past 12 months, how often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* County 2014 84.6 12 or more times During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 12 County 2012 1 time 12 or more times During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.8 89.9 94.4 94.0 91.2 89.5 94.5 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.5 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 2.1 1.0 1.1 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 58.0 54.3 62.0 54.6 45.5 56.8 49.6 49.0 52.6 43.8 53.5 56.3 40.4 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 2.5 3.9 2.8 3.7 4.2 3.6 4.2 4.9 4.2 4.0 3.2 4.1 1.0 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 12.9 19.0 21.1 20.7 19.1 18.6 20.8 15.2 21.1 18.3 18.9 23.6 15.4 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 26.8 25.4 35.7 25.1 23.4 25.7 21.2 19.2 23.8 23.0 21.7 26.2 16.3 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 34.5 30.8 33.8 29.1 25.0 35.3 26.7 31.8 28.9 24.7 28.8 35.2 25.0 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 22.4 22.5 12.9 23.6 20.8 16.5 17.4 16.2 18.3 15.9 14.6 14.4 11.5 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 24.7 22.2 25.7 23.8 14.3 22.6 16.3 21.3 19.7 12.5 19.0 26.0 10.6 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 24.5 23.7 36.6 26.2 19.6 20.5 20.5 21.6 25.7 18.4 17.8 24.1 16.3 21.5 16.9 5.1 5.6 4.2 5.0 5.8 5.5 6.2 4.4 4.6 5.5 5.9 5.1 2.9 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size* 81 102 8 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 4.9 5.9 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 1.2 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 2,574 65 76 43 3,493 62 68 40 4,131 0.0 7.4 13.8 7.9 9.3 7.6 3.2 11.8 7.5 10.5 3.9 12.5 4.7 1.5 2.6 4.7 3.5 1.6 2.9 2.5 5.4 2.5 8.8 0.0 4.5 1.5 3.9 2.3 3.0 0.0 1.5 5.0 3.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. 38.3 33.3 12.5 14.5 40.0 30.3 20.9 25.3 61.3 61.8 45.0 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 14.8 23.5 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 25.0 19.8 3.1 21.1 18.6 16.7 8.1 11.8 2.5 17.1 30.9 26.5 0.0 20.5 16.9 19.7 16.3 16.2 25.8 20.6 10.0 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 25.9 21.6 25.0 15.4 27.7 32.9 16.3 21.5 30.6 42.6 25.0 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 21.0 24.5 0.0 19.8 15.4 17.1 14.0 26.3 16.1 26.5 7.5 21.6 I got it at a party. 48.1 34.3 25.0 33.8 41.5 39.5 34.9 45.6 32.3 48.5 47.5 50.9 I took it from home. 22.2 22.5 12.5 25.2 20.0 18.4 7.0 21.8 8.1 10.3 2.5 15.2 6.2 13.7 0.0 7.5 6.2 9.2 0.0 9.2 3.2 1.5 0.0 5.7 37.0 24.5 25.0 26.3 23.1 19.7 14.0 17.8 16.1 25.0 17.5 13.7 I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. State 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 State 2014 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 89 15 2,261 51 50 2,880 40 24 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 2.2 20.0 10.9 7.8 2.0 13.4 10.0 29.2 17.7 Friends 68.5 66.7 69.5 70.6 68.0 77.8 67.5 70.8 78.2 Family/relatives 23.6 20.0 16.8 19.6 12.0 14.7 27.5 12.5 11.9 Parties 25.8 13.3 25.0 25.5 20.0 28.4 27.5 20.8 27.5 Home 7.9 0.0 6.3 3.9 2.0 5.3 10.0 8.3 5.5 School 10.1 6.7 14.8 11.8 6.0 12.3 17.5 20.8 7.6 Other 37.1 40.0 28.1 27.5 34.0 21.4 30.0 20.8 21.0 Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 41 34 9 1,130 46 27 17 1,428 30 33 16 1,596 Friends 53.7 47.1 44.4 47.1 76.1 59.3 29.4 56.3 73.3 69.7 68.8 59.4 Family/relatives 26.8 23.5 11.1 14.8 30.4 14.8 11.8 17.3 30.0 24.2 25.0 16.7 Parties 19.5 14.7 22.2 20.4 15.2 14.8 5.9 21.6 23.3 24.2 18.8 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 12.2 11.8 44.4 26.1 23.9 22.2 17.6 25.9 16.7 15.2 25.0 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 12.2 17.6 0.0 12.9 17.4 18.5 11.8 16.2 16.7 6.1 12.5 17.7 School 14.6 8.8 0.0 11.9 28.3 7.4 0.0 12.4 6.7 18.2 18.8 11.7 Other 31.7 29.4 0.0 17.9 15.2 18.5 23.5 14.2 10.0 9.1 37.5 13.8 Over the Internet 0.0 2.9 0.0 2.7 4.3 0.0 5.9 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0.0 0.0 11.1 8.6 4.3 3.7 0.0 5.0 0.0 9.1 12.5 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 73.1 67 71.9 178 74.5 98 68.4 155 76.5 183 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 77.6 67 80.1 176 86.7 98 79.2 154 83.0 182 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 46.0 63 37.2 172 41.5 94 38.8 147 41.8 177 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 76.1 67 80.3 178 78.6 98 74.8 155 82.0 183 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 90.2 61 89.5 172 86.3 95 85.9 149 91.4 174 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 96.8 62 90.8 173 88.4 95 92.1 151 91.4 174 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 88.5 61 79.0 167 85.1 94 79.2 149 85.8 169 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 100.0 62 96.6 174 95.8 95 95.4 152 98.9 174 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 76.9 65 67.6 176 53.6 97 65.2 155 65.7 178 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 81.5 65 63.8 177 54.2 96 60.6 155 68.0 178 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 60.9 64 53.1 175 52.7 93 52.6 152 56.0 175 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 87.7 65 83.1 177 84.2 95 82.6 155 85.9 177 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 20.6 68 26.9 186 44.7 103 36.1 166 25.3 186 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 14.9 67 14.9 194 26.7 101 19.7 173 16.8 184 used marijuana Marijuana 14.9 67 20.7 188 19.6 102 24.2 165 15.5 187 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 9.0 67 5.9 186 9.8 102 9.8 164 5.9 186 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 55.2 58.5 72.1 78.5 45.6 53.0 55.3 58.3 41.9 50.0 41.6 47.1 Once 15.2 14.2 11.8 10.3 13.5 12.4 12.6 13.1 12.3 8.3 14.9 13.2 2-3 times 18.8 11.7 8.8 6.7 21.4 18.5 17.4 15.2 17.3 18.2 16.8 19.4 4-6 times 6.9 7.0 5.9 2.1 9.3 8.4 6.3 6.7 11.2 10.9 14.9 9.4 7-10 times 1.8 2.5 0.0 0.7 4.2 2.0 3.2 2.3 3.4 5.2 5.0 3.4 2.2 6.2 1.5 1.7 6.0 5.6 5.3 4.4 14.0 7.3 6.9 7.5 66.3 69.6 77.9 86.5 55.9 67.1 66.0 79.6 58.7 58.9 72.3 73.9 Once 16.3 10.5 11.8 6.8 8.5 10.4 12.6 8.4 7.8 11.5 6.9 9.2 2-3 times 9.4 7.5 5.9 3.7 16.0 9.6 9.9 5.3 14.5 9.4 4.0 6.8 4-6 times 2.9 3.7 0.0 1.2 7.5 4.0 3.1 2.5 7.8 6.8 7.9 3.1 2.2 1.5 0.5 3.3 2.0 3.1 1.2 3.4 1.6 2.0 1.6 4.0 6.5 2.9 1.3 8.9 6.8 5.2 3.1 7.8 12.0 6.9 5.4 Never 59.4 62.0 64.7 75.5 50.9 57.3 53.2 57.5 59.2 61.3 60.8 54.1 Once 12.7 10.1 4.4 8.3 11.2 10.1 6.8 11.4 9.5 8.9 6.9 10.5 2-3 times 10.9 8.9 16.2 6.6 11.7 14.5 11.1 10.8 12.8 9.9 5.9 12.0 4-6 times 4.3 5.3 0.0 3.3 11.2 6.5 11.1 6.7 5.0 5.2 5.9 6.8 7-10 times 3.3 3.0 0.0 1.7 3.3 4.4 5.3 3.8 1.7 3.7 6.9 3.8 More than 10 times 9.4 10.6 14.7 4.6 7.3 12.6 9.8 13.7 12.7 90.2 86.6 83.6 88.4 85.4 87.5 84.1 82.6 82.0 82.9 82.2 82.1 Once 6.2 5.3 6.0 5.5 5.6 4.4 7.4 7.6 5.1 5.7 4.0 6.7 2-3 times 1.8 1.8 4.5 2.7 2.8 3.6 3.2 4.3 3.4 5.2 3.0 5.0 4-6 times 0.4 2.0 1.5 3.8 2.4 2.0 2.8 3.1 2.0 2.1 7-10 times 0.7 1.3 3.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 2.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 More than 10 times 0.7 3.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.6 3.7 2.6 4.5 2.1 7.9 3.0 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Grade 10 11.0 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 32.1 38.6 29.7 30.5 62.2 33.1 41.8 35.2 57.4 38.0 38.8 39.2 Once 23.0 16.2 15.6 11.6 37.8 15.1 15.3 14.4 42.6 14.7 14.3 15.6 Twice 8.0 5.1 12.5 4.6 0.0 8.6 5.1 6.9 0.0 9.8 9.2 7.6 Three times 4.7 4.9 3.1 2.3 0.0 4.5 5.1 3.5 0.0 3.3 5.1 3.8 Four or more times 5.5 5.1 9.4 4.6 0.0 9.8 7.3 6.3 0.0 10.3 11.2 6.7 I never get offers 26.6 30.0 29.7 46.4 0.0 29.0 25.4 33.6 0.0 23.9 21.4 27.1 Never 38.5 43.1 28.6 33.6 4.7 34.7 39.5 37.1 1.4 40.2 49.5 Once 16.5 13.0 17.5 9.4 95.3 16.9 16.9 13.2 98.6 Twice 8.8 6.2 7.9 4.3 0.0 8.7 6.8 7.0 Three times 3.7 2.7 6.3 2.2 0.0 6.2 4.5 3.6 41.5 14.1 13.1 14.2 0.0 7.1 4.0 8.1 0.0 4.3 3.0 4.0 7.0 3.8 7.9 3.7 0.0 6.2 6.2 5.4 0.0 12.0 6.1 5.2 I never get offers 25.6 31.2 31.7 46.7 0.0 27.3 26.0 33.7 0.0 22.3 24.2 26.9 Never 40.2 44.7 35.9 35.4 0.5 44.1 44.1 46.0 0.7 54.9 51.0 53.3 Once 16.6 13.6 12.5 8.5 99.5 11.8 16.4 9.7 99.3 8.2 12.2 9.2 Twice 8.5 4.4 6.3 3.2 0.0 4.1 5.1 3.9 0.0 3.8 2.0 3.9 Three times 1.5 3.0 3.1 1.9 0.0 2.9 4.0 2.3 0.0 3.8 1.0 2.3 7.0 3.5 9.4 3.7 0.0 8.2 5.1 4.0 0.0 4.9 9.2 3.7 I never get offers 26.2 30.8 32.8 47.3 0.0 29.0 25.4 34.2 0.0 24.5 24.5 27.6 Never 40.8 50.3 37.5 38.2 0.5 46.5 53.1 49.7 0.0 55.7 55.1 57.0 Once 17.6 9.6 15.6 6.8 99.5 9.8 11.9 7.8 100.0 5.9 8.2 7.6 Twice 6.3 3.8 4.7 2.4 0.0 3.7 3.4 2.9 0.0 3.8 4.1 3.0 Three times 1.5 1.9 3.1 1.5 0.0 3.3 1.7 1.7 0.0 Four or more times 7.4 2.5 7.8 3.3 0.0 6.5 5.6 3.3 0.0 26.5 32.0 31.3 47.8 0.0 30.2 24.3 34.6 0.0 I never get offers 47 Grade 8 1.1 11.7 County 2012 Four or more times Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. 1.1 11.7 County 2010 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. 1.1 Never More than 10 times other drugs? State 2014 Never 7-10 times marijuana? Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 More than 10 times cigarettes? Grade 8 County 2010 1.1 1.0 1.8 7.6 5.1 2.7 25.9 26.5 27.9 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 74.0 74.9 Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2014 State 2014 87.1 87.7 85.9 84.3 89.1 68.5 81.6 85.4 89.6 9.9 7.1 6.4 11.0 5.7 7.4 5.0 12.7 6.1 3.9 4.7 3 to 5 times 6.3 3.1 4.3 2.5 6.4 3.8 3.4 2.6 3.6 4.6 1.9 2.0 6 to 9 times 3.2 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.6 1.0 1.2 10 to 19 times 1.4 0.5 0.0 0.7 2.3 1.1 1.5 0.6 6.1 1.0 2.9 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.4 1.8 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 1.1 3.2 2.2 1.4 1.0 2.7 6.1 2.6 4.9 1.3 Never 19.4 36.2 17.4 48.7 24.1 45.6 56.4 54.3 32.5 49.5 64.1 65.8 1 or 2 times 28.9 24.4 26.1 26.4 22.7 18.6 15.7 22.6 25.4 18.4 12.6 17.9 3 to 5 times 24.3 18.6 20.3 12.8 20.5 19.0 15.7 12.7 17.8 19.4 11.7 9.4 6 to 9 times 7.7 9.7 8.7 5.4 13.2 8.0 3.4 5.2 9.6 5.6 4.9 3.1 10 to 19 times 7.0 5.3 11.6 2.8 7.3 3.4 3.4 2.3 7.1 4.6 1.0 1.6 20 to 29 times 6.0 1.2 5.8 1.2 3.6 2.3 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 30 to 39 times 0.7 2.2 1.4 0.4 1.8 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.9 0.3 40+ times 6.0 2.4 8.7 2.3 6.8 3.0 2.5 1.5 5.1 0.0 3.9 1.2 Never 70.0 84.5 91.4 89.8 71.6 87.5 84.7 92.4 76.8 86.7 87.3 94.5 1 or 2 times 15.7 8.5 4.3 6.0 15.8 6.8 7.9 4.2 10.1 7.7 4.9 3.0 3 to 5 times 4.9 1.9 2.9 1.9 4.5 1.5 2.0 1.4 4.5 1.5 2.0 0.9 6 to 9 times 2.8 2.4 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.1 2.5 0.7 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 10 to 19 times 2.8 1.2 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 3.0 1.5 2.0 0.3 20 to 29 times 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.4 1.5 0.2 2.0 0.5 1.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.6 4.5 2.3 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 1.1 84.2 87.9 84.3 91.5 84.7 90.5 89.2 93.7 88.3 91.3 89.3 94.6 1 or 2 times 8.1 6.5 8.6 5.4 7.7 4.9 4.9 3.8 6.1 3.6 4.9 3.2 3 to 5 times 4.6 1.9 5.7 1.2 2.3 1.9 3.9 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.9 0.9 1.2 0.0 0.7 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.3 6 to 9 times 1.1 10 to 19 times 0.4 1.0 1.4 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.6 1.0 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.7 2.7 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.9 0.7 1.1 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 56.8 51.8 63.1 Once 16.5 16.5 10.8 2-3 times 11.0 12.7 Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 55.8 51.6 68.3 70.4 60.8 61.6 75.0 11.2 14.4 15.0 6.7 10.5 6.8 14.2 9.0 75.5 7.8 13.8 9.6 6.5 15.9 7.8 10.4 16.5 9.5 8.0 10.3 4-6 times 4.8 6.1 1.5 3.4 8.4 5.7 5.6 3.5 3.4 4.2 4.0 3.0 7-10 times 2.9 3.6 0.0 0.9 4.7 2.4 1.7 1.0 0.6 1.6 1.0 0.8 More than 10 times 8.1 9.4 10.8 5.9 10.2 9.3 10.0 4.1 11.9 8.9 3.0 2.6 Never n/a n/a 51.5 48.0 n/a n/a 68.6 57.8 n/a n/a 74.3 68.2 Once n/a n/a 16.2 17.8 n/a n/a 11.9 15.7 n/a n/a 9.9 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 14.7 17.2 n/a n/a 9.2 14.9 n/a n/a 8.9 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 5.9 6.8 n/a n/a 2.7 4.7 n/a n/a 2.0 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 2.9 2.8 n/a n/a 2.2 2.1 n/a n/a 2.0 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 8.8 7.5 n/a n/a 5.4 4.8 n/a n/a 3.0 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 3.3 7.6 n/a n/a 7.4 6.0 n/a n/a 11.2 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 11.5 12.4 n/a n/a 6.3 14.8 n/a n/a 15.3 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 14.8 27.6 n/a n/a 26.1 34.3 n/a n/a 31.6 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 31.1 21.5 n/a n/a 23.9 n/a n/a 11.2 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 30.9 n/a n/a 36.4 n/a n/a ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2012 80.2 Grade 8 County During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* County 2010 11.6 40+ times In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 1 or 2 times Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 40+ times seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? Grade 10 County 2010 39.3 21.1 23.8 30.6 21.9 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Graham County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Graham County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Graham county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 169 20.1 245 32.5 131 19.8 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 359 42.7 283 37.5 321 48.4 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 312 37.1 226 30.0 211 31.8 11,541 23.9 All Students Surveyed* 840 100.0 754 100.0 663 100.0 48,244 100.0 Students By Gender Male 427 51.6 387 52.4 331 50.2 23,460 49.1 Female 400 48.4 351 47.6 328 49.8 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Native American 24 8.0 17 6.8 13 6.2 989 5.3 African American 9 3.0 10 4.0 9 4.3 574 3.1 Asian 2 0.7 1 0.4 0 0.0 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 5 1.7 2 0.8 3 1.4 220 1.2 100 33.3 102 40.8 95 45.5 6,067 32.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked Percent 8 2.7 8 3.2 15 7.2 1,027 5.5 152 50.7 110 44.0 74 35.4 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 55 10.7 54 11.6 59 13.7 1,274 4.5 3 0.6 7 1.5 5 1.2 1,790 6.4 1 0.2 3 0.7 2 0.5 1,459 5.2 4 0.8 1 0.2 2 0.5 260 0.9 414 80.7 379 81.5 345 79.9 20,587 73.4 29 5.7 16 3.4 18 4.2 2,413 8.6 7 1.4 5 1.1 1 0.2 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 300 35.7 250 33.2 209 31.5 18,649 Percent 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 513 61.1 465 61.7 432 65.2 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 840 100.0 754 100.0 663 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Graham County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Graham County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Graham County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Graham County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Graham County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Graham County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Graham County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Graham County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Graham County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Graham County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Graham County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Graham County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Graham County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Graham County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Graham County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Graham County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Graham County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Graham County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Graham County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 12 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 30 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 19 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Graham County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 69 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 61 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 101 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Graham County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 49 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 70 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 96 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Graham County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 14 Students** Sample (Rx): 5 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 18 Students** Sample (Rx): 13 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 16 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Graham County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 47 Students** Sample (Rx): 21 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 41 Students** Sample (Rx): 23 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 57 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Graham County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 27 Students** Sample (Rx): 13 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 34 Students** Sample (Rx): 20 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 52 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 31.2 33.3 38.9 37.6 34.0 40.6 34.2 45.1 42.9 41.5 48.7 44.3 42.9 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 31.4 19.0 24.0 29.2 31.1 41.9 36.1 29.1 34.8 37.8 35.1 32.1 25.4 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 24.7 25.7 24.0 29.6 30.7 35.9 33.8 35.6 36.6 38.6 39.6 33.8 23.2 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 40.9 42.9 40.5 31.8 36.7 25.6 34.5 33.1 20.6 23.7 37.0 33.8 39.8 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 38.3 30.0 36.6 41.2 40.3 36.1 30.0 28.2 35.4 40.0 43.1 28.5 36.0 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 50.0 49.8 52.0 51.0 49.3 42.3 41.9 40.1 41.2 39.9 34.7 31.8 33.0 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 39.4 35.4 32.2 36.7 35.4 47.0 41.3 39.7 36.8 37.6 45.3 36.7 35.0 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 20.4 15.3 15.4 21.2 23.7 34.2 25.5 25.6 32.8 39.6 32.8 31.0 23.0 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 44.2 36.1 38.7 43.2 49.1 51.3 42.6 37.5 44.6 53.5 47.1 43.7 37.1 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 51.0 49.8 52.8 44.6 41.1 51.2 48.2 46.2 44.3 42.5 42.7 40.6 35.9 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 37.7 37.4 45.7 45.0 38.2 43.9 49.5 53.6 51.6 40.4 33.3 45.3 58.7 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 42.2 30.7 26.9 33.4 34.5 42.9 41.9 28.3 36.6 39.8 44.2 34.7 38.3 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 26.1 20.1 17.3 19.8 23.5 32.2 25.3 20.8 22.4 36.1 31.3 24.8 18.2 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 23.5 14.8 16.5 21.4 24.7 29.6 24.6 22.7 29.8 35.5 27.3 20.7 18.8 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 34.1 25.5 30.2 31.7 34.7 41.7 34.2 27.8 36.1 41.0 37.0 30.5 34.6 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 33.8 36.7 47.3 56.9 37.9 37.5 34.8 41.0 58.4 40.1 44.4 43.3 50.0 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 50.6 46.7 49.2 43.6 44.8 54.5 45.0 40.8 41.5 45.5 53.8 38.9 38.8 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 27.9 30.2 26.2 29.7 30.7 33.6 32.4 30.7 34.7 34.7 31.9 30.5 21.1 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 32.1 33.9 33.9 41.9 37.1 35.6 38.5 43.9 49.0 42.1 50.5 52.5 46.4 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 17.1 10.6 12.9 10.4 14.7 14.9 11.4 7.1 8.4 13.3 14.0 14.2 4.5 7.0 10.7 24.9 24.1 28.2 24.9 22.4 32.0 26.9 19.1 23.3 23.5 28.6 22.7 20.4 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 49.6 49.3 47.6 31.4 40.9 48.8 51.9 44.7 35.0 45.2 45.8 54.8 50.5 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 53.8 60.6 62.1 53.3 54.8 49.1 49.6 48.3 47.8 48.0 56.8 64.6 55.4 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 58.3 71.7 65.8 62.2 62.5 57.9 58.7 57.8 57.2 56.2 58.1 61.8 54.4 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 60.5 62.7 62.1 60.0 61.9 56.5 55.3 55.2 53.6 54.3 57.3 60.1 57.5 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 63.0 70.5 69.3 64.7 68.7 64.2 70.7 61.7 66.6 69.5 75.2 67.4 72.2 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 47.0 55.1 42.2 53.7 56.9 61.6 66.9 61.2 62.5 63.4 60.8 46.4 47.4 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 64.3 73.8 68.7 69.6 65.8 71.8 75.7 79.5 75.8 70.2 58.9 59.8 60.9 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 61.0 60.2 60.8 47.9 60.5 62.1 64.3 61.5 53.5 61.7 61.7 59.7 56.2 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 43.7 53.1 55.6 42.7 49.0 48.3 46.8 55.4 51.9 52.0 44.8 45.2 48.1 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 74.7 72.4 70.1 61.3 61.4 60.9 68.3 63.1 63.6 60.1 60.0 56.5 57.4 56.2 52.2 54.8 66.1 64.9 54.8 42.6 60.4 66.8 62.2 61.6 46.0 62.3 65.3 60.2 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 31.6 27.6 20.6 31.5 27.8 57.5 52.0 45.2 52.9 52.1 63.5 53.5 47.4 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 21.4 18.5 21.4 15.8 14.8 37.6 28.3 27.7 25.6 25.7 47.9 43.6 27.5 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 19.1 10.1 12.2 14.9 16.5 29.9 28.6 27.1 32.4 35.8 39.7 31.3 26.9 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 3.2 0.8 0.0 1.6 2.5 5.5 3.2 2.6 4.7 5.4 6.4 5.5 2.4 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.9 0.0 1.5 1.6 1.7 5.2 3.2 3.8 3.0 3.3 11.1 5.5 5.3 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 7.0 8.4 6.9 9.0 10.8 17.4 10.8 6.4 6.6 8.7 13.1 7.8 3.9 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 1.9 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.4 2.0 1.4 2.2 1.1 1.6 5.1 0.9 0.5 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.0 2.9 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 4.1 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 3.8 2.1 2.3 2.1 1.8 4.9 3.2 3.2 4.4 5.7 4.0 6.0 2.4 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 8.2 7.3 3.1 7.0 n/a 19.5 11.1 8.7 12.0 n/a 18.9 13.4 4.4 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 2.5 1.7 0.0 1.6 4.2 3.8 1.8 1.3 5.3 8.1 4.7 1.4 1.9 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 5.1 1.7 0.8 3.9 n/a 11.9 2.9 2.6 6.3 n/a 11.1 5.1 1.0 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 12.0 8.5 3.8 9.3 n/a 23.3 12.5 10.0 15.0 n/a 22.9 14.4 5.8 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 8.2 6.8 2.3 5.8 n/a 17.2 6.1 8.1 8.2 n/a 14.9 10.1 5.8 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 5.6 2.3 2.3 n/a n/a 16.1 3.9 4.2 n/a n/a 17.1 5.3 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 19.7 10.6 10.7 13.4 10.2 32.8 26.9 23.9 27.8 25.7 40.1 35.2 26.8 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 11.0 7.6 6.2 5.7 4.5 18.9 11.9 9.6 10.1 9.1 25.3 21.2 12.1 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 5.0 2.1 4.6 4.3 2.8 7.2 4.8 9.7 7.5 6.4 13.6 9.2 9.7 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 12.8 5.5 8.4 6.9 7.0 12.9 12.5 10.6 16.8 18.0 15.9 14.4 8.3 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.8 1.5 1.1 0.6 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.0 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.5 2.4 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 3.2 4.6 1.5 3.1 2.3 5.0 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 2.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 2.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.5 0.7 1.6 1.3 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 5.7 4.3 2.3 3.8 n/a 9.9 3.6 0.3 5.4 n/a 8.4 5.6 1.9 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.8 1.4 2.6 1.1 0.0 2.1 2.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 1.3 0.0 0.8 1.7 n/a 6.1 0.7 0.7 2.6 n/a 3.7 3.3 0.0 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 6.3 4.3 3.1 4.9 n/a 13.4 4.6 1.0 7.1 n/a 11.8 7.0 2.4 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 3.2 2.6 0.8 3.1 n/a 10.6 3.6 3.2 3.7 n/a 4.1 3.7 1.0 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 2.2 0.0 0.9 n/a n/a 7.2 0.6 0.8 n/a n/a 9.8 0.0 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 11.5 3.8 3.8 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 2.3 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 19.8 16.2 12.2 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.3 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 25.6 22.1 18.8 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 2.9 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 7.5 2.9 2.3 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 25.8 19.7 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 9.7 7.4 4.8 20.6 21.5 22.3 n/a 28.1 25.8 0.8 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 21.9 19.9 24.0 1.3 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 15.9 14.7 14.1 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 28.1 27.2 24.9 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.9 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 14.2 7.1 8.7 8.4 7.8 20.0 18.5 16.2 16.5 14.7 22.5 14.9 11.1 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 19.8 16.5 12.7 14.3 13.4 18.3 13.2 8.2 9.6 11.2 10.2 5.4 5.3 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 6.7 2.1 1.6 3.6 3.1 10.3 8.4 5.5 7.7 7.2 10.4 8.7 2.9 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 2.4 1.2 0.8 1.7 2.2 2.5 2.5 1.3 2.1 2.7 4.9 3.6 2.9 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 7.2 3.8 4.8 5.0 4.8 9.3 5.7 5.4 6.0 6.0 7.8 6.4 2.9 5.9 5.8 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them 16.7 7.4 4.8 9.8 12.9 14.6 7.8 5.4 8.9 11.8 9.1 8.1 4.3 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 11.4 4.1 7.9 5.5 5.4 5.9 7.2 4.8 5.6 5.5 12.4 6.8 10.1 5.6 5.5 4.3 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.4 1.4 1.2 Carried a handgun to school ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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 often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** Grade 10 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 90.5 93.4 89.8 88.5 92.8 90.7 95.0 92.0 95.0 95.1 94.7 94.1 1 time 4.4 1.2 3.1 5.2 3.7 3.2 2.2 3.4 2.6 1.8 1.0 2.3 2-3 times 3.2 3.7 3.1 3.4 2.0 2.5 0.6 2.1 2.3 0.9 1.9 1.2 4-5 times 0.6 0.4 1.6 1.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.3 1.0 0.6 6-7 times 0.0 0.8 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 8-9 times 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.3 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 12 or more times 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 0.9 0 times 75.5 80.9 89.8 85.1 85.2 90.0 90.9 91.1 93.4 91.9 97.6 94.3 1 time 2.5 1.1 13.8 10.4 5.5 8.3 8.8 5.3 4.7 4.5 5.0 5.0 1.0 2-3 times 6.9 6.2 4.7 4.1 4.6 2.1 2.5 2.3 1.3 1.4 0.5 1.4 4-5 times 2.5 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 6-7 times 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 8-9 times 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.7 0 times 56.7 57.0 48.4 59.8 68.0 65.8 67.0 71.6 86.7 80.2 82.8 83.0 1 time 10.8 9.1 10.2 10.3 11.7 7.5 5.7 6.7 3.0 5.9 3.8 4.1 2-3 times 12.1 12.0 9.4 12.0 10.3 7.8 12.6 9.3 4.0 7.7 3.8 5.9 4-5 times 4.5 5.4 9.4 5.1 2.0 5.0 3.1 3.8 3.0 2.3 2.4 2.0 6-7 times 3.8 1.7 5.5 2.5 1.7 2.8 3.1 1.8 0.7 1.8 1.9 1.0 8-9 times 1.9 1.2 3.1 1.8 0.9 2.5 0.9 1.4 0.3 0.5 1.4 0.7 10-11 times 0.6 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 12 or more times 9.6 12.8 12.5 7.8 5.1 8.2 6.6 5.0 1.7 1.4 3.3 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 64.1 73.8 n/a n/a 81.8 82.0 n/a n/a 89.0 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 10.9 10.5 n/a n/a 6.3 6.2 n/a n/a 2.4 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 11.7 8.8 n/a n/a 7.9 6.2 n/a n/a 3.3 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 6.3 2.3 n/a n/a 1.3 1.6 n/a n/a 1.4 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.8 1.0 n/a n/a 1.3 0.9 n/a n/a 1.4 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 1.6 0.7 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.8 0.3 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 3.9 2.5 n/a n/a 1.6 2.4 n/a n/a 2.4 2.2 90.4 96.3 92.2 90.1 96.0 96.1 94.3 93.9 97.0 97.7 98.1 95.7 1.8 0 days 1 day 3.2 2.1 3.1 4.7 1.7 1.8 1.3 2.8 2.0 0.0 0.5 2-3 days 3.8 0.8 4.7 3.3 1.7 1.8 3.1 2.0 0.3 1.8 0.5 1.2 4-5 days 1.9 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 6 or more days 0 days 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.8 92.3 97.5 98.4 95.8 91.7 88.9 93.1 94.4 95.7 90.5 90.0 94.5 1 day 2.6 1.7 0.8 1.9 1.4 1.4 2.8 1.5 0.7 0.5 1.0 2-3 days 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.3 1.8 0.6 1.1 0.7 4.1 0.5 4-5 days 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 6 or more days 1.9 0.0 0.8 1.1 3.4 7.2 3.2 2.5 2.7 4.5 8.1 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 71.2 9.5 7.4 4.1 1.6 1.2 0.4 4.5 69.5 9.4 6.3 5.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 8.6 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 68.3 8.5 9.3 2.8 3.9 1.8 0.4 5.0 71.1 5.7 12.3 5.3 1.3 1.6 0.0 2.8 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 78.8 7.2 6.3 1.8 1.4 0.0 1.4 3.2 79.4 4.3 3.8 2.4 1.9 0.5 1.9 5.7 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2010 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 46.9 55.7 51.1 54.6 45.5 54.1 57.7 53.5 52.6 43.8 55.4 49.3 46.0 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 5.0 2.5 1.5 3.7 4.2 4.0 4.6 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.6 5.5 5.2 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 15.0 18.0 16.9 20.7 19.1 20.9 24.2 22.5 21.1 18.3 22.8 21.3 22.9 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 16.9 23.0 21.4 25.1 23.4 21.7 25.6 22.8 23.8 23.0 25.8 23.2 19.5 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 28.8 26.4 27.9 29.1 25.0 33.9 28.4 28.8 28.9 24.7 35.1 29.1 29.5 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 14.4 17.2 23.3 23.6 20.8 14.8 16.5 16.2 18.3 15.9 14.9 10.5 10.0 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 20.6 23.0 17.1 23.8 14.3 23.0 19.2 23.5 19.7 12.5 22.2 16.1 17.5 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 18.8 23.5 15.5 26.2 19.6 23.4 24.5 26.6 25.7 18.4 25.1 22.8 17.1 21.5 16.9 3.8 5.8 2.3 5.0 5.8 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.6 5.5 7.9 4.1 3.8 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size* 19 30 12 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 5.3 3.3 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 0.0 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 2,574 101 61 69 3,493 96 70 49 4,131 0.0 7.4 3.0 3.3 5.8 7.6 9.4 7.1 4.1 10.5 3.3 16.7 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 1.0 0.0 4.1 5.4 5.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 2.9 3.0 1.0 0.0 6.1 3.7 31.6 23.3 16.7 14.5 42.6 47.5 36.2 25.3 45.8 50.0 65.3 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 5.3 10.0 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 0.0 19.8 10.9 8.2 8.7 16.7 5.2 7.1 12.2 17.1 15.8 16.7 33.3 20.5 10.9 21.3 21.7 16.2 12.5 25.7 10.2 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 21.1 20.0 16.7 15.4 24.8 31.1 13.0 21.5 32.3 22.9 20.4 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 15.8 26.7 16.7 19.8 24.8 29.5 11.6 26.3 13.5 10.0 14.3 21.6 I got it at a party. 26.3 20.0 16.7 33.8 46.5 47.5 33.3 45.6 43.8 57.1 57.1 50.9 I took it from home. 15.8 20.0 8.3 25.2 14.9 16.4 11.6 21.8 8.3 5.7 4.1 15.2 5.3 6.7 0.0 7.5 10.9 8.2 4.3 9.2 5.2 4.3 8.2 5.7 15.8 30.0 16.7 26.3 14.9 14.8 14.5 17.8 10.4 8.6 8.2 13.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. State 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 State 2014 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 18 14 2,261 41 47 2,880 34 27 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 5.6 7.1 10.9 7.3 14.9 13.4 2.9 18.5 17.7 Friends 77.8 71.4 69.5 73.2 55.3 77.8 79.4 48.1 78.2 Family/relatives 22.2 28.6 16.8 26.8 17.0 14.7 23.5 22.2 11.9 Parties 33.3 14.3 25.0 29.3 34.0 28.4 20.6 25.9 27.5 Home 5.6 0.0 6.3 4.9 6.4 5.3 0.0 11.1 5.5 School 16.7 0.0 14.8 17.1 4.3 12.3 5.9 3.7 7.6 Other 33.3 14.3 28.1 31.7 34.0 21.4 14.7 25.9 21.0 Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 16 13 5 1,130 57 23 21 1,428 52 20 13 1,596 Friends 62.5 38.5 20.0 47.1 63.2 56.5 61.9 56.3 69.2 50.0 30.8 59.4 Family/relatives 31.3 30.8 20.0 14.8 31.6 26.1 33.3 17.3 34.6 30.0 30.8 16.7 Parties 31.3 38.5 0.0 20.4 33.3 30.4 19.0 21.6 30.8 35.0 23.1 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 25.0 38.5 40.0 26.1 31.6 47.8 38.1 25.9 25.0 15.0 23.1 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 0.0 7.7 20.0 12.9 19.3 8.7 4.8 16.2 7.7 35.0 15.4 17.7 School 25.0 15.4 0.0 11.9 12.3 26.1 14.3 12.4 17.3 5.0 7.7 11.7 Other 18.8 23.1 0.0 17.9 12.3 26.1 4.8 14.2 21.2 25.0 0.0 13.8 Over the Internet 0.0 7.7 0.0 2.7 3.5 4.3 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 3.5 4.3 4.8 5.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 76.7 129 82.9 304 81.9 204 77.1 314 85.6 319 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 76.7 129 92.1 305 87.7 203 84.4 314 90.9 319 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 73.2 127 63.0 297 58.9 202 57.8 306 69.3 316 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 84.5 129 88.8 303 88.6 202 85.3 312 90.6 318 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 96.7 123 95.2 293 86.9 198 92.4 302 93.5 308 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 99.2 123 97.6 293 92.9 196 95.7 301 97.1 307 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 96.7 123 93.4 290 91.3 195 92.4 301 94.4 303 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 99.2 123 98.0 293 96.4 195 97.7 300 97.7 307 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 91.3 127 70.7 297 64.8 196 72.2 306 73.5 310 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 92.8 125 78.4 296 68.0 197 75.1 305 80.6 309 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 83.2 125 64.5 296 64.6 198 69.3 306 67.0 309 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 95.2 125 90.9 298 85.8 197 90.2 305 90.0 311 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 10.7 131 23.9 314 26.8 209 20.7 324 23.9 326 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 6.2 130 9.6 311 12.1 207 11.6 320 8.0 324 used marijuana Marijuana 8.4 131 10.6 312 8.3 206 9.6 322 9.3 323 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 3.1 131 1.0 309 2.4 207 0.6 318 3.1 325 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Never 73.1 77.7 74.8 78.5 57.5 59.0 Once 9.0 11.4 8.4 10.3 12.6 11.4 14.5 13.1 2-3 times 9.6 6.6 15.3 6.7 14.9 15.1 10.9 4-6 times 3.2 2.2 0.8 2.1 7.5 7.0 7-10 times 2.6 0.9 0.0 0.7 1.4 More than 10 times 2.6 1.3 0.8 1.7 Never 76.5 85.4 84.0 Once Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 61.4 58.3 47.8 46.3 61.4 47.1 10.7 12.8 9.2 13.2 15.2 20.1 20.6 12.1 19.4 7.4 6.7 10.0 9.2 3.4 9.4 1.5 2.9 2.3 3.3 4.6 4.3 3.4 6.0 5.9 2.9 4.4 8.0 6.4 9.7 7.5 86.5 70.9 75.8 76.5 79.6 63.2 65.9 79.7 73.9 8.0 9.9 6.8 7.8 9.1 12.2 8.4 11.0 12.4 8.2 9.2 5.9 2.7 3.1 3.7 8.1 7.2 5.5 5.3 7.4 8.3 4.8 6.8 4-6 times 1.3 1.3 2.3 1.2 5.2 1.9 1.9 2.5 4.0 4.1 1.9 3.1 7-10 times 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.5 2.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 3.7 0.9 1.9 1.6 More than 10 times 3.3 2.2 0.0 1.3 6.1 5.3 2.9 3.1 10.7 8.3 3.4 5.4 Never 77.8 84.8 77.1 75.5 71.2 70.0 64.6 57.5 69.0 69.7 73.4 54.1 Once 5.2 6.3 7.6 8.3 5.2 9.0 11.3 11.4 5.1 6.4 10.6 10.5 2-3 times 5.2 3.1 3.8 6.6 9.2 7.9 9.0 10.8 8.1 8.7 6.3 12.0 4-6 times 5.2 1.8 4.6 3.3 3.7 4.5 4.8 6.7 3.7 6.4 2.9 6.8 7-10 times 2.0 2.2 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.5 3.2 3.8 4.4 2.8 2.4 3.8 4.6 1.8 4.6 4.6 9.2 7.1 7.1 9.8 9.8 6.0 4.3 12.7 Never 92.2 95.5 93.8 88.4 85.6 86.9 85.5 82.6 86.1 89.4 92.2 82.1 Once 3.3 0.4 3.1 5.5 6.3 5.6 7.7 7.6 4.1 2.8 2.4 6.7 2-3 times 3.3 2.7 1.6 2.7 3.5 2.6 2.9 4.3 4.1 3.7 2.4 5.0 4-6 times 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.5 2.3 2.0 1.0 1.4 0.0 2.1 7-10 times 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.7 1.5 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.4 0.5 1.0 More than 10 times 0.7 0.4 0.8 1.7 1.4 1.9 1.0 2.6 3.7 1.4 2.4 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 27.2 20.4 20.5 30.5 67.2 25.5 24.3 35.2 64.3 32.1 38.7 39.2 Once 9.9 9.8 11.0 11.6 32.8 12.8 13.6 14.4 35.7 15.6 12.6 15.6 Twice 3.3 4.0 3.9 4.6 0.0 7.7 9.0 6.9 0.0 11.3 5.5 7.6 Three times 3.3 1.8 3.9 2.3 0.0 2.2 5.0 3.5 0.0 3.3 2.5 3.8 Four or more times 2.0 4.9 5.5 4.6 0.0 11.3 7.6 6.3 0.0 9.0 6.5 6.7 I never get offers 54.3 59.1 55.1 46.4 0.0 40.5 40.5 33.6 0.0 28.8 34.2 27.1 Never 29.1 22.3 22.0 33.6 0.9 27.5 32.3 37.1 3.1 37.2 40.0 41.5 Once 7.9 6.7 7.9 9.4 99.1 13.2 10.8 13.2 96.9 9.2 12.5 14.2 Twice 4.0 5.8 3.1 4.3 0.0 6.2 4.7 7.0 0.0 11.1 7.0 8.1 Three times 2.6 3.1 6.3 2.2 0.0 4.0 4.4 3.6 0.0 5.3 2.5 4.0 1.1 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 3.3 2.7 6.3 3.7 0.0 8.1 7.7 5.4 0.0 7.2 4.0 5.2 I never get offers 53.0 59.4 54.3 46.7 0.0 41.0 40.1 33.7 0.0 30.0 34.0 26.9 Never 33.8 21.0 25.0 35.4 0.0 35.2 36.9 46.0 0.3 45.9 49.0 53.3 Once 5.3 8.9 7.0 8.5 100.0 8.8 8.7 9.7 99.7 9.6 9.5 9.2 Twice 4.6 1.3 4.7 3.2 0.0 5.5 3.4 3.9 0.0 4.8 2.5 3.9 Three times 0.7 4.9 0.8 1.9 0.0 1.5 3.0 2.3 0.0 5.3 0.5 2.3 Four or more times 1.3 4.9 7.0 3.7 0.0 7.3 7.0 4.0 0.0 4.3 4.0 3.7 I never get offers 54.3 58.9 55.5 47.3 0.0 41.8 40.9 34.2 0.0 30.1 34.5 27.6 Never 35.8 25.2 26.0 38.2 0.0 39.6 49.7 0.3 46.9 53.0 57.0 Once 4.6 8.4 5.5 6.8 100.0 8.1 8.8 7.8 99.7 10.5 8.5 7.6 Twice 2.6 2.7 1.6 2.4 0.0 2.6 2.0 2.9 0.0 4.8 1.5 3.0 Three times 2.0 1.8 5.5 1.5 0.0 1.8 1.3 1.7 0.0 2.4 0.5 1.8 Four or more times 0.7 2.2 3.9 3.3 0.0 5.9 5.7 3.3 0.0 3.3 2.0 2.7 54.3 59.7 57.5 47.8 0.0 42.1 41.1 34.6 0.0 32.1 34.5 27.9 I never get offers 47 State 2014 12.4 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. County 2014 2-3 times 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 41.1 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 81.1 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 90.1 88.9 87.7 84.6 88.0 89.1 78.5 82.8 88.0 89.6 4.5 5.6 6.4 6.5 7.1 5.4 5.0 6.8 7.2 3.4 4.7 3 to 5 times 4.8 2.9 2.4 2.5 4.8 3.2 3.5 2.6 4.2 3.2 2.4 2.0 6 to 9 times 0.6 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.4 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.2 10 to 19 times 2.4 0.0 0.8 0.7 1.7 3.6 1.8 1.4 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 40+ times 2.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 2.8 Never 34.1 42.6 34.1 48.7 1 or 2 times 23.4 28.1 42.9 3 to 5 times 16.8 15.3 14.3 6 to 9 times 10.2 6.2 10 to 19 times 7.8 20 to 29 times 1.1 1.9 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.8 0.9 1.1 3.3 2.3 2.9 1.3 29.1 47.3 49.5 54.3 41.2 62.6 67.3 65.8 26.4 29.4 22.1 27.6 22.6 27.9 17.8 17.3 17.9 12.8 20.6 14.6 10.8 12.7 17.5 10.5 6.7 9.4 4.0 5.4 9.3 6.4 7.0 5.2 6.2 3.7 4.8 3.1 3.3 4.0 2.8 4.8 4.3 3.2 2.3 4.9 2.7 1.4 1.6 2.4 2.5 0.8 1.2 2.5 1.8 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.9 1.4 0.7 30 to 39 times 2.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 40+ times 3.0 1.7 0.0 2.3 3.7 2.8 0.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.2 82.5 90.9 92.9 89.8 87.0 90.0 93.0 92.4 88.9 94.1 96.1 94.5 1 or 2 times 6.6 5.0 4.0 6.0 7.4 4.6 4.8 4.2 7.8 2.7 2.9 3.0 3 to 5 times 3.0 1.7 2.4 1.9 2.8 2.1 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.9 6 to 9 times 1.8 1.7 0.0 1.0 1.4 2.9 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.5 10 to 19 times 2.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.3 20 to 29 times 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 2.4 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.5 88.6 93.8 97.6 91.5 92.3 92.8 96.5 93.7 93.5 95.5 97.6 94.6 1 or 2 times 6.0 4.1 2.4 5.4 4.8 4.3 2.2 3.8 4.9 2.7 1.9 3.2 3 to 5 times 1.2 0.8 0.0 1.2 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.9 6 to 9 times 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.3 10 to 19 times 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County 54.6 Grade 8 State 60.5 1.1 Grade 10 County Never 71.1 69.0 Once 11.2 11.9 10.1 11.2 2-3 times 7.9 15.0 14.7 4-6 times 4.6 7.0 7-10 times 0.0 1.8 More than 10 times 5.3 Never 1.1 Grade 10 County 63.8 Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 57.1 64.7 70.4 66.7 57.3 77.3 15.1 13.5 7.4 10.5 9.4 12.4 6.9 7.8 9.6 8.7 13.5 14.6 10.4 11.8 15.1 4.9 10.3 5.4 3.4 5.5 4.5 6.1 3.5 4.7 6.0 4.4 3.0 3.1 0.9 2.3 3.8 1.0 1.0 1.3 2.3 1.0 0.8 9.7 6.2 5.9 4.6 7.5 6.1 4.1 6.1 6.9 5.4 2.6 n/a n/a 43.4 48.0 n/a n/a 60.0 57.8 n/a n/a 76.6 68.2 Once n/a n/a 20.2 17.8 n/a n/a 12.6 15.7 n/a n/a 10.7 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 19.4 17.2 n/a n/a 11.9 14.9 n/a n/a 7.8 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 7.0 6.8 n/a n/a 6.8 4.7 n/a n/a 2.9 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 0.8 2.8 n/a n/a 2.9 2.1 n/a n/a 0.0 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 9.3 7.5 n/a n/a 5.8 4.8 n/a n/a 2.0 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 7.7 7.6 n/a n/a 3.7 6.0 n/a n/a 4.0 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 13.8 12.4 n/a n/a 6.0 14.8 n/a n/a 11.4 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 26.9 27.6 n/a n/a 37.5 34.3 n/a n/a 40.3 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 21.5 21.5 n/a n/a 20.6 n/a n/a 18.4 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 30.0 30.9 n/a n/a 32.2 n/a n/a 25.9 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2010 9.0 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 80.2 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 75.5 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Greenlee County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Greenlee County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Greenlee county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 79 31.0 119 39.4 110 43.0 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 99 38.8 115 38.1 91 35.5 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 77 30.2 68 22.5 55 21.5 11,541 23.9 255 100.0 302 100.0 256 100.0 48,244 100.0 All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 125 49.4 154 51.9 128 50.0 23,460 49.1 Female 128 50.6 143 48.1 128 50.0 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Native American 11 7.2 8 4.5 11 6.3 989 5.3 African American 3 2.0 3 1.7 11 6.3 574 3.1 Asian 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 0 0.0 1 0.6 2 1.2 220 1.2 73 47.7 84 47.2 101 58.1 6,067 32.5 7 4.6 16 9.0 7 4.0 1,027 5.5 59 38.6 66 37.1 41 23.6 9,603 51.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked Percent 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 4 4.0 4 3.9 4 5.1 1,274 4.5 7 7.1 6 5.8 4 5.1 1,790 6.4 0 0.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 1,459 5.2 1 1.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 260 0.9 80 80.8 84 80.8 63 79.8 20,587 73.4 6 6.1 4 3.9 8 10.1 2,413 8.6 1 1.0 4 3.9 0 0.0 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 153 60.0 178 58.9 174 68.0 18,649 Percent 38.7 99 38.8 104 34.4 79 30.9 28,051 58.1 255 100.0 302 100.0 256 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 27 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 28 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 32 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 30 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 21 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 26 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 27 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 27 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 20 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 34 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 25 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 15 Students** Sample (Rx): 12 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 18 Students** Sample (Rx): 9 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 8 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 20 Students** Sample (Rx): 10 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 20 Students** Sample (Rx): 14 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 14 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Greenlee County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 18 Students** Sample (Rx): 14 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 23 Students** Sample (Rx): 15 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 16 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 34.7 34.1 41.7 37.6 34.0 57.7 42.7 37.0 42.9 41.5 51.4 52.4 55.1 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 41.6 43.4 42.6 29.2 31.1 49.5 49.0 38.8 34.8 37.8 50.0 40.6 36.7 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 50.0 47.3 46.5 29.6 30.7 46.4 43.6 40.7 36.6 38.6 47.9 40.0 44.9 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 44.7 47.8 57.4 31.8 36.7 29.2 37.6 34.6 20.6 23.7 42.5 38.5 42.9 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 48.0 42.5 56.4 41.2 40.3 38.9 33.3 35.8 35.4 40.0 40.3 41.4 30.6 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 59.2 67.1 51.5 51.0 49.3 36.8 45.7 40.7 41.2 39.9 34.7 63.8 53.1 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 53.9 51.4 64.7 36.7 35.4 48.5 58.5 58.0 36.8 37.6 55.6 61.3 57.1 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 32.9 26.3 28.7 21.2 23.7 36.7 38.7 37.0 32.8 39.6 41.6 52.5 38.8 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 50.6 53.3 52.5 43.2 49.1 44.9 55.4 55.6 44.6 53.5 49.4 49.2 49.0 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 52.6 53.1 53.8 44.6 41.1 49.5 51.4 55.2 44.3 42.5 38.4 51.5 42.3 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 36.4 43.5 57.9 45.0 38.2 46.9 39.8 60.2 51.6 40.4 34.2 47.8 54.5 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 51.3 48.2 48.1 33.4 34.5 62.6 45.5 43.5 36.6 39.8 45.2 56.1 46.2 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 54.5 45.4 47.2 19.8 23.5 39.4 36.3 38.8 22.4 36.1 35.1 44.1 42.6 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 41.8 34.5 40.2 21.4 24.7 35.4 34.2 35.3 29.8 35.5 29.9 38.2 40.7 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 49.4 42.9 41.1 31.7 34.7 42.4 34.2 40.7 36.1 41.0 40.3 48.5 40.7 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 51.3 52.0 63.6 56.9 37.9 45.8 46.4 61.4 58.4 40.1 50.7 66.7 78.4 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 58.4 69.6 61.1 43.6 44.8 54.1 51.8 53.5 41.5 45.5 60.0 65.7 55.8 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 58.4 57.8 58.3 29.7 30.7 42.4 44.6 40.7 34.7 34.7 34.2 41.2 50.0 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 58.2 56.3 65.1 41.9 37.1 38.4 47.7 38.4 49.0 42.1 48.6 55.9 55.6 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 33.8 16.9 13.1 10.4 14.7 17.0 18.4 10.0 8.4 13.3 20.8 14.1 16.3 7.0 10.7 50.6 35.3 54.1 24.9 22.4 39.4 31.6 28.4 23.3 23.5 37.7 41.2 34.5 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 39.2 40.2 35.9 31.4 40.9 41.2 51.0 48.1 35.0 45.2 58.3 55.6 49.0 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 41.9 39.4 48.5 53.3 54.8 41.1 48.9 39.5 47.8 48.0 52.1 52.6 53.1 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 50.0 56.5 54.5 62.2 62.5 49.5 61.8 53.1 57.2 56.2 47.2 60.3 46.9 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 59.7 55.2 51.0 60.0 61.9 45.3 51.7 47.5 53.6 54.3 45.8 57.1 49.0 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 88.6 67.2 65.7 64.7 68.7 66.7 70.8 60.2 66.6 69.5 76.3 79.4 63.6 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 71.8 38.1 49.1 53.7 56.9 48.5 62.5 61.4 62.5 63.4 52.6 48.5 52.7 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 52.6 47.4 59.3 69.6 65.8 60.6 79.6 70.6 75.8 70.2 50.7 31.3 37.3 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 51.9 50.0 38.9 47.9 60.5 57.1 50.9 41.9 53.5 61.7 57.9 41.2 38.5 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 50.6 44.1 38.3 42.7 49.0 50.5 59.6 53.5 51.9 52.0 45.5 50.0 44.4 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 57.0 55.5 60.7 61.3 61.4 60.6 58.4 60.5 63.6 60.1 45.9 54.4 57.4 56.2 52.2 60.8 39.5 51.4 54.8 42.6 54.5 60.5 56.8 61.6 46.0 61.0 60.3 49.1 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 62.8 55.2 63.0 31.5 27.8 76.8 69.0 65.1 52.9 52.1 78.1 86.8 77.4 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 50.6 43.9 45.4 15.8 14.8 49.5 46.9 50.0 25.6 25.7 56.2 65.7 63.5 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 20.5 24.3 28.7 14.9 16.5 35.7 31.9 38.4 32.4 35.8 46.6 57.4 51.9 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.0 3.5 1.9 1.6 2.5 5.1 1.8 2.3 4.7 5.4 5.5 5.9 5.8 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 6.4 0.9 4.6 1.6 1.7 5.1 2.7 5.8 3.0 3.3 8.2 5.9 9.6 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 17.9 22.1 16.7 9.0 10.8 18.4 14.2 10.5 6.6 8.7 8.2 14.7 7.7 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 2.6 0.0 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.1 1.6 8.2 1.5 3.8 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 2.6 2.7 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 6.4 1.8 2.8 2.1 1.8 3.1 2.7 2.3 4.4 5.7 4.1 4.4 5.8 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 5.1 0.9 1.9 1.5 1.1 2.0 1.8 1.2 1.9 1.3 1.4 4.4 0.0 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 19.2 12.5 16.7 7.0 n/a 22.7 18.2 16.3 12.0 n/a 26.0 25.0 19.2 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 5.1 3.6 0.9 1.6 4.2 5.2 3.6 4.7 5.3 8.1 5.5 8.8 3.8 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 12.8 8.2 7.5 3.9 n/a 9.3 6.3 7.0 6.3 n/a 8.2 13.2 11.5 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 26.9 15.2 19.4 9.3 n/a 26.8 18.0 17.4 15.0 n/a 27.4 29.4 21.2 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 17.9 11.7 7.5 5.8 n/a 19.6 16.4 10.5 8.2 n/a 9.6 22.1 19.2 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 14.4 0.9 2.3 n/a n/a 15.2 5.8 4.2 n/a n/a 29.4 15.4 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 32.1 28.4 31.8 13.4 10.2 33.7 30.0 37.2 27.8 25.7 42.5 51.5 40.4 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 21.8 20.4 19.6 5.7 4.5 20.6 25.7 18.8 10.1 9.1 32.9 28.4 36.5 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 12.8 10.6 16.8 4.3 2.8 20.2 10.7 12.9 7.5 6.4 24.7 22.4 21.2 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 6.4 13.0 10.3 6.9 7.0 12.4 13.4 18.6 16.8 18.0 27.4 20.9 26.9 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 4.1 0.9 2.3 0.9 0.8 2.7 1.5 0.0 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 10.3 12.5 3.7 3.1 2.3 4.1 0.9 2.3 1.3 1.3 2.7 2.9 1.9 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.3 2.1 0.0 1.2 0.6 0.4 1.4 1.5 0.0 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 10.3 5.4 7.5 3.8 n/a 6.2 6.4 8.2 5.4 n/a 13.7 8.8 3.8 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.3 1.8 0.0 0.8 1.4 2.1 0.0 2.3 2.1 2.8 1.4 1.5 0.0 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 6.4 5.5 4.7 1.7 n/a 4.1 2.7 3.5 2.6 n/a 4.1 2.9 2.0 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 14.1 8.9 10.2 4.9 n/a 10.3 6.3 9.3 7.1 n/a 15.1 8.8 5.8 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 12.8 7.3 5.6 3.1 n/a 9.3 10.3 2.3 3.7 n/a 5.5 7.4 9.6 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 7.7 0.0 0.9 n/a n/a 10.0 0.0 0.8 n/a n/a 17.9 0.0 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 15.4 14.0 19.4 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 3.7 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 21.4 17.9 22.1 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.8 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 25.0 28.4 23.1 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 3.8 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 11.4 6.1 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 31.6 n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 12.3 3.1 5.6 n/a 11.3 7.1 7.1 42.6 45.4 21.5 22.3 n/a 38.9 36.6 n/a 4.6 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 27.4 19.9 24.0 3.5 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 16.7 22.4 13.5 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 34.2 53.7 28.8 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.8 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 17.7 20.3 20.0 8.4 7.8 14.1 10.5 25.6 16.5 14.7 29.9 27.9 27.8 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 15.2 23.7 25.2 14.3 13.4 19.2 20.2 15.1 9.6 11.2 14.3 16.2 25.9 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 7.6 5.1 4.7 3.6 3.1 6.2 7.1 9.3 7.7 7.2 9.2 11.9 13.0 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 8.9 4.3 0.9 1.7 2.2 5.1 3.5 2.3 2.1 2.7 6.5 7.4 1.9 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 17.7 6.9 4.7 5.0 4.8 8.2 6.4 7.0 6.0 6.0 10.5 11.8 9.4 5.9 5.8 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them 16.5 15.3 12.1 9.8 12.9 19.4 13.3 7.0 8.9 11.8 22.1 16.2 13.5 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 10.1 19.5 15.9 5.5 5.4 10.1 6.1 5.9 5.6 5.5 11.7 17.6 14.8 5.6 5.5 2.5 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 2.0 0.0 1.2 0.8 1.2 5.3 5.9 1.9 1.4 1.2 Carried a handgun to school ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 92.2 84.3 88.5 91.8 91.1 91.9 92.0 98.6 85.3 85.5 94.1 3.5 8.3 5.2 6.1 7.1 3.5 3.4 1.4 2.9 1.8 2.3 2-3 times 3.8 1.7 1.9 3.4 2.0 0.0 3.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 1.2 4-5 times 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 6-7 times 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 8-9 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.2 10-11 times 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 12 or more times 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 11.8 5.5 0.9 0 times 70.9 86.2 76.0 85.1 84.8 79.5 89.7 91.1 91.8 85.3 83.3 94.3 1 time 2.5 15.2 6.0 11.5 8.3 12.1 13.4 8.0 4.5 6.8 5.9 5.6 2-3 times 6.3 6.9 9.6 4.1 2.0 5.4 2.3 2.3 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.4 4-5 times 2.5 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 6-7 times 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.2 10-11 times 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 4.4 3.7 0.7 44.3 83.0 50.4 60.7 59.8 61.6 53.1 65.9 71.6 84.9 66.2 63.0 1 time 11.4 5.1 8.4 10.3 10.1 11.5 6.8 6.7 2.7 5.9 7.4 4.1 2-3 times 12.7 12.8 10.3 12.0 12.1 14.2 10.2 9.3 5.5 11.8 11.1 5.9 4-5 times 8.9 3.4 4.7 5.1 6.1 6.2 4.5 3.8 0.0 1.5 3.7 2.0 6-7 times 2.5 4.3 2.8 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 2.9 1.9 1.0 8-9 times 0.0 3.4 1.9 1.8 0.0 3.5 2.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.5 1.4 0.0 1.9 20.3 20.5 9.3 7.8 8.1 10.6 9.1 5.0 5.5 11.8 7.4 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 63.6 73.8 n/a n/a 70.5 82.0 n/a n/a 72.7 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 14.0 10.5 n/a n/a 9.1 6.2 n/a n/a 7.3 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 14.0 8.8 n/a n/a 12.5 6.2 n/a n/a 10.9 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 2.8 2.3 n/a n/a 1.1 1.6 n/a n/a 1.8 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 2.8 1.0 n/a n/a 1.1 0.9 n/a n/a 0.0 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.7 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 n/a n/a 1.8 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.9 0.3 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 1.9 2.5 n/a n/a 5.7 2.4 n/a n/a 5.5 2.2 93.7 94.0 88.9 90.1 88.9 93.4 94.3 93.9 97.3 89.7 85.5 95.7 1 day 5.1 5.2 4.6 4.7 7.1 3.8 2.8 0.0 2.9 9.1 1.8 2-3 days 1.3 0.0 2.8 3.3 1.0 1.9 4.6 2.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 4-5 days 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 0 days 1.1 0.0 0.9 2.8 1.0 2.0 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 7.4 5.5 0.8 96.2 93.0 91.5 95.8 88.9 95.4 90.8 94.4 91.8 91.2 89.1 94.5 1 day 1.3 1.8 3.8 1.9 2.0 0.0 2.3 1.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 2-3 days 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 4-5 days 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 6 or more days 2.6 2.6 2.8 1.1 8.1 3.7 6.9 2.5 5.5 8.8 5.5 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 67.8 9.6 7.0 1.7 2.6 2.6 0.9 7.8 70.1 6.5 7.5 4.7 1.9 3.7 0.0 5.6 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 67.3 8.0 8.8 4.4 6.2 0.0 1.8 3.5 67.4 10.5 7.0 7.0 2.3 2.3 0.0 3.5 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 66.2 4.4 8.8 1.5 2.9 2.9 0.0 13.2 70.4 9.3 5.6 1.9 1.9 0.0 1.9 9.3 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 State 2014 1.3 12 or more times During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? County 2014 92.4 10-11 times During the past 12 months, how often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* Grade 12 County 2012 1 time 0 times During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 1.1 1.1 0.5 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 73.1 73.7 69.4 54.6 45.5 62.6 61.4 67.4 52.6 43.8 60.3 73.5 58.5 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 2.6 2.5 5.6 3.7 4.2 5.1 5.3 2.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 8.8 5.7 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 35.9 32.8 34.6 20.7 19.1 33.3 33.6 27.9 21.1 18.3 21.9 51.5 26.4 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 43.6 50.4 36.1 25.1 23.4 32.3 33.3 48.8 23.8 23.0 25.4 42.6 32.1 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 43.6 49.6 39.8 29.1 25.0 37.4 28.1 46.4 28.9 24.7 37.0 45.6 41.5 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 25.6 27.2 25.5 23.6 20.8 16.3 15.9 34.9 18.3 15.9 13.7 17.6 19.2 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 26.9 35.1 29.0 23.8 14.3 19.2 25.4 36.5 19.7 12.5 20.5 22.4 18.9 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 35.9 36.2 34.3 26.2 19.6 33.3 27.2 38.4 25.7 18.4 24.7 27.9 24.5 21.5 16.9 7.7 10.3 10.3 5.0 5.8 15.3 5.3 5.8 4.6 5.5 9.6 13.2 1.9 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size* 21 30 32 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 0.0 0.0 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 0.0 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 2,574 27 27 26 3,493 25 34 20 4,131 6.3 7.4 3.7 0.0 3.8 7.6 8.0 11.8 5.0 10.5 3.3 6.3 4.7 3.7 0.0 11.5 3.5 4.0 11.8 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 4.5 3.7 0.0 7.7 3.0 4.0 5.9 5.0 3.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. 19.0 20.0 18.8 14.5 29.6 44.4 34.6 25.3 40.0 38.2 50.0 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 19.0 10.0 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 25.0 19.8 14.8 11.1 19.2 16.7 8.0 8.8 35.0 17.1 9.5 16.7 18.8 20.5 11.1 25.9 30.8 16.2 12.0 8.8 35.0 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 19.0 16.7 21.9 15.4 14.8 25.9 30.8 21.5 16.0 35.3 45.0 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 23.8 23.3 18.8 19.8 22.2 14.8 19.2 26.3 4.0 14.7 30.0 21.6 I got it at a party. 38.1 20.0 43.8 33.8 33.3 63.0 61.5 45.6 32.0 35.3 55.0 50.9 I took it from home. 47.6 20.0 37.5 25.2 25.9 7.4 15.4 21.8 4.0 17.6 15.0 15.2 4.8 20.0 9.4 7.5 3.7 3.7 0.0 9.2 0.0 8.8 0.0 5.7 23.8 43.3 34.4 26.3 33.3 18.5 19.2 17.8 20.0 17.6 20.0 13.7 I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. State 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 State 2014 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 18 15 2,261 20 20 2,880 23 18 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 5.6 26.7 10.9 10.0 15.0 13.4 17.4 11.1 17.7 Friends 88.9 73.3 69.5 90.0 65.0 77.8 65.2 72.2 78.2 Family/relatives 27.8 20.0 16.8 10.0 40.0 14.7 30.4 22.2 11.9 Parties 27.8 33.3 25.0 15.0 25.0 28.4 26.1 27.8 27.5 Home 0.0 13.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 5.3 8.7 5.6 5.5 School 11.1 33.3 14.8 5.0 15.0 12.3 8.7 5.6 7.6 Other 16.7 46.7 28.1 15.0 20.0 21.4 26.1 50.0 21.0 Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 8 9 12 1,130 14 14 10 1,428 16 15 14 1,596 Friends 37.5 55.6 50.0 47.1 64.3 57.1 20.0 56.3 56.3 46.7 64.3 59.4 Family/relatives 25.0 11.1 8.3 14.8 50.0 7.1 10.0 17.3 25.0 13.3 21.4 16.7 Parties 12.5 22.2 41.7 20.4 57.1 14.3 20.0 21.6 18.8 20.0 7.1 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 25.0 66.7 33.3 26.1 50.0 21.4 40.0 25.9 31.3 20.0 7.1 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 37.5 11.1 8.3 12.9 0.0 21.4 10.0 16.2 37.5 26.7 0.0 17.7 School 0.0 11.1 8.3 11.9 28.6 7.1 10.0 12.4 12.5 6.7 14.3 11.7 Other 0.0 0.0 50.0 17.9 0.0 7.1 40.0 14.2 18.8 26.7 14.3 13.8 Over the Internet 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 10.0 3.0 6.3 6.7 0.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.6 0.0 0.0 20.0 5.0 6.3 0.0 7.1 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 67.3 107 74.7 83 72.5 51 65.3 121 76.7 120 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 74.8 107 83.1 83 80.4 51 73.6 121 84.2 120 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 62.6 107 54.2 83 36.0 50 52.9 121 55.5 119 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 77.6 107 85.5 83 88.0 50 76.7 120 88.3 120 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 89.1 101 85.2 81 81.6 49 84.5 116 87.8 115 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 94.1 101 96.3 81 79.6 49 90.5 116 93.0 115 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 94.0 100 93.8 80 79.6 49 92.2 115 89.5 114 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 97.0 101 100.0 80 97.9 48 98.3 115 98.2 114 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 62.1 103 51.9 81 56.0 50 63.6 118 50.9 116 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 69.9 103 49.4 81 52.0 50 63.6 118 54.3 116 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 65.0 103 46.9 81 38.0 50 58.5 118 47.4 116 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 84.5 103 74.1 81 78.0 50 81.4 118 77.6 116 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 31.8 107 37.2 86 40.4 52 28.5 123 42.6 122 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 19.6 107 18.8 85 36.5 52 20.3 123 25.6 121 used marijuana Marijuana 10.3 107 18.6 86 26.9 52 11.3 124 22.3 121 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 10.2 108 9.3 86 5.8 52 4.8 124 13.1 122 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 57.7 52.2 59.8 78.5 46.5 59.6 54.7 58.3 45.2 26.9 38.5 47.1 Once 10.3 19.5 15.0 10.3 9.2 14.0 13.1 7.5 25.0 13.2 2-3 times 19.2 15.9 12.1 6.7 22.2 20.2 18.6 15.2 26.0 34.3 9.6 19.4 4-6 times 6.4 4.4 6.5 2.1 7.1 6.4 5.8 6.7 9.6 7.5 7.7 9.4 7-10 times 1.3 2.7 2.8 0.7 2.0 4.6 1.2 2.3 5.5 6.0 1.9 3.4 More than 10 times 5.1 5.3 3.7 1.7 10.1 0.0 5.8 4.4 2.7 17.9 17.3 7.5 70.5 65.5 66.7 86.5 61.8 66.3 79.6 56.2 47.0 59.6 73.9 11.5 10.6 14.3 6.8 11.1 14.5 14.0 8.4 6.8 15.2 7.7 9.2 9.0 12.4 8.6 3.7 11.1 7.3 10.5 5.3 8.2 9.1 5.8 6.8 4-6 times 3.8 2.7 4.8 1.2 5.1 8.2 1.2 2.5 9.6 6.1 5.8 3.1 7-10 times 1.3 3.5 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.9 2.3 1.2 5.5 3.0 3.8 1.6 More than 10 times 3.8 5.3 3.8 1.3 12.1 7.3 5.8 3.1 13.7 19.7 17.3 5.4 76.9 57.5 69.6 56.6 75.5 69.7 67.0 55.8 67.1 47.8 50.0 54.1 Once 11.5 8.9 12.3 8.3 9.1 14.7 10.5 11.4 4.1 17.9 3.8 10.5 2-3 times 2.6 8.0 10.4 6.6 8.1 6.4 18.6 10.8 6.8 14.9 7.7 12.0 4-6 times 3.8 5.4 10.4 3.3 5.1 5.5 4.7 6.7 6.8 1.5 9.6 6.8 7-10 times 2.6 3.6 2.8 1.7 3.0 3.7 0.0 3.8 6.8 6.0 1.9 3.8 2.6 4.5 7.5 4.6 5.1 2.8 10.5 9.8 8.2 26.9 12.7 Never 83.3 88.3 82.9 88.4 88.9 90.7 83.7 82.6 84.9 80.3 82.7 82.1 Once 9.0 5.4 6.7 5.5 4.0 5.6 4.7 7.6 2.7 6.1 5.8 6.7 2-3 times 3.8 3.6 2.9 2.7 4.0 3.7 8.1 4.3 4.1 3.0 7.7 5.0 4-6 times 0.0 0.0 2.9 1.0 0.0 1.2 2.0 1.4 3.0 1.9 2.1 7-10 times 1.3 0.0 1.9 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.1 1.5 0.0 1.0 More than 10 times 2.6 2.7 2.9 1.7 1.0 0.0 2.3 2.6 2.7 6.1 1.9 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 24.1 26.5 34.6 30.5 66.0 33.0 Once 19.0 22.5 15.0 11.6 Twice 8.9 7.8 6.5 Three times 5.1 1.0 Four or more times 6.3 11.8 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 31.3 35.2 64.4 48.5 26.0 39.2 34.0 11.3 18.1 14.4 35.6 22.7 18.0 15.6 4.6 0.0 10.4 8.4 6.9 0.0 7.6 12.0 7.6 4.7 2.3 0.0 4.7 3.6 3.5 0.0 4.5 4.0 3.8 5.6 4.6 0.0 8.5 7.2 6.3 0.0 3.0 18.0 6.7 0.0 32.1 31.3 33.6 0.0 13.6 22.0 27.1 36.7 30.4 33.6 46.4 Never 38.5 35.6 37.7 33.6 1.0 35.5 33.7 37.1 2.7 50.0 44.9 41.5 Once 9.0 16.8 10.4 9.4 99.0 15.9 16.9 13.2 97.3 21.2 14.3 14.2 Twice 9.0 8.9 7.5 4.3 0.0 6.5 10.8 7.0 0.0 7.6 10.2 8.1 Three times 5.1 3.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 4.7 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 5.9 6.6 3.7 0.0 6.5 8.4 5.4 0.0 3.0 4.1 5.2 I never get offers 34.6 29.7 37.7 46.7 0.0 30.8 30.1 33.7 0.0 15.2 22.4 26.9 Never 35.9 42.2 37.7 35.4 1.0 44.3 Once 9.0 13.7 14.2 8.5 99.0 Twice 7.7 4.9 2.8 3.2 Three times 3.8 1.0 2.8 Four or more times 6.4 8.8 I never get offers 37.2 Never 38.5 41.5 46.0 1.4 65.2 50.0 53.3 11.3 13.4 9.7 98.6 9.1 10.0 9.2 0.0 6.6 4.9 3.9 0.0 4.5 12.0 3.9 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.2 2.3 0.0 3.0 4.0 2.3 5.7 3.7 0.0 4.7 8.5 4.0 0.0 4.5 2.0 3.7 29.4 36.8 47.3 0.0 31.1 30.5 34.2 0.0 13.6 22.0 27.6 57.0 44.1 46.2 38.2 1.0 47.2 39.8 49.7 1.4 66.7 46.9 Once 11.5 16.7 7.5 6.8 99.0 10.4 14.5 7.8 98.6 10.6 16.3 7.6 Twice 3.8 2.9 3.8 2.4 0.0 5.7 6.0 2.9 0.0 3.0 8.2 3.0 Three times 2.6 1.0 2.8 1.5 0.0 1.9 2.4 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.8 Four or more times 5.1 5.9 4.7 3.3 0.0 2.8 3.6 3.3 0.0 4.5 4.1 2.7 38.5 29.4 34.9 47.8 0.0 32.1 33.7 34.6 0.0 15.2 22.4 27.9 I never get offers 47 1.1 11.9 I never get offers Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. 60.6 11.0 2-3 times More than 10 times other drugs? 12.1 State 2014 Once Never marijuana? Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 Never cigarettes? Grade 8 County 2010 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 77.2 73.7 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 81.9 87.7 82.3 84.9 89.1 72.7 80.9 75.9 89.6 6.7 6.4 10.1 6.2 7.0 5.0 7.8 7.4 7.4 4.7 3 to 5 times 6.3 6.9 5.7 2.5 5.1 2.7 2.3 2.6 7.8 0.0 3.7 2.0 6 to 9 times 3.8 3.4 1.9 1.2 3.0 2.7 1.2 3.9 1.5 3.7 1.2 10 to 19 times 2.5 1.7 1.9 0.7 3.0 1.8 2.3 0.6 5.2 0.0 1.9 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.0 2.3 0.4 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 40+ times 0.0 2.6 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.4 0.0 1.1 2.6 7.4 5.6 1.3 15.2 22.0 29.2 48.7 23.2 27.4 43.0 54.3 26.0 43.3 45.3 65.8 1 or 2 times 19.0 30.5 23.6 26.4 26.3 27.4 31.4 22.6 33.8 20.9 3 to 5 times 35.4 24.6 25.5 12.8 27.3 20.4 10.5 12.7 20.8 6 to 9 times 16.5 8.5 9.4 5.4 9.1 11.5 5.8 5.2 10 to 19 times 8.9 8.5 7.5 2.8 5.1 4.4 3.5 20 to 29 times 1.3 2.5 1.9 1.2 3.0 3.5 30 to 39 times 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.4 2.0 40+ times 2.5 3.4 1.9 2.3 4.0 86.1 82.1 81.1 89.8 78.6 1 or 2 times 8.9 6.0 13.2 6.0 3 to 5 times 2.5 6.0 4.7 1.9 6 to 9 times 1.3 1.7 0.0 10 to 19 times 1.3 2.6 0.0 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.9 0.0 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.9 40+ times 0.0 1.1 28.3 17.9 11.9 5.7 9.4 5.2 7.5 5.7 3.1 2.3 10.4 7.5 7.5 1.6 4.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 0.0 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.3 3.5 1.2 1.5 2.6 7.5 1.9 1.2 89.4 91.9 92.4 84.4 82.4 83.3 94.5 12.2 8.0 2.3 4.2 7.8 13.2 9.3 3.0 5.1 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.3 0.0 1.9 0.9 1.0 3.1 0.0 2.3 0.7 1.3 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.9 2.3 0.5 5.2 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 88.6 87.9 86.0 91.5 90.9 91.2 96.5 93.7 87.0 86.8 94.4 94.6 1 or 2 times 6.3 10.3 9.3 5.4 7.1 6.1 1.2 3.8 3.9 7.4 3.7 3.2 3 to 5 times 2.5 0.9 1.9 1.2 0.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.0 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 10 to 19 times 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.1 40+ times 1.3 0.0 1.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.3 4.4 0.0 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 57.7 55.9 70.8 Once 17.9 16.2 10.4 2-3 times 14.1 9.9 4-6 times 2.6 7-10 times 2.6 More than 10 times Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 58.2 57.9 68.7 70.4 65.8 64.6 68.0 11.2 18.4 16.8 7.2 10.5 6.8 10.8 10.0 7.8 6.6 9.6 9.2 12.1 14.5 10.4 16.4 9.2 8.0 10.3 4.5 3.8 3.4 5.1 4.7 6.0 3.5 5.5 4.6 8.0 3.0 3.6 0.9 0.9 3.1 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.0 2.0 0.8 5.1 9.9 7.5 5.9 6.1 7.5 2.4 4.1 4.1 10.8 4.0 2.6 Never n/a n/a 56.1 48.0 n/a n/a 65.1 57.8 n/a n/a 64.7 68.2 Once n/a n/a 15.9 17.8 n/a n/a 14.0 15.7 n/a n/a 11.8 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 13.1 17.2 n/a n/a 11.6 14.9 n/a n/a 15.7 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 7.5 6.8 n/a n/a 3.5 4.7 n/a n/a 2.0 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 2.8 2.8 n/a n/a 0.0 2.1 n/a n/a 0.0 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 4.7 7.5 n/a n/a 5.8 4.8 n/a n/a 5.9 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 8.8 7.6 n/a n/a 4.9 6.0 n/a n/a 6.0 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 13.7 12.4 n/a n/a 3.7 14.8 n/a n/a 4.0 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 22.5 27.6 n/a n/a 23.5 34.3 n/a n/a 34.0 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 23.5 21.5 n/a n/a 27.2 n/a n/a 30.0 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 31.4 30.9 n/a n/a 40.7 n/a n/a 26.0 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2010 7.8 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 76.7 Never seen someone shot or shot at? County 2014 10.1 Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 75.5 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey La Paz County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey La Paz County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for La Paz county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Grade 8 126 34.4 153 40.8 116 34.3 22,675 47.0 Grade 10 146 39.9 126 33.6 137 40.5 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 94 25.7 96 25.6 85 25.1 11,541 23.9 366 100.0 375 100.0 338 100.0 48,244 100.0 Students By Grade All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 195 54.2 187 50.5 168 49.9 23,460 49.1 Female 165 45.8 183 49.5 169 50.1 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 23 13.7 26 13.7 26 15.2 989 5.3 African American 2 1.2 2 1.1 0 0.0 574 3.1 Asian 0 0.0 1 0.5 1 0.6 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.2 220 1.2 22 13.1 51 26.8 65 38.0 6,067 32.5 11 6.6 13 6.8 3 1.8 1,027 5.5 110 65.5 97 51.1 74 43.3 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 44 23.7 47 27.5 59 36.0 1,274 4.5 5 2.7 3 1.8 5 3.1 1,790 6.4 1 0.5 1 0.6 3 1.8 1,459 5.2 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.6 260 0.9 73.4 115 61.8 98 57.3 82 50.0 20,587 21 11.3 17 9.9 12 7.3 2,413 8.6 0 0.0 4 2.3 2 1.2 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 168 45.9 190 50.7 171 50.6 18,649 Percent 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 186 50.8 171 45.6 164 48.5 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 366 100.0 375 100.0 338 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 La Paz County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 La Paz County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 La Paz County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 La Paz County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 La Paz County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 La Paz County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 La Paz County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 La Paz County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 La Paz County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 La Paz County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 La Paz County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 7 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 30 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 19 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 La Paz County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 39 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 19 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 41 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 La Paz County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 19 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 22 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 36 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 La Paz County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 13 Students** Sample (Rx): 3 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 23 Students** Sample (Rx): 7 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 11 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 La Paz County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 39 Students** Sample (Rx): 17 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 26 Students** Sample (Rx): 12 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 27 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 La Paz County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 26 Students** Sample (Rx): 10 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 19 Students** Sample (Rx): 12 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 16 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 40.8 43.2 44.2 37.6 34.0 53.6 52.9 55.3 42.9 41.5 62.9 50.5 70.1 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 37.4 38.0 30.6 29.2 31.1 48.2 52.9 50.4 34.8 37.8 50.0 38.2 41.3 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 34.2 34.2 22.0 29.6 30.7 40.3 47.5 32.6 36.6 38.6 49.5 46.2 30.3 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 39.2 35.8 29.6 31.8 36.7 28.1 26.0 19.5 20.6 23.7 35.2 41.1 28.9 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 41.2 46.3 42.9 41.2 40.3 37.3 37.4 44.6 35.4 40.0 43.0 39.1 44.7 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 55.5 53.7 37.5 51.0 49.3 38.1 31.0 45.4 41.2 39.9 44.2 39.3 40.8 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 49.2 56.2 43.2 36.7 35.4 47.8 47.5 54.9 36.8 37.6 57.5 53.9 40.3 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 26.4 21.8 23.2 21.2 23.7 38.1 27.2 33.3 32.8 39.6 51.1 38.2 29.9 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 55.8 48.3 48.2 43.2 49.1 56.2 49.5 43.2 44.6 53.5 54.4 51.1 41.6 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 60.9 69.8 53.1 44.6 41.1 61.4 64.0 65.2 44.3 42.5 51.1 56.0 53.8 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 34.9 39.7 51.3 45.0 38.2 42.4 47.5 51.1 51.6 40.4 40.4 43.2 43.9 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 52.0 44.6 34.8 33.4 34.5 51.0 47.9 40.3 36.6 39.8 55.9 40.9 40.2 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 34.7 35.6 14.9 19.8 23.5 37.9 28.9 31.6 22.4 36.1 35.1 24.2 25.0 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 25.6 19.3 11.4 21.4 24.7 26.6 30.1 23.0 29.8 35.5 30.9 27.1 26.5 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 40.0 35.6 30.1 31.7 34.7 47.9 35.0 31.6 36.1 41.0 43.0 34.4 35.4 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 46.3 54.7 55.4 56.9 37.9 44.3 53.2 61.4 58.4 40.1 45.1 52.2 62.8 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 61.5 69.3 53.9 43.6 44.8 67.8 57.3 63.7 41.5 45.5 60.6 69.1 43.2 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 45.9 50.0 25.2 29.7 30.7 36.6 42.1 42.2 34.7 34.7 20.4 35.5 20.7 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 47.2 37.6 22.8 41.9 37.1 40.3 46.3 41.5 49.0 42.1 57.0 60.0 48.2 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 26.2 16.0 6.4 10.4 14.7 18.0 19.4 9.9 8.4 13.3 16.7 5.6 9.5 7.0 10.7 39.7 39.2 31.3 24.9 22.4 39.0 25.4 30.7 23.3 23.5 37.2 34.4 17.9 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 47.5 34.5 33.6 31.4 40.9 51.1 45.6 42.4 35.0 45.2 45.5 54.9 39.0 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 43.6 36.1 40.9 53.3 54.8 44.6 35.8 30.2 47.8 48.0 58.8 52.4 51.3 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 61.2 51.7 58.0 62.2 62.5 57.7 60.0 53.1 57.2 56.2 56.5 55.2 61.8 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 62.4 45.8 51.8 60.0 61.9 48.9 48.4 38.6 53.6 54.3 52.3 46.5 48.7 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 53.2 52.0 45.6 64.7 68.7 59.4 58.7 50.4 66.6 69.5 68.1 58.9 67.5 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 52.4 47.0 53.9 53.7 56.9 63.6 60.2 48.2 62.5 63.4 54.3 48.4 53.7 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 61.0 69.2 69.6 69.6 65.8 75.5 62.6 78.2 75.8 70.2 58.5 56.5 59.8 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 50.0 37.3 38.6 47.9 60.5 56.6 42.7 47.0 53.5 61.7 59.1 53.8 50.0 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 44.0 33.8 29.6 42.7 49.0 34.3 33.1 37.5 51.9 52.0 45.2 33.3 31.7 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 64.5 64.7 62.6 61.3 61.4 63.2 65.3 60.7 63.6 60.1 51.6 49.5 57.8 56.2 52.2 54.8 52.3 47.8 54.8 42.6 62.1 51.6 54.0 61.6 46.0 54.3 50.0 51.2 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 51.6 38.7 25.4 31.5 27.8 68.5 57.5 50.7 52.9 52.1 75.5 67.4 48.8 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 27.2 30.4 13.9 15.8 14.8 43.7 39.0 35.8 25.6 25.7 52.1 40.2 36.6 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 26.0 21.3 17.5 14.9 16.5 32.2 35.0 40.3 32.4 35.8 38.3 44.6 37.8 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.5 7.0 2.5 3.7 4.7 5.4 3.2 4.4 3.7 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 1.7 5.6 3.4 2.2 3.0 3.3 5.3 3.3 4.9 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 12.1 11.3 5.3 9.0 10.8 17.5 10.3 9.0 6.6 8.7 10.6 9.8 7.3 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.4 2.8 1.7 0.0 1.1 1.6 3.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.7 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 2.4 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 1.6 2.7 0.0 2.1 1.8 5.6 5.1 3.0 4.4 5.7 10.6 5.4 2.4 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.5 1.1 1.4 0.0 3.0 1.9 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 11.3 12.7 3.5 7.0 n/a 22.4 12.8 14.2 12.0 n/a 22.3 15.2 9.8 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 4.8 4.0 0.0 1.6 4.2 7.0 3.4 5.2 5.3 8.1 5.3 4.3 3.7 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 8.1 8.0 0.9 3.9 n/a 12.6 4.3 6.8 6.3 n/a 7.4 7.6 6.2 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 17.7 16.0 4.4 9.3 n/a 28.7 13.6 17.2 15.0 n/a 24.5 17.4 11.0 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 9.7 11.3 2.7 5.8 n/a 14.0 12.1 9.1 8.2 n/a 17.0 12.1 6.2 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 2.7 0.0 2.3 n/a n/a 9.2 3.8 4.2 n/a n/a 8.7 2.5 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 20.2 18.0 8.0 13.4 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 10.2 32.4 25.8 28.4 27.8 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 25.7 45.2 25.0 28.4 40.6 39.2 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 9.6 8.8 3.5 5.7 4.5 12.7 16.9 11.3 10.1 9.1 12.8 10.9 19.5 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 3.2 2.0 4.3 4.3 2.8 7.6 2.6 4.5 7.5 6.4 7.4 2.2 8.5 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 10.7 9.4 3.5 6.9 7.0 12.6 17.8 21.4 16.8 18.0 7.4 16.7 22.2 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 2.1 0.0 0.8 1.7 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.2 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 5.6 4.7 1.8 3.1 2.3 2.8 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.1 2.4 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.5 2.1 0.9 2.3 1.3 1.2 2.1 0.0 1.2 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 3.2 6.7 3.5 3.8 n/a 8.4 6.8 6.7 5.4 n/a 12.8 5.6 3.7 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.7 3.0 2.1 2.8 2.1 2.2 1.2 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 2.4 2.0 0.9 1.7 n/a 5.6 2.6 3.1 2.6 n/a 4.3 1.1 2.5 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 4.8 8.0 4.4 4.9 n/a 11.2 6.8 8.2 7.1 n/a 14.9 7.6 4.9 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 4.8 7.4 0.0 3.1 n/a 7.0 6.9 3.0 3.7 n/a 10.6 6.6 1.2 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 0.7 0.0 0.9 n/a n/a 2.7 0.8 0.8 n/a n/a 2.2 1.3 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 12.9 11.5 4.4 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 0.0 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 21.8 16.2 20.0 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.8 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 29.8 13.0 18.3 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 2.5 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 4.1 8.8 1.8 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 35.5 38.3 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 11.9 6.9 9.8 34.2 21.5 22.3 n/a 33.1 35.3 1.8 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 26.7 19.9 24.0 5.4 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.8 6.5 16.0 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 37.6 37.0 32.1 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 8.5 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 11.2 10.7 1.7 8.4 7.8 19.4 20.0 19.3 16.5 14.7 17.0 22.9 19.3 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 22.2 27.2 17.4 14.3 13.4 18.2 17.1 16.2 9.6 11.2 17.0 13.5 14.3 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 4.9 3.3 1.8 3.6 3.1 9.8 10.7 5.9 7.7 7.2 5.4 10.6 8.5 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 0.8 4.0 1.8 1.7 2.2 6.3 6.6 0.7 2.1 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 5.6 8.0 3.6 5.0 4.8 9.7 13.9 9.0 6.0 6.0 11.7 9.5 6.1 5.9 5.8 19.2 7.3 8.8 9.8 12.9 23.1 13.1 7.4 8.9 11.8 14.0 8.3 7.3 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 8.0 2.7 3.5 5.5 5.4 11.2 5.7 5.9 5.6 5.5 6.4 8.3 4.8 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.2 2.1 0.0 1.2 1.4 1.2 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 91.1 State 2014 92.7 90.8 88.5 88.5 90.3 82.6 92.0 90.3 93.8 84.0 94.1 4.8 5.3 5.3 5.2 4.2 6.6 3.0 3.4 6.5 3.1 1.2 2.3 2-3 times 0.8 3.3 3.5 3.4 2.1 3.3 5.2 2.1 3.2 2.1 6.2 1.2 4-5 times 1.6 0.0 1.8 1.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.6 6-7 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.5 8-9 times 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2 12 or more times 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.1 2.1 4.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.9 0 times 72.8 84.0 86.8 85.1 83.1 88.4 80.6 91.1 88.2 93.8 91.5 94.3 1 time 2.5 12.8 8.7 7.0 8.3 7.7 5.8 7.5 4.5 3.2 4.2 2.4 2-3 times 9.6 6.7 3.5 4.1 4.2 2.5 7.5 2.3 6.5 2.1 2.4 1.4 4-5 times 4.0 0.7 2.6 1.0 2.1 0.0 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.4 6-7 times 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.3 8-9 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.2 1.1 0.0 1.2 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 3.3 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 57.6 83.0 64.9 54.4 59.8 68.6 67.8 67.6 71.6 80.9 80.2 84.0 1 time 11.2 7.9 14.0 10.3 7.1 6.6 8.1 6.7 4.3 4.2 2.5 4.1 2-3 times 8.8 10.6 12.3 12.0 7.9 7.4 11.0 9.3 6.4 6.3 6.2 5.9 4-5 times 7.2 4.6 4.4 5.1 5.0 4.1 3.7 3.8 2.1 3.1 2.5 2.0 6-7 times 1.6 2.0 6.1 2.5 0.0 1.7 0.7 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 8-9 times 1.6 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.4 0.8 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.7 10-11 times 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 12 or more times 9.6 8.6 7.0 7.8 10.0 10.7 6.6 5.0 5.3 4.2 3.7 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 60.9 73.8 n/a n/a 77.2 82.0 n/a n/a 82.1 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 11.3 10.5 n/a n/a 8.8 6.2 n/a n/a 7.1 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 12.2 8.8 n/a n/a 6.6 6.2 n/a n/a 1.2 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 7.8 2.3 n/a n/a 2.2 1.6 n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.7 1.0 n/a n/a 1.5 0.9 n/a n/a 1.2 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 3.5 0.7 n/a n/a 0.7 0.4 n/a n/a 1.2 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.3 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 2.6 2.5 n/a n/a 2.9 2.4 n/a n/a 6.0 2.2 92.8 88.8 92.2 90.1 88.1 90.1 89.1 93.9 90.4 95.8 89.2 95.7 1 day 2.4 5.9 4.3 4.7 7.0 5.8 5.1 2.8 5.3 2.1 4.8 1.8 2-3 days 3.2 4.6 1.7 3.3 2.8 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.2 1.2 4-5 days 1.6 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.8 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 0 days 1.1 1.1 3.2 0.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 2.1 1.7 1.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.8 96.8 96.7 97.4 95.8 96.5 89.7 94.1 94.4 94.6 96.8 90.5 94.5 1 day 0.0 1.3 0.9 1.9 1.4 2.6 2.9 1.5 1.1 2-3 days 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.0 2.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 0.0 3.6 4-5 days 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.2 6 or more days 1.6 1.3 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 68.2 7.9 13.2 4.6 1.3 1.3 0.0 3.3 0.9 72.6 9.7 11.5 1.8 2.7 0.9 0.0 0.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2012 1 time 0 times During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 0.5 1.1 3.6 1.1 1.1 0.5 1.1 2.1 4.3 1.5 2.5 2.2 2.2 1.2 2.8 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 69.2 5.0 10.8 4.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 9.2 77.8 5.2 5.9 2.2 3.7 2.2 0.0 3.0 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 88.5 5.2 3.1 1.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.5 7.2 7.2 2.4 3.6 1.2 0.0 4.8 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 59.2 57.0 45.2 54.6 45.5 59.4 57.9 40.0 52.6 43.8 63.8 52.6 28.0 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 3.2 2.7 0.0 3.7 4.2 1.4 5.9 3.0 4.2 4.0 6.4 3.2 4.9 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 13.7 20.8 14.2 20.7 19.1 23.9 19.0 12.6 21.1 18.3 19.1 24.5 8.5 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 30.9 21.6 27.2 25.1 23.4 26.8 26.7 16.5 23.8 23.0 30.1 22.8 14.8 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 27.4 35.1 26.1 29.1 25.0 31.0 33.3 20.7 28.9 24.7 35.5 27.7 13.4 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 21.0 21.5 20.4 23.6 20.8 14.7 18.8 6.8 18.3 15.9 10.6 9.7 9.8 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 20.2 20.1 20.4 23.8 14.3 22.5 17.1 9.0 19.7 12.5 18.3 8.5 8.5 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 33.1 22.0 25.7 26.2 19.6 33.6 25.2 21.1 25.7 18.4 31.9 22.1 19.5 21.5 16.9 6.5 4.0 5.2 5.0 5.8 2.1 11.9 1.5 4.6 5.5 2.1 2.1 3.7 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size* 19 30 7 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 5.3 0.0 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 0.0 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 2,574 41 19 39 3,493 36 22 19 4,131 0.0 7.4 4.9 5.3 10.3 7.6 2.8 0.0 5.3 10.5 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 14.3 4.5 0.0 15.8 2.6 3.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 3.7 36.8 23.3 0.0 14.5 36.6 31.6 38.5 25.3 52.8 36.4 31.6 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 0.0 16.7 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 14.3 19.8 26.8 15.8 15.4 16.7 13.9 13.6 15.8 17.1 10.5 33.3 42.9 20.5 36.6 15.8 33.3 16.2 25.0 22.7 31.6 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 36.8 23.3 14.3 15.4 19.5 21.1 35.9 21.5 36.1 31.8 52.6 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 26.3 13.3 14.3 19.8 29.3 26.3 17.9 26.3 19.4 9.1 15.8 21.6 I got it at a party. 52.6 36.7 28.6 33.8 41.5 47.4 59.0 45.6 41.7 18.2 68.4 50.9 I took it from home. 15.8 26.7 0.0 25.2 19.5 0.0 12.8 21.8 19.4 9.1 10.5 15.2 5.3 10.0 0.0 7.5 12.2 5.3 7.7 9.2 8.3 0.0 5.3 5.7 26.3 33.3 42.9 26.3 26.8 10.5 30.8 17.8 25.0 22.7 26.3 13.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. State 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 State 2014 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 23 13 2,261 26 39 2,880 19 26 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 4.3 7.7 10.9 11.5 15.4 13.4 21.1 23.1 17.7 Friends 78.3 76.9 69.5 65.4 74.4 77.8 68.4 69.2 78.2 Family/relatives 30.4 15.4 16.8 26.9 25.6 14.7 10.5 11.5 11.9 Parties 43.5 23.1 25.0 11.5 41.0 28.4 21.1 34.6 27.5 Home 8.7 7.7 6.3 7.7 12.8 5.3 15.8 19.2 5.5 School 13.0 7.7 14.8 15.4 7.7 12.3 10.5 7.7 7.6 Other 47.8 23.1 28.1 19.2 38.5 21.4 42.1 34.6 21.0 Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 11 7 3 1,130 27 12 17 1,428 16 12 10 1,596 Friends 72.7 57.1 33.3 47.1 63.0 50.0 52.9 56.3 75.0 83.3 50.0 59.4 Family/relatives 36.4 28.6 0.0 14.8 37.0 8.3 11.8 17.3 50.0 16.7 30.0 16.7 Parties 36.4 14.3 66.7 20.4 33.3 8.3 23.5 21.6 43.8 0.0 20.0 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 27.3 0.0 0.0 26.1 22.2 16.7 23.5 25.9 56.3 33.3 20.0 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 9.1 14.3 33.3 12.9 14.8 25.0 11.8 16.2 37.5 0.0 40.0 17.7 School 27.3 0.0 0.0 11.9 25.9 25.0 17.6 12.4 31.3 8.3 20.0 11.7 Other 18.2 0.0 66.7 17.9 11.1 0.0 23.5 14.2 25.0 8.3 10.0 13.8 Over the Internet 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.7 0.0 5.9 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 0.0 0.0 33.3 8.6 7.4 0.0 0.0 5.0 6.3 0.0 10.0 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 69.1 110 68.7 131 64.1 78 63.5 159 71.7 159 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 78.6 112 75.8 132 75.6 78 75.2 161 78.1 160 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 65.5 110 50.0 132 41.0 78 48.8 160 57.2 159 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 75.9 112 75.6 131 68.8 77 72.0 161 75.9 158 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 96.4 112 91.7 133 87.0 77 89.4 160 95.0 161 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 100.0 110 97.0 132 88.3 77 95.6 158 96.3 160 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 100.0 109 90.8 130 85.7 77 91.7 157 93.7 158 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 98.2 110 94.0 133 93.3 75 94.9 158 95.6 159 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 87.6 113 57.7 130 68.8 77 68.6 159 73.1 160 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 90.2 112 71.3 129 68.8 77 73.9 157 80.6 160 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 79.3 111 45.7 129 53.2 77 54.8 157 63.5 159 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 92.7 110 79.1 129 84.2 76 82.1 156 88.0 158 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 8.0 113 28.4 134 28.4 81 22.7 163 20.1 164 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 3.5 114 11.3 133 19.5 82 10.4 164 11.0 164 used marijuana Marijuana 3.5 113 21.4 131 22.2 81 15.3 163 15.5 161 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 4.4 114 8.2 134 4.9 82 4.8 165 7.3 164 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 66.1 61.1 80.0 78.5 49.3 54.7 57.5 58.3 33.0 55.1 54.9 47.1 Once 18.5 18.1 9.6 10.3 16.7 19.8 10.4 13.1 14.6 13.4 13.2 2-3 times 8.9 13.4 8.7 6.7 18.1 12.3 14.9 15.2 26.6 18.0 12.2 19.4 4-6 times 4.0 3.4 1.7 2.1 5.6 7.5 6.0 6.7 8.5 6.7 9.8 9.4 7-10 times 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 3.5 0.9 2.2 2.3 5.3 2.2 1.2 3.4 More than 10 times 2.4 3.4 0.0 1.7 6.9 4.7 9.0 4.4 8.5 3.4 8.5 7.5 Never 82.9 78.1 87.8 86.5 71.5 77.5 73.7 79.6 69.6 78.7 72.8 73.9 Once 8.9 8.9 9.6 6.8 9.7 4.9 15.0 8.4 14.1 5.6 9.9 9.2 2-3 times 4.9 8.9 2.6 3.7 6.3 8.8 3.8 5.3 8.7 9.0 6.2 6.8 4-6 times 1.6 0.7 0.0 1.2 4.2 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.2 1.2 3.1 7-10 times 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 2.8 0.0 2.3 1.2 0.0 More than 10 times 1.6 1.4 0.0 1.3 5.6 5.9 2.3 3.1 5.4 Never 76.2 66.2 77.4 75.5 67.6 51.5 46.3 57.5 64.9 Once 8.2 8.8 7.0 8.3 12.7 12.9 10.4 11.4 11.7 2-3 times 7.4 8.8 10.4 6.6 4.9 13.9 12.7 10.8 4-6 times 2.5 8.1 2.6 3.3 5.6 9.9 6.0 7-10 times 1.6 3.4 0.0 1.7 2.8 2.0 4.5 Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. 1.2 1.6 3.4 8.6 5.4 50.6 52.5 54.1 12.4 8.8 10.5 9.6 14.6 11.3 12.0 6.7 4.3 6.7 7.5 6.8 3.8 2.1 2.2 1.3 3.8 4.1 4.7 2.6 4.6 6.3 9.9 20.1 9.8 7.4 13.5 18.8 12.7 92.6 94.8 88.4 82.4 82.9 80.3 82.6 81.9 89.9 85.0 82.1 Once 1.6 4.7 3.5 5.5 8.5 3.8 8.3 7.6 8.5 4.5 5.0 6.7 2-3 times 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.7 4.2 2.9 7.6 4.3 4.3 2.2 2.5 5.0 4-6 times 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 3.8 2.3 2.0 1.1 7-10 times 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.4 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 More than 10 times 0.8 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.7 5.7 1.5 2.6 1.1 Grade 8 3.2 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 36.1 25.7 29.2 30.5 Once 21.3 25.7 14.2 11.6 Twice 3.3 7.6 6.2 Three times 2.5 4.2 Four or more times 5.7 I never get offers 31.1 1.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 1.3 1.0 2.2 6.3 3.0 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 70.2 28.3 41.2 35.2 58.7 30.3 49.4 39.2 29.8 22.1 16.8 14.4 41.3 16.9 17.7 15.6 4.6 0.0 8.0 12.2 6.9 0.0 14.6 8.9 7.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.4 3.1 3.5 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.8 7.6 3.5 4.6 0.0 10.6 3.8 6.3 0.0 5.6 3.8 6.7 29.2 46.9 46.4 0.0 26.5 22.9 33.6 0.0 29.2 20.3 27.1 37.5 Never 35.2 37.3 34.8 33.6 1.4 35.1 42.2 37.1 46.8 41.5 Once 13.9 18.3 9.8 9.4 98.6 11.7 14.8 13.2 98.9 11.4 19.0 14.2 Twice 6.6 5.6 5.4 4.3 0.0 8.1 9.4 7.0 0.0 13.6 5.1 8.1 Three times 5.7 2.1 0.9 2.2 0.0 8.1 3.1 3.6 0.0 3.4 2.5 4.0 1.1 6.6 7.7 2.7 3.7 0.0 13.5 5.5 5.4 0.0 3.4 5.1 5.2 I never get offers 32.0 28.9 46.4 46.7 0.0 23.4 25.0 33.7 0.0 30.7 21.5 26.9 Never 38.8 39.4 33.3 35.4 0.0 41.1 50.4 46.0 0.0 39.8 54.4 53.3 Once 13.2 16.2 11.7 8.5 100.0 16.1 14.2 9.7 100.0 13.6 10.1 9.2 Twice 4.1 6.3 4.5 3.2 0.0 4.5 6.3 3.9 0.0 10.2 7.6 3.9 Three times 2.5 2.8 2.7 1.9 0.0 2.7 2.4 2.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.3 Four or more times 9.1 7.0 2.7 3.7 0.0 10.7 1.6 4.0 0.0 4.5 7.6 3.7 I never get offers 32.2 28.2 45.0 47.3 0.0 25.0 25.2 34.2 0.0 28.4 20.3 27.6 Never 41.8 40.4 35.1 38.2 0.0 48.2 52.8 49.7 0.0 45.5 57.0 57.0 Once 8.2 17.7 6.3 6.8 100.0 9.8 12.6 7.8 100.0 9.1 15.2 7.6 Twice 4.1 2.1 5.4 2.4 0.0 5.4 6.3 2.9 0.0 9.1 3.8 3.0 Three times 2.5 2.1 0.9 1.5 0.0 2.7 1.6 1.7 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.8 Four or more times 9.0 6.4 3.6 3.3 0.0 7.1 3.1 3.3 0.0 3.4 1.3 2.7 34.4 31.2 48.6 47.8 0.0 26.8 23.6 34.6 0.0 29.5 22.8 27.9 I never get offers 47 1.1 95.1 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. 18.1 State 2014 Never 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 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 w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 81.6 75.5 87.0 87.7 75.9 76.4 78.7 1 or 2 times 10.4 11.3 9.6 6.4 8.3 8.9 9.6 89.1 84.0 88.5 81.9 89.6 5.0 4.3 3.1 10.8 3 to 5 times 0.8 4.6 2.6 2.5 4.1 7.3 5.1 4.7 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.4 6 to 9 times 2.4 2.6 0.0 1.2 2.8 0.8 0.7 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.4 10 to 19 times 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.7 4.1 2.4 0.7 0.6 1.2 2.1 2.1 0.0 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.8 2.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 1.6 0.7 30 to 39 times 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2 40+ times 1.6 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.4 2.4 4.4 0.2 1.1 3.2 2.1 1.2 Never 24.8 34.4 40.4 48.7 33.1 34.7 64.0 1.3 54.3 36.6 64.6 62.7 65.8 1 or 2 times 30.4 32.5 30.7 26.4 23.9 30.6 3 to 5 times 26.4 19.9 15.8 12.8 19.7 15.7 19.9 22.6 22.6 12.5 25.3 17.9 10.3 12.7 20.4 10.4 12.0 6 to 9 times 7.2 8.6 4.4 5.4 13.4 9.4 7.4 3.7 5.2 5.4 4.2 0.0 10 to 19 times 4.0 0.7 4.4 2.8 3.1 4.2 6.6 0.7 2.3 7.5 1.0 0.0 20 to 29 times 3.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.2 2.1 1.7 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.7 30 to 39 times 2.4 0.7 40+ times 1.6 1.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.3 2.2 3.1 0.0 0.3 2.6 2.3 3.5 1.7 0.7 1.5 5.4 3.1 0.0 Never 77.8 1.2 87.3 88.7 89.8 84.7 91.8 96.3 92.4 88.3 94.6 95.2 94.5 1 or 2 times 3 to 5 times 14.3 8.0 7.8 6.0 5.6 4.9 1.5 4.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.0 4.8 3.3 0.9 1.9 3.5 1.6 0.7 1.4 3.2 1.2 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.8 0.0 2.6 1.0 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.7 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 10 to 19 times 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 88.8 88.1 93.9 91.5 90.9 92.6 89.6 93.7 89.4 95.8 97.6 94.6 7.2 9.3 6.1 5.4 4.2 4.9 5.9 3.8 6.4 2.1 1.2 3.2 3 to 5 times 1.6 0.7 0.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 2.2 1.2 0.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.5 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 10 to 19 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 58.2 49.3 66.1 Once 15.6 18.2 11.6 2-3 times 12.3 16.9 4-6 times 4.1 7-10 times 1.6 More than 10 times Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 46.6 68.4 70.4 67.0 57.3 11.2 13.5 21.4 9.8 10.5 6.4 7.9 10.1 7.8 8.9 9.6 16.3 15.5 12.8 10.4 16.0 15.7 13.9 10.3 8.8 4.5 3.4 2.8 5.8 2.3 3.5 4.3 4.5 5.1 3.0 0.7 0.9 0.9 3.5 1.9 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.8 8.2 6.1 8.0 5.9 10.6 8.7 6.8 4.1 6.4 12.4 7.6 2.6 Never n/a n/a 48.7 48.0 n/a n/a 58.2 57.8 n/a n/a 68.3 68.2 Once n/a n/a 17.8 n/a n/a 11.9 15.7 n/a n/a 11.0 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 23.5 17.2 n/a n/a 12.7 14.9 n/a n/a 13.4 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 8.7 6.8 n/a n/a 6.7 4.7 n/a n/a 4.9 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 0.9 2.8 n/a n/a 3.7 2.1 n/a n/a 1.2 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 7.0 7.5 n/a n/a 6.7 4.8 n/a n/a 1.2 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 5.4 7.6 n/a n/a 10.1 6.0 n/a n/a 15.6 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 17.1 12.4 n/a n/a 14.7 14.8 n/a n/a 5.2 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 12.6 27.6 n/a n/a 24.8 34.3 n/a n/a 28.6 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 18.9 21.5 n/a n/a 24.8 n/a n/a 14.3 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 45.9 30.9 n/a n/a 25.6 n/a n/a 36.4 21.9 11.3 69.0 1.1 0.0 53.2 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 State 2014 1 or 2 times Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? Grade 12 County 2012 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 63.3 75.5 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Maricopa County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Maricopa County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Maricopa county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 19,118 45.1 18,821 46.1 17,076 51.0 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 12,105 28.5 11,867 29.1 8,694 26.0 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 11,212 26.4 10,158 24.9 7,699 23.0 11,541 23.9 All Students Surveyed* 42,435 100.0 40,846 100.0 33,469 100.0 48,244 100.0 Students By Gender Male 20,301 48.8 19,624 49.3 16,264 49.0 23,460 49.1 Female 21,269 51.2 20,183 50.7 16,939 51.0 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 681 4.4 575 4.2 610 5.0 989 5.3 African American 427 2.7 411 3.0 382 3.1 574 3.1 Asian 141 0.9 147 1.1 114 0.9 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 181 1.2 133 1.0 142 1.2 220 1.2 3,463 22.2 3,735 27.1 3,632 29.9 6,067 32.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 591 3.8 609 4.4 669 5.5 1,027 5.5 10,138 64.9 8,152 59.2 6,616 54.4 9,603 51.5 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 2010 Number Percent 658 1,702 County 2012 Number Percent 2.6 638 6.6 1,524 1,361 5.3 274 1.1 19,376 1,720 556 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent 2.6 530 2.6 1,274 4.5 6.2 1,419 7.0 1,790 6.4 1,374 5.6 1,258 6.2 1,459 5.2 224 0.9 200 1.0 260 0.9 75.6 17,901 72.5 14,940 73.8 20,587 73.4 6.7 1,658 6.7 1,707 8.4 2,413 8.6 2.2 1,366 5.5 191 0.9 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 15,622 36.8 13,762 33.7 12,165 36.4 18,649 Percent 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 25,647 60.4 24,685 60.4 20,245 60.5 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 42,435 100.0 40,846 100.0 33,469 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 27 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 28 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 1,840 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 2,307 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 2,971 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 2,242 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 3,242 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 3,268 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 2,851 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 3,902 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 4,332 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 1,630 Students** Sample (Rx): 774 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 1,823 Students** Sample (Rx): 977 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 1,535 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 1,778 Students** Sample (Rx): 876 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 2,524 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,487 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 1,801 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Maricopa County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,137 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,056 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 2,614 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,663 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 2,145 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 33.7 34.9 36.7 37.6 34.0 41.5 40.3 40.0 42.9 41.5 44.0 45.6 45.4 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 32.8 30.2 28.2 29.2 31.1 39.1 37.0 31.7 34.8 37.8 33.4 36.0 32.9 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 36.0 33.1 28.7 29.6 30.7 43.1 42.4 35.8 36.6 38.6 43.7 44.7 40.7 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 31.6 32.9 30.3 31.8 36.7 20.4 20.3 17.3 20.6 23.7 24.1 27.1 24.8 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 42.5 41.4 40.5 41.2 40.3 39.9 36.7 35.0 35.4 40.0 40.5 40.1 38.8 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 53.0 51.4 50.8 51.0 49.3 42.3 42.1 41.3 41.2 39.9 39.5 39.9 39.6 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 36.2 36.3 34.8 36.7 35.4 38.4 38.0 32.9 36.8 37.6 34.5 36.2 34.3 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 23.7 23.3 20.6 21.2 23.7 37.5 39.3 32.5 32.8 39.6 38.0 43.1 33.2 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 46.9 45.9 42.6 43.2 49.1 49.5 49.6 44.6 44.6 53.5 47.8 48.2 43.1 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 43.5 42.0 43.0 44.6 41.1 46.4 43.4 41.8 44.3 42.5 38.8 38.9 39.5 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 40.6 39.9 44.5 45.0 38.2 42.0 45.7 52.7 51.6 40.4 43.5 47.9 56.8 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 42.6 36.7 32.6 33.4 34.5 47.4 39.5 35.7 36.6 39.8 43.4 36.4 36.3 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 26.5 21.6 18.5 19.8 23.5 29.2 25.5 20.0 22.4 36.1 27.9 26.2 22.4 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 28.0 24.9 20.4 21.4 24.7 36.5 36.0 28.9 29.8 35.5 36.4 36.8 30.2 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 40.7 36.4 30.8 31.7 34.7 44.0 40.7 35.3 36.1 41.0 41.3 37.7 36.2 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 46.1 49.3 56.3 56.9 37.9 45.5 50.8 58.1 58.4 40.1 50.7 57.0 67.2 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 53.2 47.9 41.7 43.6 44.8 53.5 44.4 37.4 41.5 45.5 48.5 42.9 37.9 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 36.8 33.2 28.3 29.7 30.7 41.3 37.7 33.6 34.7 34.7 37.7 34.9 33.3 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 47.5 44.5 41.3 41.9 37.1 48.1 51.9 50.2 49.0 42.1 58.5 62.4 62.8 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 19.4 14.1 10.0 10.4 14.7 19.9 12.8 7.0 8.4 13.3 14.9 11.5 6.7 7.0 10.7 32.4 26.5 23.5 24.9 22.4 30.0 27.9 22.4 23.3 23.5 28.3 28.0 23.0 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 33.5 33.3 31.2 31.4 40.9 36.6 37.5 34.9 35.0 45.2 36.4 36.6 33.4 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 52.6 52.7 54.0 53.3 54.8 45.8 47.8 49.1 47.8 48.0 57.2 55.9 56.0 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 60.5 61.1 62.5 62.2 62.5 55.1 56.6 58.2 57.2 56.2 57.3 56.8 57.3 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 63.0 60.0 60.5 60.0 61.9 54.9 53.9 54.9 53.6 54.3 56.7 53.4 52.8 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 63.5 62.5 65.8 64.7 68.7 67.4 66.4 68.5 66.6 69.5 69.4 68.1 68.4 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 53.0 53.6 53.7 53.7 56.9 61.0 63.1 63.3 62.5 63.4 45.9 47.8 46.8 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 60.8 65.7 70.5 69.6 65.8 69.1 71.9 76.2 75.8 70.2 56.4 58.0 58.7 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 55.5 51.2 49.0 47.9 60.5 57.9 56.7 54.7 53.5 61.7 57.1 55.1 50.1 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 40.3 43.6 43.3 42.7 49.0 46.7 51.4 54.2 51.9 52.0 43.6 46.7 44.9 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 58.4 59.0 61.0 61.3 61.4 61.4 61.9 63.0 63.6 60.1 54.9 54.7 55.9 56.2 52.2 54.9 52.7 55.1 54.8 42.6 58.4 61.9 63.7 61.6 46.0 56.7 56.5 54.9 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 42.9 35.6 30.1 31.5 27.8 63.2 58.0 52.3 52.9 52.1 71.9 68.9 68.0 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 20.9 17.0 14.4 15.8 14.8 34.5 28.4 21.5 25.6 25.7 44.0 39.5 33.0 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 16.1 14.7 14.1 14.9 16.5 33.0 34.0 30.8 32.4 35.8 44.2 44.4 45.8 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.6 2.5 5.9 5.3 4.6 4.7 5.4 9.5 8.6 8.5 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 5.0 3.8 2.7 3.0 3.3 8.0 6.9 6.0 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 13.9 11.2 8.8 9.0 10.8 11.2 8.5 6.2 6.6 8.7 8.5 6.6 4.7 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.6 2.2 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 2.6 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 3.6 1.9 1.2 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 3.8 2.8 1.9 2.1 1.8 8.2 7.7 4.1 4.4 5.7 10.8 10.2 7.6 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.3 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 11.0 8.3 6.5 7.0 n/a 17.7 15.4 11.5 12.0 n/a 22.9 20.5 15.0 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 3.0 1.9 1.6 1.6 4.2 7.8 7.3 5.9 5.3 8.1 9.6 11.0 9.5 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 8.5 4.3 3.8 3.9 n/a 11.7 8.2 6.2 6.3 n/a 14.0 10.2 7.6 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 15.9 10.7 8.7 9.3 n/a 23.0 18.8 14.7 15.0 n/a 27.4 24.0 19.2 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 9.0 6.6 5.6 5.8 n/a 12.8 10.3 7.8 8.2 n/a 14.2 11.9 8.9 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 6.7 2.2 2.3 n/a n/a 10.6 4.0 4.2 n/a n/a 13.0 6.1 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 20.6 16.2 12.7 13.4 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 10.2 34.2 31.9 28.0 27.8 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 25.7 44.9 44.2 42.0 40.6 39.2 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 7.5 6.5 5.0 5.7 4.5 14.6 12.6 8.7 10.1 9.1 21.2 19.8 14.3 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 2.2 1.6 3.8 4.3 2.8 4.9 3.2 6.5 7.5 6.4 6.9 5.7 9.3 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 8.1 7.2 6.6 6.9 7.0 17.2 17.9 16.5 16.8 18.0 21.9 23.2 24.6 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.1 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 5.5 4.2 3.0 3.1 2.3 2.9 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 3.1 1.9 1.2 1.3 1.2 3.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 5.5 4.2 3.5 3.8 n/a 8.3 7.2 5.1 5.4 n/a 9.4 7.6 5.4 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.4 3.2 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 3.5 1.8 1.6 1.7 n/a 4.8 3.3 2.6 2.6 n/a 5.0 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 7.9 5.3 4.6 4.9 n/a 11.5 9.3 7.2 7.1 n/a 12.4 9.9 8.4 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 5.4 3.9 3.0 3.1 n/a 5.9 4.7 3.5 3.7 n/a 6.1 4.2 3.0 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 3.6 0.9 0.9 n/a n/a 4.8 0.8 0.8 n/a n/a 4.5 0.8 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 11.4 7.9 5.9 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 2.6 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 20.0 17.4 14.3 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.6 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 28.9 26.9 23.0 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 4.7 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 4.5 3.4 2.7 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 26.5 23.3 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 6.5 5.6 3.9 21.0 21.5 22.3 n/a 27.8 23.6 1.8 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 18.8 19.9 24.0 3.2 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.3 12.1 9.0 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 26.8 24.7 20.3 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.4 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 11.6 9.5 8.0 8.4 7.8 20.5 19.1 15.2 16.5 14.7 20.9 21.2 20.1 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 17.4 16.6 13.4 14.3 13.4 13.2 10.8 7.9 9.6 11.2 8.4 7.7 6.0 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 4.7 4.2 3.4 3.6 3.1 10.5 9.9 7.1 7.7 7.2 10.6 11.0 9.1 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 3.3 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.2 4.2 2.3 1.8 2.1 2.7 2.7 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 6.2 5.0 4.4 5.0 4.8 8.7 6.0 4.7 6.0 6.0 7.7 5.9 5.1 5.9 5.8 15.6 10.8 9.4 9.8 12.9 14.7 9.0 8.0 8.9 11.8 10.3 6.9 6.2 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 6.1 5.3 5.0 5.5 5.4 7.0 4.6 4.7 5.6 5.5 6.2 5.1 4.8 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 2.1 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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 often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** Grade 10 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 0 times 92.1 89.4 88.9 88.5 93.1 92.2 92.7 92.0 95.6 94.4 94.6 94.1 1 time 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.2 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.4 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2-3 times 2.0 2.9 3.3 3.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.1 1.2 1.3 0.9 1.2 4-5 times 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 6-7 times 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 8-9 times 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 10-11 times 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 12 or more times 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 91.1 93.5 93.4 94.3 94.3 2.5 0 times 81.2 84.2 85.9 85.1 88.6 90.7 92.3 1 time State 2014 10.3 8.6 7.9 8.3 6.5 4.9 3.9 4.5 3.8 3.2 2.5 2-3 times 5.5 4.6 3.9 4.1 3.1 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 4-5 times 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 6-7 times 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 8-9 times 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 10-11 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 12 or more times 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0 times 61.3 60.7 60.7 59.8 74.0 74.1 72.2 71.6 86.1 83.8 83.9 83.0 1 time 13.0 10.0 10.3 10.3 8.9 6.7 6.8 6.7 5.3 4.2 3.7 4.1 2-3 times 11.0 12.1 11.9 12.0 8.2 8.3 8.9 9.3 4.5 4.8 5.7 5.9 4-5 times 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.1 2.9 3.0 3.8 3.8 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 6-7 times 1.9 2.3 2.4 2.5 1.2 1.7 1.7 1.8 0.7 1.2 1.0 1.0 8-9 times 0.9 1.6 1.7 1.8 0.6 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 10-11 times 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 12 or more times 6.8 7.9 7.3 7.8 3.7 4.6 4.8 5.0 1.4 2.9 2.8 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 75.1 73.8 n/a n/a 83.0 82.0 n/a n/a 89.7 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 10.2 10.5 n/a n/a 5.9 6.2 n/a n/a 3.0 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 8.3 8.8 n/a n/a 6.0 6.2 n/a n/a 3.4 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 2.1 2.3 n/a n/a 1.5 1.6 n/a n/a 1.0 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.9 1.0 n/a n/a 0.7 0.9 n/a n/a 0.6 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.7 0.7 n/a n/a 0.4 0.4 n/a n/a 0.3 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.3 0.3 n/a n/a 0.2 0.2 n/a n/a 0.2 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 2.4 2.5 n/a n/a 2.1 2.4 n/a n/a 1.9 2.2 0 days 91.4 92.8 90.5 90.1 93.8 94.6 95.1 93.9 96.2 96.0 96.3 95.7 1 day 4.9 3.5 4.6 4.7 3.4 2.8 2.2 2.8 2.0 1.9 1.3 1.8 2-3 days 2.4 2.2 3.2 3.3 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.0 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 4-5 days 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 6 or more days 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 95.6 95.3 95.9 95.8 96.0 95.5 95.6 94.4 96.0 95.0 95.7 94.5 1 day 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 2-3 days 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0 days 1.1 1.1 1.1 4-5 days 0.3 6 or more days 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.9 2.0 2.5 1.6 2.3 2.1 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 71.4 8.7 8.6 3.7 1.7 1.3 0.5 4.1 69.6 8.9 9.0 3.8 1.7 1.4 0.6 5.0 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 74.7 6.9 8.3 3.0 1.4 1.0 0.5 4.1 74.5 6.9 8.0 3.1 1.4 1.3 0.3 4.4 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 79.2 5.4 7.0 2.8 1.2 0.8 0.5 3.1 82.0 4.3 6.0 2.2 1.3 0.7 0.2 3.3 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2010 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 61.5 59.5 54.9 54.6 45.5 59.6 57.5 52.9 52.6 43.8 56.1 53.1 47.4 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 5.6 4.7 3.7 3.7 4.2 4.9 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.0 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 22.1 24.4 21.3 20.7 19.1 20.7 22.7 21.8 21.1 18.3 19.1 21.4 19.9 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 28.2 25.8 25.1 25.1 23.4 27.2 24.4 23.6 23.8 23.0 23.9 20.6 20.7 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 36.0 32.0 29.3 29.1 25.0 36.1 31.3 29.2 28.9 24.7 35.2 29.9 26.7 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 27.1 26.9 24.4 23.6 20.8 21.1 20.1 18.5 18.3 15.9 13.8 13.3 11.9 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 26.3 24.9 24.4 23.8 14.3 21.9 20.6 19.8 19.7 12.5 17.7 15.3 15.3 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 27.7 25.3 26.2 26.2 19.6 27.5 24.0 25.4 25.7 18.4 24.6 21.6 21.8 21.5 16.9 4.7 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.8 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.6 5.5 3.7 3.5 3.9 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Sample size* Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 2,971 2,307 1,840 2,574 3,268 3,242 2,242 3,493 4,332 3,902 2,851 4,131 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 4.7 5.5 8.0 7.4 6.0 6.0 7.3 7.6 9.0 10.6 11.0 10.5 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 2.5 3.5 5.2 4.7 2.3 2.7 3.3 3.5 3.4 4.5 5.3 5.4 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. 2.8 3.6 4.5 4.5 2.0 2.6 2.8 3.0 2.3 2.9 3.4 3.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. 17.6 14.9 13.2 14.5 30.9 29.8 24.0 25.3 40.9 39.2 34.6 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 19.2 21.0 19.9 19.8 15.9 16.1 16.1 16.7 14.4 16.4 17.3 17.1 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 17.1 19.2 19.5 20.5 16.2 16.3 14.4 16.2 14.1 15.8 15.5 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 15.4 16.9 14.6 15.4 23.9 23.5 20.6 21.5 30.6 31.1 25.8 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 21.7 23.5 19.8 19.8 23.6 27.1 28.6 26.3 19.4 23.6 22.0 21.6 I got it at a party. 39.3 38.0 33.2 33.8 50.6 49.5 45.8 45.6 56.6 54.4 50.5 50.9 I took it from home. 31.1 29.1 25.9 25.2 23.8 24.2 23.6 21.8 14.2 15.2 16.5 15.2 9.8 8.3 7.5 7.5 10.6 9.9 10.3 9.2 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.7 24.5 24.8 25.7 26.3 17.5 17.3 16.6 17.8 12.4 12.0 12.2 13.7 I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 1,823 1,630 2,261 2,524 1,778 2,880 2,614 2,137 3,013 9.2 10.3 10.9 11.6 13.8 13.4 16.4 18.4 17.7 Friends 74.2 68.7 69.5 82.2 79.3 77.8 82.7 79.2 78.2 Family/relatives 17.2 16.3 16.8 13.6 13.4 14.7 11.6 11.0 11.9 Parties 27.3 23.0 25.0 29.0 28.7 28.4 30.8 27.2 27.5 Home 5.9 5.8 6.3 6.1 4.6 5.3 5.7 4.8 5.5 School 17.0 13.6 14.8 15.1 11.3 12.3 10.0 6.9 7.6 Other 27.2 26.2 28.1 19.7 18.4 21.4 18.9 18.6 21.0 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 1,535 977 774 1,130 1,801 1,487 876 1,428 2,145 1,663 1,056 1,596 Friends 59.9 46.9 45.9 47.1 68.5 60.1 55.6 56.3 71.0 63.0 59.6 59.4 Family/relatives 22.4 17.0 14.5 14.8 20.4 17.1 18.2 17.3 19.6 15.3 16.9 16.7 Parties 27.8 22.7 20.2 20.4 29.9 18.4 21.0 21.6 26.9 18.0 19.5 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 31.9 30.7 23.9 26.1 30.9 32.6 27.6 25.9 26.8 26.0 22.1 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 13.2 13.4 13.2 12.9 16.2 14.7 16.6 16.2 22.8 19.4 19.1 17.7 School 16.1 12.8 11.1 11.9 23.8 15.6 10.5 12.4 16.3 12.0 9.8 11.7 Other 18.4 17.0 17.3 17.9 16.5 11.3 12.8 14.2 14.4 11.2 11.0 13.8 Over the Internet 3.5 2.1 2.6 2.7 2.1 1.3 2.9 3.0 1.6 0.8 2.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 7.7 4.9 8.0 8.6 5.8 3.7 4.2 5.0 6.9 3.0 5.3 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Sample Grade 10 Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 78.6 15,479 82.7 8,263 79.2 7,112 77.1 14,719 82.4 15,912 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 81.0 15,545 88.2 8,286 87.2 7,115 83.1 14,754 85.6 15,967 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 64.2 15,243 47.4 8,137 36.4 7,019 48.9 14,527 57.5 15,654 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 79.6 15,450 83.6 8,265 82.3 7,112 79.8 14,694 82.8 15,911 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 94.9 13,824 92.7 7,759 87.9 6,651 91.8 13,383 93.4 14,660 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 98.1 13,841 96.8 7,764 92.4 6,649 95.6 13,387 97.1 14,673 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 95.9 13,725 90.5 7,719 84.6 6,617 90.6 13,298 92.8 14,570 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 96.7 13,789 96.2 7,754 95.7 6,646 96.4 13,366 96.3 14,630 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 84.4 14,489 71.8 7,887 65.0 6,717 74.4 13,735 78.4 15,151 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 88.6 14,469 78.4 7,877 66.7 6,709 78.4 13,721 83.0 15,130 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 78.0 14,415 54.3 7,868 42.7 6,693 61.9 13,688 64.8 15,083 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 90.1 14,439 82.1 7,871 77.5 6,703 83.8 13,702 86.2 15,106 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 12.7 16,299 28.0 8,430 42.0 7,290 21.9 15,355 24.8 16,424 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 5.0 16,278 8.7 8,275 14.3 7,156 8.5 15,168 7.7 16,307 used marijuana Marijuana 6.6 16,250 16.5 8,400 24.6 7,228 14.3 15,287 12.3 16,354 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 4.6 16,175 7.2 8,418 8.4 7,269 5.1 15,253 7.1 16,374 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: Never alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 73.4 74.5 58.3 42.3 State 2014 79.4 78.5 53.7 53.8 58.3 41.4 46.4 47.1 10.2 10.3 13.7 13.2 12.9 13.1 13.1 12.4 12.9 13.2 2-3 times 8.7 7.9 6.3 6.7 16.8 16.9 15.6 15.2 21.2 20.1 19.9 19.4 4-6 times 3.1 2.9 1.9 2.1 7.6 7.3 6.7 6.7 10.7 11.6 9.7 9.4 7-10 times 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.7 2.8 3.2 2.5 2.3 4.7 4.9 3.6 3.4 More than 10 times 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.7 5.4 5.7 4.0 4.4 8.1 9.5 7.4 7.5 Never 82.2 84.6 87.6 86.5 69.7 74.9 82.0 79.6 64.2 67.2 75.7 73.9 Once 8.0 7.6 6.5 6.8 10.0 9.7 7.5 8.4 10.0 9.6 9.0 9.2 2-3 times 4.7 4.2 3.4 3.7 8.2 6.3 4.6 5.3 9.1 8.4 6.2 6.8 4-6 times 1.9 1.5 1.0 1.2 3.8 2.9 2.3 2.5 4.5 4.2 2.7 3.1 7-10 times 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.5 2.1 1.6 0.9 1.2 2.6 2.2 1.5 1.6 More than 10 times 2.1 1.5 1.1 1.3 6.2 4.5 2.6 3.1 9.5 8.3 4.9 5.4 Never 76.5 75.5 76.1 75.5 58.8 57.5 56.0 52.3 Once 7.7 8.1 8.4 8.3 2-3 times 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.6 4-6 times 3.5 3.4 3.2 7-10 times 1.7 1.9 1.6 57.1 58.1 52.3 54.1 10.7 11.3 11.4 11.0 11.3 10.6 10.5 10.5 11.2 11.1 10.8 11.1 11.9 12.6 12.0 3.3 6.0 6.8 6.8 6.7 6.6 6.9 7.2 6.8 1.7 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.1 3.8 11.1 4.5 4.7 4.3 4.6 10.0 10.6 9.2 9.8 11.4 13.6 13.1 12.7 Never 88.3 88.4 88.6 88.4 80.7 82.8 83.5 82.6 81.4 82.0 81.8 82.1 Once 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 7.8 7.3 7.2 7.6 7.6 6.6 7.0 6.7 2-3 times 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.7 5.1 4.2 4.1 4.3 5.0 4.8 5.2 5.0 4-6 times 1.3 1.2 1.0 2.2 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 7-10 times 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 More than 10 times 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.9 2.4 2.6 1.1 Grade 8 2.8 2.8 Grade 10 1.1 3.1 2.1 1.0 2.7 3.0 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 30.2 27.3 30.1 30.5 69.2 31.9 35.9 35.2 58.2 34.4 39.3 39.2 Once 13.6 11.8 11.0 11.6 30.8 14.9 13.8 14.4 41.8 15.4 15.6 15.6 Twice 5.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 0.0 6.8 6.4 6.9 0.0 8.7 7.7 7.6 Three times 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.0 3.4 3.4 3.5 0.0 4.6 3.9 3.8 Four or more times 5.0 5.1 4.4 4.6 0.0 7.7 5.8 6.3 0.0 8.6 6.3 6.7 I never get offers 43.3 49.2 47.8 46.4 0.0 35.2 34.6 33.6 0.0 28.3 27.2 27.1 Never 35.0 30.5 33.3 33.6 1.8 34.4 36.7 37.1 3.7 37.6 41.4 41.5 Once 10.2 9.1 8.9 9.4 98.2 13.1 13.0 13.2 96.3 14.6 14.1 14.2 Twice 4.9 4.3 4.1 4.3 0.0 7.1 7.2 7.0 0.0 8.3 8.0 8.1 Three times 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.2 0.0 4.2 3.6 3.6 0.0 4.8 4.3 4.0 4.1 4.1 3.6 3.7 0.0 6.4 4.9 5.4 0.0 6.7 5.2 5.2 I never get offers 43.4 49.6 48.1 46.7 0.0 34.9 34.6 33.7 0.0 28.1 27.0 26.9 Never 36.5 32.8 34.7 35.4 0.7 43.5 46.3 46.0 1.4 51.2 54.5 53.3 Once 9.4 8.3 8.1 8.5 99.3 9.8 9.2 9.7 98.6 9.6 8.4 9.2 Twice 3.5 2.8 3.1 3.2 0.0 3.7 3.6 3.9 0.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 Three times 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.9 0.0 2.4 2.3 2.3 0.0 2.1 2.3 2.3 Four or more times 4.4 4.3 3.5 3.7 0.0 4.7 3.4 4.0 0.0 4.3 3.4 3.7 I never get offers 44.1 50.0 48.8 47.3 0.0 35.9 35.2 34.2 0.0 28.8 27.5 27.6 Never 39.9 35.7 37.6 38.2 0.6 47.8 50.5 49.7 0.9 55.3 58.1 57.0 Once 7.7 6.3 6.4 6.8 99.4 7.4 6.7 7.8 99.1 7.1 6.9 7.6 Twice 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.4 0.0 2.9 2.6 2.9 0.0 3.4 2.9 3.0 Three times 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.5 0.0 2.2 1.6 1.7 0.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 Four or more times 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.3 0.0 3.6 2.9 3.3 0.0 3.4 2.5 2.7 44.5 50.4 49.2 47.8 0.0 36.1 35.6 34.6 0.0 29.0 27.8 27.9 I never get offers 47 State 2014 11.6 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. County 2014 11.7 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 Once More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 86.4 88.3 87.7 83.2 88.2 90.5 89.1 85.1 88.6 90.6 89.6 8.0 6.7 6.2 6.4 7.7 5.4 4.4 5.0 7.1 5.2 4.2 4.7 3 to 5 times 3.0 2.9 2.3 2.5 3.1 2.5 2.1 2.6 2.9 2.5 1.8 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 10 to 19 times 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.8 0.6 20 to 29 times 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 40+ times 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.7 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.3 Never 30.3 39.8 50.8 48.7 31.7 44.6 56.4 54.3 43.7 56.6 67.4 65.8 1 or 2 times 29.0 28.2 25.8 26.4 27.2 24.5 22.5 22.6 25.7 21.3 17.3 17.9 3 to 5 times 18.3 15.8 12.1 12.8 18.9 17.1 12.2 12.7 16.2 12.3 9.1 9.4 6 to 9 times 8.9 7.6 5.1 5.4 9.5 6.7 4.6 5.2 6.6 4.8 2.8 3.1 10 to 19 times 5.6 3.6 2.6 2.8 6.2 3.3 1.8 2.3 4.0 2.3 1.3 1.6 20 to 29 times 2.4 1.6 1.0 1.2 2.2 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.7 30 to 39 times 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 40+ times 4.5 2.8 2.1 2.3 3.5 2.2 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.3 Never 81.8 88.0 90.2 89.8 82.4 90.5 93.7 92.4 86.9 92.4 95.0 94.5 1 or 2 times 10.2 6.9 5.8 6.0 9.7 5.4 3.6 4.2 7.6 4.2 2.8 3.0 3 to 5 times 3.4 2.4 1.9 1.9 3.2 1.7 1.4 2.3 1.6 0.8 0.9 6 to 9 times 1.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 10 to 19 times 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 40+ times 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.2 87.2 90.5 91.6 91.5 87.7 92.1 94.6 93.7 90.1 93.6 94.8 94.6 1 or 2 times 7.7 5.9 5.3 5.4 7.0 4.9 3.2 3.8 5.9 3.7 3.1 3.2 3 to 5 times 2.1 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.9 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.7 0.9 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 10 to 19 times 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 40+ times 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 65.6 58.4 69.9 Once 13.6 14.9 11.1 2-3 times 10.1 12.5 4-6 times 3.4 7-10 times 1.3 More than 10 times Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County 1.1 Grade 12 County Grade 12 County 60.0 71.7 70.4 67.9 11.2 12.6 13.3 10.5 10.5 10.8 11.8 7.7 7.8 9.5 9.6 12.1 13.2 10.5 10.4 10.7 12.4 10.2 10.3 4.5 3.2 3.4 4.2 5.0 3.1 3.5 4.0 5.1 2.8 3.0 2.0 0.8 0.9 1.7 2.2 0.8 1.0 2.0 2.1 0.6 0.8 5.9 7.7 5.5 5.9 5.5 6.4 3.4 4.1 4.6 5.7 2.3 2.6 Never n/a n/a 47.6 48.0 n/a n/a 57.6 57.8 n/a n/a 68.4 68.2 Once n/a n/a 18.0 17.8 n/a n/a 16.3 15.7 n/a n/a 13.3 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 17.3 17.2 n/a n/a 14.9 14.9 n/a n/a 11.2 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 7.0 6.8 n/a n/a 4.6 4.7 n/a n/a 3.4 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 2.8 2.8 n/a n/a 1.9 2.1 n/a n/a More than 10 times n/a n/a 7.4 7.5 n/a n/a 4.6 4.8 n/a n/a 2.7 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 7.7 7.6 n/a n/a 5.9 6.0 n/a n/a 6.1 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 12.6 12.4 n/a n/a 16.3 14.8 n/a n/a 17.8 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 28.3 27.6 n/a n/a 36.0 34.3 n/a n/a 36.8 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 21.3 21.5 n/a n/a 19.9 n/a n/a 19.2 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 30.1 30.9 n/a n/a 21.9 n/a n/a 20.2 21.9 21.1 23.8 62.9 Grade 12 State 63.8 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 State 2014 83.9 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 10 County 2010 76.4 1.1 75.5 1.2 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Mohave County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Mohave County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Mohave county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1,061 47.0 1,048 42.2 584 56.0 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 776 34.4 835 33.6 194 18.6 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 420 18.6 602 24.2 264 25.3 11,541 23.9 2,257 100.0 2,485 100.0 1,042 100.0 48,244 100.0 All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 1,067 48.0 1,180 48.7 507 49.1 23,460 49.1 Female 1,157 52.0 1,244 51.3 526 50.9 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Native American 34 6.6 34 5.2 12 3.6 989 5.3 African American 5 1.0 14 2.2 10 3.0 574 3.1 Asian 6 1.2 6 0.9 0 0.0 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 8 1.6 5 0.8 4 1.2 220 1.2 178 34.6 243 37.3 125 37.7 6,067 32.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked Percent 38 7.4 50 7.7 27 8.1 1,027 5.5 246 47.8 299 45.9 154 46.4 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 36 2.2 53 3.1 24 3.6 1,274 4.5 25 1.5 22 1.3 13 1.9 1,790 6.4 27 1.6 24 1.4 5 0.7 1,459 5.2 14 0.8 18 1.1 2 0.3 260 0.9 1,397 83.3 1,461 85.0 569 84.1 20,587 73.4 104 6.2 113 6.6 59 8.7 2,413 8.6 74 4.4 27 1.6 5 0.7 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 515 22.8 651 26.2 332 31.9 18,649 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 1,677 74.3 1,718 69.1 677 65.0 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 2,257 100.0 2,485 100.0 1,042 100.0 48,244 100.0 Hispanic Students Percent ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Mohave County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Mohave County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Mohave County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Mohave County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Mohave County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Mohave County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Mohave County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Mohave County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Mohave County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Mohave County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Mohave County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 80 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 162 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 216 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Mohave County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 49 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 225 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 219 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Mohave County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 103 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 220 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 172 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Mohave County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 56 Students** Sample (Rx): 40 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 144 Students** Sample (Rx): 68 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 134 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Mohave County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 47 Students** Sample (Rx): 21 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 215 Students** Sample (Rx): 142 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 144 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Mohave County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 64 Students** Sample (Rx): 50 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 141 Students** Sample (Rx): 130 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 99 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 47.4 52.3 45.1 37.6 34.0 54.2 55.5 60.8 42.9 41.5 58.6 63.9 58.6 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 48.0 41.1 31.9 29.2 31.1 47.2 48.4 51.5 34.8 37.8 47.0 46.4 50.4 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 46.6 40.7 29.4 29.6 30.7 45.6 46.1 39.4 36.6 38.6 52.7 46.0 46.1 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 42.3 36.9 36.6 31.8 36.7 23.6 25.8 29.4 20.6 23.7 33.9 37.6 38.5 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 51.7 51.0 40.1 41.2 40.3 43.1 43.7 44.0 35.4 40.0 42.1 41.9 47.9 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 56.3 56.5 51.6 51.0 49.3 47.1 40.3 44.0 41.2 39.9 43.7 43.1 44.7 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 54.3 43.6 37.1 36.7 35.4 48.1 50.5 44.7 36.8 37.6 42.1 51.3 49.3 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 34.3 29.5 25.0 21.2 23.7 46.1 48.6 45.3 32.8 39.6 50.0 45.7 47.7 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 54.1 49.0 38.5 43.2 49.1 55.2 51.9 45.6 44.6 53.5 51.9 53.9 52.5 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 50.7 47.2 47.4 44.6 41.1 51.1 49.2 56.7 44.3 42.5 43.7 39.9 43.3 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 56.7 51.3 44.9 45.0 38.2 46.0 51.9 58.9 51.6 40.4 42.7 44.2 58.2 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 50.7 42.6 33.7 33.4 34.5 49.5 43.1 41.0 36.6 39.8 44.0 37.8 44.2 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 38.2 34.0 20.5 19.8 23.5 29.0 36.3 33.0 22.4 36.1 34.1 36.0 35.9 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 38.4 35.4 23.5 21.4 24.7 35.5 41.2 36.0 29.8 35.5 37.7 36.3 30.5 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 48.7 42.9 32.5 31.7 34.7 46.2 46.8 40.5 36.1 41.0 42.1 40.5 38.9 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 57.7 62.5 60.3 56.9 37.9 52.0 62.2 68.8 58.4 40.1 54.3 61.0 70.2 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 66.2 56.7 48.4 43.6 44.8 61.5 55.6 57.5 41.5 45.5 62.9 55.8 50.0 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 53.7 45.3 30.4 29.7 30.7 40.7 46.3 35.7 34.7 34.7 36.0 32.8 33.9 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 61.2 53.8 31.6 41.9 37.1 43.8 51.6 42.2 49.0 42.1 57.9 57.8 55.3 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 20.0 12.6 11.6 10.4 14.7 15.7 13.3 13.3 8.4 13.3 13.5 12.3 11.0 7.0 10.7 44.8 29.0 27.0 24.9 22.4 34.8 35.6 27.7 23.3 23.5 39.5 35.7 29.5 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 27.0 28.9 30.6 31.4 40.9 35.0 32.7 30.9 35.0 45.2 32.1 32.0 29.5 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 45.3 41.7 49.8 53.3 54.8 43.6 39.0 42.1 47.8 48.0 60.5 52.0 46.5 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 52.6 54.0 62.9 62.2 62.5 50.0 48.1 52.2 57.2 56.2 55.8 52.9 50.7 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 53.7 51.2 61.7 60.0 61.9 50.1 44.2 43.6 53.6 54.3 57.1 48.5 41.6 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 51.8 45.7 60.0 64.7 68.7 57.6 57.3 51.6 66.6 69.5 60.9 54.8 61.4 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 38.9 42.2 58.3 53.7 56.9 56.8 54.3 50.8 62.5 63.4 47.6 43.6 44.9 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 51.4 56.6 74.3 69.6 65.8 68.8 65.4 69.4 75.8 70.2 56.1 56.9 53.0 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 44.2 36.4 43.8 47.9 60.5 50.0 47.5 33.1 53.5 61.7 52.8 46.0 40.6 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 36.7 35.4 40.6 42.7 49.0 41.6 45.7 38.5 51.9 52.0 34.8 37.9 36.3 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 50.8 55.1 70.7 61.3 61.4 62.3 57.4 59.4 63.6 60.1 51.0 55.5 48.1 56.2 52.2 40.6 31.5 58.8 54.8 42.6 53.4 47.1 48.2 61.6 46.0 57.8 51.5 42.0 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 57.3 46.4 34.1 31.5 27.8 68.5 68.7 61.1 52.9 52.1 77.1 76.5 75.5 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 32.0 25.7 17.4 15.8 14.8 36.0 38.7 36.6 25.6 25.7 47.6 47.9 45.1 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 24.5 22.4 15.0 14.9 16.5 33.7 42.6 38.9 32.4 35.8 44.4 52.1 52.0 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 4.6 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.5 6.0 6.6 4.3 4.7 5.4 9.2 8.3 6.2 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.5 1.6 0.9 1.6 1.7 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.0 3.3 4.8 6.9 5.3 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 18.9 11.4 7.9 9.0 10.8 12.8 12.6 8.6 6.6 8.7 13.1 11.7 7.4 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.5 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.5 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.6 1.0 2.4 1.1 2.2 1.1 1.0 2.7 2.8 2.5 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 7.0 4.7 1.6 2.1 1.8 8.7 10.7 5.5 4.4 5.7 11.2 13.6 6.6 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 2.0 2.4 1.8 1.5 1.1 2.9 2.1 4.4 1.9 1.3 2.4 2.4 3.3 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 17.1 12.2 7.4 7.0 n/a 23.3 22.1 17.1 12.0 n/a 27.7 27.1 22.5 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 4.0 2.6 2.3 1.6 4.2 6.1 6.4 5.5 5.3 8.1 5.8 9.7 5.3 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 14.1 5.8 4.2 3.9 n/a 15.0 11.9 13.8 6.3 n/a 15.7 14.9 14.6 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 23.1 15.0 9.4 9.3 n/a 27.5 24.7 21.4 15.0 n/a 31.5 28.6 25.8 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 12.8 10.3 6.7 5.8 n/a 12.8 12.5 11.6 8.2 n/a 17.4 14.9 15.1 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 7.7 3.1 2.3 n/a n/a 11.3 6.7 4.2 n/a n/a 14.5 9.2 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 29.8 25.2 14.4 13.4 10.2 34.4 35.9 30.1 27.8 25.7 43.7 43.1 49.0 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 13.0 9.9 6.7 5.7 4.5 13.9 15.1 16.0 10.1 9.1 21.3 22.3 19.3 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 3.9 2.1 3.4 4.3 2.8 4.7 2.6 11.2 7.5 6.4 8.7 6.8 17.1 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 13.2 11.6 5.4 6.9 7.0 17.8 22.2 19.8 16.8 18.0 20.1 21.7 24.3 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.8 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.8 1.6 0.9 0.8 1.5 1.9 2.9 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 7.5 4.1 2.9 3.1 2.3 4.1 2.8 1.6 1.3 1.3 2.9 1.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 3.0 1.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 3.4 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.2 4.6 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.9 1.1 2.8 0.6 0.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 8.2 6.1 4.0 3.8 n/a 13.1 10.2 8.3 5.4 n/a 12.1 11.8 10.2 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.9 1.6 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.9 1.9 2.8 2.1 2.8 1.9 1.6 1.6 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 5.2 3.0 1.5 1.7 n/a 7.3 4.7 6.1 2.6 n/a 7.1 6.1 5.0 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 11.5 8.4 4.5 4.9 n/a 15.7 12.3 11.5 7.1 n/a 14.3 13.4 12.3 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 6.6 5.7 3.3 3.1 n/a 5.3 5.4 6.1 3.7 n/a 10.7 3.6 5.4 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 4.0 1.3 0.9 n/a n/a 4.3 1.1 0.8 n/a n/a 4.9 2.9 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 16.5 13.5 6.5 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 3.3 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 20.9 19.0 19.3 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.8 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 29.4 25.1 33.5 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 8.4 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 6.2 5.7 3.2 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 33.6 27.3 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 8.0 7.3 7.7 20.6 21.5 22.3 n/a 28.9 26.6 2.7 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 29.3 19.9 24.0 4.9 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 14.2 12.8 15.4 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 30.9 25.0 30.6 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.8 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 19.9 14.8 7.1 8.4 7.8 18.0 25.9 18.8 16.5 14.7 23.9 23.3 23.5 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 23.0 18.2 15.5 14.3 13.4 15.2 13.2 21.9 9.6 11.2 14.0 11.8 11.1 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 7.4 5.3 2.1 3.6 3.1 9.9 13.0 9.3 7.7 7.2 10.6 11.8 11.5 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 7.1 2.7 0.9 1.7 2.2 3.8 3.2 3.8 2.1 2.7 3.3 2.7 2.3 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 11.8 9.4 7.9 5.0 4.8 10.3 10.6 12.0 6.0 6.0 9.3 9.4 10.0 5.9 5.8 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them 24.2 12.4 12.9 9.8 12.9 17.8 11.0 12.9 8.9 11.8 11.4 12.0 9.2 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 9.1 5.4 6.3 5.5 5.4 5.3 6.6 7.5 5.6 5.5 7.2 7.5 7.7 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 2.0 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.7 1.6 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.1 3.1 1.4 1.2 ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 0 times 87.1 84.1 86.6 88.5 90.7 90.9 84.9 92.0 94.5 92.4 94.3 94.1 1 time 7.0 6.7 4.4 5.2 5.0 3.4 6.5 3.4 2.9 3.2 0.4 2.3 2-3 times 3.4 4.5 4.2 3.4 2.0 2.3 3.2 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.7 1.2 4-5 times 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.6 6-7 times 0.1 0.4 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.5 8-9 times 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 12 or more times 1.1 2.1 1.6 1.1 0.7 1.3 2.2 1.0 0.7 1.5 1.5 0.9 91.1 83.7 91.1 92.0 93.2 93.9 94.3 2.5 0 times 73.7 78.0 84.2 85.1 85.8 1 time 13.4 10.3 9.3 8.3 7.6 4.9 8.7 4.5 4.6 3.9 3.4 9.1 7.2 3.7 4.1 4.0 2.4 3.8 2.3 2.2 1.0 1.5 1.4 4-5 times 1.6 1.3 0.5 1.0 1.7 0.2 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 6-7 times 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 1.6 1.6 1.4 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 50.5 70.3 83.0 56.7 60.1 59.8 69.9 70.7 71.6 82.7 77.2 80.9 1 time 12.1 8.4 10.6 10.3 10.1 6.3 5.9 6.7 5.0 5.4 3.9 4.1 2-3 times 12.6 11.9 11.1 12.0 8.4 9.1 9.6 9.3 4.8 6.9 7.4 5.9 4-5 times 5.4 6.0 4.1 5.1 2.0 5.0 5.3 3.8 1.7 3.0 2.3 2.0 6-7 times 2.6 2.0 2.1 2.5 1.6 2.1 0.5 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.0 8-9 times 2.2 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.0 1.7 1.4 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.3 During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 12.9 10.1 7.8 6.2 5.6 6.4 5.0 3.4 5.1 3.9 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 73.1 73.8 n/a n/a 73.7 82.0 n/a n/a 84.6 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 10.9 10.5 n/a n/a 7.5 6.2 n/a n/a 3.8 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 7.0 8.8 n/a n/a 10.8 6.2 n/a n/a 4.6 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 3.3 2.3 n/a n/a 3.2 1.6 n/a n/a 2.7 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.2 1.0 n/a n/a 1.1 0.9 n/a n/a 0.4 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.7 0.7 n/a n/a 1.1 0.4 n/a n/a 0.4 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.4 0.3 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 3.3 2.5 n/a n/a 2.7 2.4 n/a n/a 3.5 2.2 84.5 90.7 88.9 90.1 95.5 94.7 89.8 93.9 95.7 96.6 95.8 95.7 1 day 8.1 4.6 5.3 4.7 2.2 2.5 4.3 2.8 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.8 2-3 days 4.5 2.9 2.6 3.3 1.0 1.6 4.8 2.0 1.4 0.5 1.9 1.2 4-5 days 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 1.5 1.3 2.5 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.8 93.8 94.2 96.1 95.8 96.0 93.7 88.8 94.4 94.5 92.9 91.7 94.5 1 day 2.4 2.3 1.6 1.9 1.3 1.3 4.3 1.5 1.2 1.9 2-3 days 1.9 1.4 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 2.7 1.1 1.9 0.8 2.3 4-5 days 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.7 1.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0 days 1.1 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 6 or more days 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.1 2.1 3.5 2.7 2.5 1.9 3.7 4.2 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 69.1 7.7 10.5 4.4 1.7 0.6 0.7 5.3 67.8 7.2 9.7 4.4 1.9 0.9 1.2 6.9 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 68.5 8.5 10.2 4.1 1.2 1.8 1.0 4.6 71.5 7.0 8.6 4.8 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.7 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 74.3 6.4 8.3 3.0 1.4 0.7 0.8 5.1 75.7 6.9 8.9 3.1 0.8 0.4 0.0 4.2 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 1.1 13.7 12 or more times During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? 1.1 State 2014 2-3 times 10-11 times During the past 12 months, how often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* Grade 12 County 2012 0 times During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 60.0 54.9 46.4 54.6 45.5 57.6 56.5 45.2 52.6 43.8 52.9 56.3 39.4 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 5.4 4.5 1.6 3.7 4.2 4.1 3.8 5.4 4.2 4.0 6.0 5.6 4.3 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 24.6 21.6 13.3 20.7 19.1 21.5 25.1 17.3 21.1 18.3 17.3 23.4 13.9 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 26.9 22.2 20.5 25.1 23.4 20.3 22.8 15.1 23.8 23.0 19.1 22.0 15.2 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 35.9 31.8 23.5 29.1 25.0 35.0 27.7 26.9 28.9 24.7 30.2 31.9 21.1 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 22.8 19.3 15.8 23.6 20.8 15.7 17.4 14.2 18.3 15.9 11.6 10.5 11.9 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 26.8 24.6 19.1 23.8 14.3 21.7 20.6 15.7 19.7 12.5 17.6 17.4 13.9 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 28.8 25.9 25.4 26.2 19.6 24.0 22.2 22.3 25.7 18.4 22.7 22.5 17.1 21.5 16.9 4.0 3.9 3.9 5.0 5.8 4.5 2.4 2.7 4.6 5.5 4.1 3.8 1.2 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Sample size* Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 216 162 80 2,574 219 225 49 3,493 172 220 103 4,131 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 2.3 4.3 2.5 7.4 5.9 6.2 4.1 7.6 9.9 4.5 6.8 10.5 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 1.9 3.1 2.5 4.7 0.5 1.8 0.0 3.5 4.1 2.3 10.7 5.4 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. 3.7 3.7 2.5 4.5 0.9 1.8 2.0 3.0 4.7 2.7 6.8 3.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. 17.6 18.5 11.3 14.5 36.5 32.4 28.6 25.3 47.7 34.5 45.6 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 18.5 21.6 21.3 19.8 22.4 19.6 28.6 16.7 18.6 14.5 26.2 17.1 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 14.8 21.0 23.8 20.5 16.0 16.9 18.4 16.2 12.8 13.2 23.3 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 19.4 18.5 16.3 15.4 30.6 26.7 22.4 21.5 33.7 32.7 39.8 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 21.3 24.1 16.3 19.8 21.5 22.7 12.2 26.3 19.2 19.5 20.4 21.6 I got it at a party. 37.5 37.7 40.0 33.8 50.2 48.4 40.8 45.6 41.9 49.1 51.5 50.9 I took it from home. 31.0 19.8 28.8 25.2 22.4 22.7 14.3 21.8 13.4 10.5 15.5 15.2 I took it from a store or someone else's home. 13.9 9.3 1.3 7.5 7.3 9.8 6.1 9.2 6.4 6.8 8.7 5.7 I got it some other w ay. 31.5 26.5 26.3 26.3 15.1 17.8 26.5 17.8 13.4 15.0 27.2 13.7 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 144 56 2,261 215 47 2,880 141 64 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 10.4 21.4 10.9 12.1 14.9 13.4 20.6 20.3 17.7 Friends 70.8 58.9 69.5 80.0 55.3 77.8 72.3 84.4 78.2 Family/relatives 19.4 17.9 16.8 18.1 21.3 14.7 12.1 28.1 11.9 Parties 29.2 23.2 25.0 31.2 14.9 28.4 27.7 35.9 27.5 Home 6.9 5.4 6.3 11.6 12.8 5.3 5.0 17.2 5.5 School 8.3 12.5 14.8 9.8 6.4 12.3 6.4 12.5 7.6 25.0 44.6 28.1 27.0 48.9 21.4 18.4 39.1 21.0 Other Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size** 134 68 40 1,130 144 142 21 1,428 99 130 50 1,596 Friends 61.9 58.8 52.5 47.1 66.0 69.7 57.1 56.3 72.7 68.5 70.0 59.4 Family/relatives 23.1 20.6 17.5 14.8 28.5 22.5 9.5 17.3 21.2 15.4 18.0 16.7 Parties 36.6 22.1 30.0 20.4 38.2 23.9 42.9 21.6 36.4 26.2 30.0 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 29.9 26.5 17.5 26.1 36.8 23.2 14.3 25.9 25.3 26.9 14.0 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 13.4 11.8 5.0 12.9 21.5 11.3 14.3 16.2 28.3 17.7 12.0 17.7 School 25.4 13.2 2.5 11.9 25.0 14.1 23.8 12.4 27.3 14.6 22.0 11.7 Other 21.6 22.1 17.5 17.9 20.1 11.3 33.3 14.2 19.2 10.8 28.0 13.8 Over the Internet 3.7 7.4 7.5 2.7 2.8 0.7 0.0 3.0 7.1 1.5 8.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 5.2 5.9 15.0 8.6 5.6 2.1 4.8 5.0 7.1 1.5 6.0 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 74.4 539 67.8 174 64.8 233 65.4 451 76.2 487 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 77.4 539 75.9 174 82.6 236 75.6 455 81.3 486 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 66.7 531 41.2 170 40.4 235 50.5 444 60.3 484 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 77.9 539 75.9 174 78.6 234 74.7 451 80.5 488 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 91.8 499 86.3 161 73.6 220 84.1 422 88.5 451 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 96.6 497 94.4 161 82.3 220 91.4 420 93.6 451 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 95.1 491 82.3 158 72.8 213 84.4 417 90.0 438 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 97.4 494 94.4 161 93.2 221 95.5 418 96.0 451 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 81.4 506 54.9 164 48.2 226 64.1 423 71.5 467 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 89.4 502 67.9 165 52.0 225 73.1 420 78.3 466 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 79.7 503 51.9 162 42.9 224 61.2 418 68.8 464 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 92.1 504 77.6 165 72.6 223 81.3 422 87.3 463 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 14.4 557 30.1 183 49.0 243 22.1 470 29.7 505 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 6.7 554 16.0 181 19.3 244 12.4 466 10.7 505 used marijuana Marijuana 5.4 552 19.8 182 24.3 239 14.2 464 11.4 501 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 4.5 556 11.5 182 12.3 244 6.2 471 9.3 503 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 61.7 63.8 79.0 78.5 51.4 45.9 45.4 58.3 40.6 38.4 39.4 47.1 Once 13.1 14.3 8.3 10.3 13.9 17.4 18.9 13.1 14.3 15.3 15.9 13.2 2-3 times 14.7 11.1 7.2 6.7 17.9 18.2 17.8 15.2 20.5 19.4 17.9 19.4 4-6 times 5.7 4.0 3.2 2.1 7.0 7.8 12.4 6.7 8.9 12.2 10.6 9.4 7-10 times 1.2 2.0 1.1 0.7 3.3 2.8 2.2 2.3 5.6 4.2 4.9 3.4 More than 10 times 3.5 4.8 1.3 1.7 6.4 7.9 3.2 4.4 10.1 10.4 11.4 Never 76.4 78.3 86.2 86.5 69.4 68.9 70.8 79.6 65.9 65.2 69.0 73.9 Once 8.9 10.0 6.7 6.8 10.0 12.4 8.6 8.4 9.0 9.5 8.6 9.2 2-3 times 6.8 5.6 3.6 3.7 8.2 6.8 8.6 5.3 8.0 9.2 5.3 6.8 4-6 times 2.7 2.1 1.4 1.2 2.1 2.4 4.3 2.5 3.9 3.2 5.7 3.1 7-10 times 1.7 1.1 0.4 0.5 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.9 3.0 0.4 1.6 More than 10 times 3.5 2.9 1.8 1.3 8.0 7.5 5.9 3.1 11.4 9.9 11.0 5.4 Never 68.5 67.5 80.9 75.5 62.8 49.4 56.5 57.5 53.3 51.2 54.1 Once 8.1 8.8 6.5 8.3 9.2 13.1 10.9 11.4 11.4 10.2 10.5 2-3 times 7.5 8.6 4.0 6.6 9.2 13.4 7.1 10.8 8.0 10.4 12.7 12.0 4-6 times 4.9 5.1 3.4 3.3 4.4 6.6 8.7 6.7 6.8 6.9 8.6 6.8 7-10 times 2.5 3.1 2.0 1.7 2.8 4.4 3.3 3.8 2.4 4.2 2.9 3.8 13.6 9.8 12.9 14.3 12.7 79.3 82.6 81.8 79.9 76.6 82.1 8.4 6.8 3.2 4.6 86.5 89.7 88.4 82.9 79.7 Once 6.3 6.5 5.2 5.5 6.0 8.0 11.4 7.6 8.5 6.2 9.8 6.7 2-3 times 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 3.7 4.7 3.8 4.3 2.4 4.6 5.7 5.0 4-6 times 1.6 1.6 0.5 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.2 3.2 2.0 2.1 7-10 times 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.7 1.9 0.4 1.0 More than 10 times 3.0 2.2 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.4 4.2 5.3 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 32.1 33.3 32.2 Once 15.7 13.4 11.8 11.6 31.0 16.1 Twice 6.0 5.3 4.1 4.6 0.0 Three times 3.1 2.6 2.1 2.3 0.0 Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. 1.1 13.1 1.0 1.1 14.1 3.9 4.2 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 30.5 69.0 35.5 39.5 35.2 57.8 32.1 41.9 39.2 12.8 14.4 42.2 18.8 12.4 15.6 7.2 10.5 6.9 0.0 9.3 7.7 7.6 3.5 5.2 3.5 0.0 4.3 3.0 3.8 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 5.7 6.2 4.3 4.6 0.0 9.4 8.7 6.3 0.0 10.7 8.5 6.7 37.4 39.3 45.5 46.4 0.0 28.3 23.3 33.6 0.0 24.8 26.5 27.1 Never 35.4 37.5 33.1 33.6 1.8 34.9 48.0 37.1 4.1 36.4 41.5 41.5 Once 10.6 11.5 10.7 9.4 98.2 15.1 10.5 13.2 95.9 14.7 14.8 14.2 Twice 7.3 5.6 4.1 4.3 0.0 9.1 8.2 7.0 0.0 9.3 6.1 8.1 Three times 4.3 2.6 2.8 2.2 0.0 4.1 3.5 3.6 0.0 6.6 3.1 4.0 5.5 4.0 3.6 3.7 0.0 8.8 7.0 5.4 0.0 9.3 6.6 5.2 I never get offers 36.9 38.9 45.6 46.7 0.0 28.1 22.8 33.7 0.0 23.7 27.9 26.9 Never 38.3 39.5 35.9 35.4 0.1 44.3 47.4 53.3 Once 10.8 9.6 10.7 8.5 99.9 Twice 4.4 5.0 2.6 3.2 Three times 3.5 2.4 1.7 Four or more times 4.9 4.2 I never get offers 38.1 Never Once 50.3 46.0 1.7 44.8 11.8 12.3 9.7 98.3 13.5 11.8 9.2 0.0 4.9 4.7 3.9 0.0 5.2 4.4 3.9 1.9 0.0 3.2 1.8 2.3 0.0 3.1 3.5 2.3 3.6 3.7 0.0 6.6 8.2 4.0 0.0 8.3 3.9 3.7 39.5 45.5 47.3 0.0 29.3 22.8 34.2 0.0 25.1 28.9 27.6 44.2 43.9 39.1 38.2 0.3 48.7 56.8 49.7 1.9 54.2 54.2 57.0 8.0 7.5 8.5 6.8 99.7 9.4 8.9 7.8 98.1 8.9 8.4 7.6 Twice 3.5 3.4 2.8 2.4 0.0 3.4 4.1 2.9 0.0 4.7 2.6 3.0 Three times 2.2 2.1 1.3 1.5 0.0 3.3 3.0 1.7 0.0 2.4 3.1 1.8 Four or more times 3.8 2.7 2.3 3.3 0.0 5.4 4.1 3.3 0.0 3.8 3.1 2.7 38.2 40.3 45.9 47.8 0.0 29.8 23.1 34.6 0.0 26.0 28.6 27.9 I never get offers 47 1.1 11.6 I never get offers Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. 11.1 7.5 85.6 Four or more times Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. 58.4 State 2014 Never 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 80.3 83.2 87.7 80.6 81.7 82.4 89.1 79.0 83.2 86.6 89.6 9.9 7.5 8.7 6.4 6.5 7.9 7.5 5.0 9.8 6.8 6.1 4.7 3 to 5 times 4.3 4.9 3.5 2.5 5.6 4.4 3.7 2.6 4.1 3.9 1.1 2.0 6 to 9 times 2.1 2.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.7 1.2 10 to 19 times 3.3 1.3 1.4 0.7 1.9 1.7 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.4 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.9 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.2 40+ times 2.6 2.9 1.4 1.0 2.5 2.1 3.2 1.1 2.6 1.4 3.1 1.3 Never 18.6 33.2 48.6 48.7 28.3 40.4 43.8 54.3 36.6 49.9 56.5 65.8 1 or 2 times 23.5 26.1 29.6 26.4 27.8 24.4 21.6 22.6 22.7 21.2 22.9 17.9 3 to 5 times 23.7 19.0 12.2 12.8 18.8 16.8 21.1 12.7 21.5 13.8 9.2 9.4 6 to 9 times 12.4 8.4 4.6 5.4 12.2 8.8 3.8 5.2 9.1 7.5 5.7 3.1 10 to 19 times 8.7 4.8 2.0 2.8 5.3 4.7 4.9 2.3 5.3 2.9 1.5 1.6 20 to 29 times 3.9 1.8 1.2 3.1 2.0 2.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.9 0.7 30 to 39 times 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 40+ times 7.4 5.8 1.8 2.3 3.6 2.7 2.2 1.5 3.1 2.6 1.9 1.2 Never 79.6 85.0 90.7 89.8 82.9 87.2 87.0 92.4 87.9 91.8 91.6 94.5 1 or 2 times 10.0 9.2 5.5 6.0 9.3 6.5 7.6 4.2 6.7 5.0 4.2 3.0 3 to 5 times 2.8 2.9 0.9 1.9 3.7 2.9 2.7 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.9 0.9 1.1 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.6 1.1 6 to 9 times 1.9 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.4 0.0 0.7 1.9 0.7 10 to 19 times 3.7 0.7 0.2 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.6 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.1 40+ times 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.5 1.1 86.8 90.7 92.4 91.5 93.8 93.4 89.2 93.7 91.4 93.8 93.5 94.6 1 or 2 times 8.3 5.3 4.4 5.4 3.4 3.8 8.1 3.8 6.5 3.4 3.8 3.2 3 to 5 times 1.3 2.4 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.3 6 to 9 times 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.0 10 to 19 times 1.7 0.3 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40+ times 1.2 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.4 Never Grade 8 County 65.4 Grade 8 County 59.7 Grade 8 State 65.9 Grade 10 County 69.0 1.1 Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County Grade 12 County 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 1.1 Grade 12 County 0.7 Grade 12 State 65.5 58.4 70.5 70.4 66.7 57.0 71.7 75.5 Once 11.5 15.1 10.0 11.2 10.9 14.6 8.5 10.5 8.4 9.3 9.7 7.8 2-3 times 11.9 10.7 10.8 9.6 11.5 13.7 11.4 10.4 12.3 14.8 10.1 10.3 4-6 times 2.8 3.8 5.4 7-10 times 1.8 1.5 More than 10 times 6.5 9.2 Never n/a Once 2-3 times 3.4 5.8 4.0 2.3 3.5 5.4 6.8 2.5 3.0 0.9 1.2 2.2 1.7 1.0 1.7 2.1 2.1 0.8 6.9 5.9 5.1 7.2 5.7 4.1 5.4 10.0 3.8 2.6 n/a 51.9 48.0 n/a n/a 60.3 57.8 n/a n/a 76.3 68.2 n/a n/a 14.8 17.8 n/a n/a 16.8 15.7 n/a n/a 8.6 12.9 n/a n/a 15.9 17.2 n/a n/a 13.0 14.9 n/a n/a 9.8 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 6.7 6.8 n/a n/a 2.2 4.7 n/a n/a 1.2 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 2.3 2.8 n/a n/a 1.6 2.1 n/a n/a 1.6 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 8.5 7.5 n/a n/a 6.0 4.8 n/a n/a 2.4 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 8.1 7.6 n/a n/a 9.4 6.0 n/a n/a 8.3 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 8.8 12.4 n/a n/a 7.6 14.8 n/a n/a 13.9 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 23.8 27.6 n/a n/a 28.2 34.3 n/a n/a 32.6 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 22.7 21.5 n/a n/a 27.6 n/a n/a 17.4 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 36.5 30.9 n/a n/a 27.1 n/a n/a 27.8 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 State 2014 76.8 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 10 County 2010 1.1 21.1 23.8 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Navajo County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Navajo County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Navajo county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 586 38.1 772 56.6 341 30.3 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 494 32.1 313 23.0 417 37.0 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 459 29.8 278 20.4 368 32.7 11,541 23.9 1,539 100.0 1,363 100.0 1,126 100.0 48,244 100.0 All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 764 50.6 705 52.9 571 51.0 23,460 49.1 Female 746 49.4 628 47.1 548 49.0 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Native American 24 8.7 22 8.2 11 5.7 989 5.3 African American 5 1.8 8 3.0 3 1.6 574 3.1 Asian 1 0.4 1 0.4 2 1.0 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 3 1.1 5 1.9 4 2.1 220 1.2 117 42.6 117 43.5 87 45.3 6,067 32.5 16 5.8 19 7.1 9 4.7 1,027 5.5 109 39.6 97 36.1 76 39.6 9,603 51.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked Percent 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 270 22.7 214 21.3 128 14.7 1,274 4.5 10 0.8 17 1.7 6 0.7 1,790 6.4 8 0.7 6 0.6 5 0.6 1,459 5.2 7 0.6 9 0.9 8 0.9 260 0.9 784 65.8 688 68.4 674 77.1 20,587 73.4 70 5.9 61 6.1 44 5.0 2,413 8.6 43 3.6 11 1.1 9 1.0 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 275 17.9 269 19.7 192 17.1 18,649 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 1,192 77.5 1,006 73.8 874 77.6 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 1,539 100.0 1,363 100.0 1,126 100.0 48,244 100.0 Hispanic Students Percent ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Navajo County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Navajo County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Navajo County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Navajo County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Navajo County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Navajo County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Navajo County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Navajo County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Navajo County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Navajo County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Navajo County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 30 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 101 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 70 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Navajo County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 67 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 61 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 116 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Navajo County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 102 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 67 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 131 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Navajo County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 33 Students** Sample (Rx): 21 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 113 Students** Sample (Rx): 70 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 50 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Navajo County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 68 Students** Sample (Rx): 46 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 49 Students** Sample (Rx): 37 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 74 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Navajo County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 69 Students** Sample (Rx): 56 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 45 Students** Sample (Rx): 45 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 78 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 35.5 35.8 29.8 37.6 34.0 46.3 39.9 40.9 42.9 41.5 52.8 52.0 47.0 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 32.1 31.9 23.1 29.2 31.1 41.5 36.9 33.4 34.8 37.8 34.5 32.7 26.8 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 33.8 30.9 24.8 29.6 30.7 38.4 36.1 34.9 36.6 38.6 39.7 31.1 33.5 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 41.3 34.7 36.3 31.8 36.7 33.5 39.4 43.4 20.6 23.7 38.4 42.4 49.4 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 38.5 38.1 35.1 41.2 40.3 35.2 29.2 23.5 35.4 40.0 36.3 32.0 31.9 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 54.0 45.0 44.5 51.0 49.3 39.6 37.3 35.1 41.2 39.9 35.7 40.0 37.1 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 37.0 40.5 37.2 36.7 35.4 41.7 37.8 38.2 36.8 37.6 42.5 35.3 32.2 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 18.3 18.3 10.0 21.2 23.7 28.3 28.3 24.0 32.8 39.6 33.5 33.1 24.9 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 42.8 40.1 32.9 43.2 49.1 45.0 40.4 40.9 44.6 53.5 46.9 47.2 36.8 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 47.5 44.3 45.6 44.6 41.1 52.6 46.6 42.4 44.3 42.5 46.1 38.1 38.0 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 38.9 36.4 36.8 45.0 38.2 41.3 43.2 46.2 51.6 40.4 38.5 44.0 57.9 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 39.1 32.6 26.7 33.4 34.5 45.9 37.7 35.0 36.6 39.8 49.3 34.9 33.2 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 26.6 30.2 21.3 19.8 23.5 30.7 25.3 21.3 22.4 36.1 32.2 21.7 20.8 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 21.8 27.3 13.1 21.4 24.7 29.8 29.0 26.6 29.8 35.5 31.8 24.4 25.3 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 31.7 32.4 25.1 31.7 34.7 43.9 38.9 34.4 36.1 41.0 42.6 35.3 29.7 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 39.6 45.9 42.4 56.9 37.9 39.1 39.5 42.6 58.4 40.1 45.6 39.9 50.0 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 50.3 50.2 34.3 43.6 44.8 62.7 43.4 43.2 41.5 45.5 57.0 43.9 36.1 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 34.2 38.9 27.7 29.7 30.7 42.6 34.0 29.1 34.7 34.7 33.7 29.5 24.9 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 38.6 38.6 27.9 41.9 37.1 37.9 47.0 43.4 49.0 42.1 47.6 48.4 47.5 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 16.0 18.5 10.4 10.4 14.7 20.4 14.0 8.0 8.4 13.3 21.7 8.1 7.8 7.0 10.7 30.0 27.7 16.5 24.9 22.4 30.1 25.9 23.4 23.3 23.5 31.9 24.9 23.4 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 41.5 46.4 48.9 31.4 40.9 52.4 51.5 47.3 35.0 45.2 48.0 49.6 50.9 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 55.8 54.7 54.2 53.3 54.8 50.1 52.1 54.9 47.8 48.0 60.6 65.4 58.9 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 67.6 64.4 68.1 62.2 62.5 56.9 64.1 64.2 57.2 56.2 57.2 63.2 59.0 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 65.0 60.9 65.5 60.0 61.9 58.8 61.1 60.9 53.6 54.3 58.5 63.4 55.6 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 70.3 66.5 65.9 64.7 68.7 61.4 71.8 65.4 66.6 69.5 68.6 69.1 68.7 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 64.1 58.4 67.0 53.7 56.9 60.2 76.4 56.3 62.5 63.4 52.5 53.8 50.5 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 68.6 69.6 77.6 69.6 65.8 71.5 77.6 82.9 75.8 70.2 62.6 68.4 68.9 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 64.2 53.3 56.5 47.9 60.5 62.6 66.8 62.6 53.5 61.7 61.2 61.3 58.7 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 46.5 47.8 42.6 42.7 49.0 45.2 55.6 58.0 51.9 52.0 41.4 51.6 44.5 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 68.2 72.3 72.3 61.3 61.4 61.9 65.1 70.0 63.6 60.1 58.5 59.6 58.0 56.2 52.2 69.1 57.8 65.8 54.8 42.6 62.8 72.5 69.9 61.6 46.0 60.9 67.3 61.7 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 36.4 35.0 21.8 31.5 27.8 55.9 45.6 38.0 52.9 52.1 64.2 54.4 50.4 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 24.4 28.9 20.2 15.8 14.8 39.7 29.6 30.2 25.6 25.7 49.3 38.7 33.8 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 17.3 24.1 19.0 14.9 16.5 33.3 26.5 28.9 32.4 35.8 40.4 36.2 36.6 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.5 4.9 3.3 3.7 4.7 5.4 5.3 7.7 4.7 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.6 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.7 5.7 2.0 2.9 3.0 3.3 8.9 5.9 3.9 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 10.8 12.4 7.0 9.0 10.8 10.5 6.2 8.6 6.6 8.7 11.6 8.5 7.7 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 1.4 1.5 0.3 3.4 1.1 1.6 3.3 0.7 1.4 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 1.0 3.2 1.6 2.7 1.1 1.0 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 1.9 2.7 1.5 2.1 1.8 5.3 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.7 6.5 6.7 4.7 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.7 1.3 3.2 1.9 1.3 1.8 3.0 1.9 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 10.3 9.5 9.8 7.0 n/a 17.3 14.1 13.3 12.0 n/a 21.8 23.1 12.1 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 2.1 2.6 0.6 1.6 4.2 4.7 3.9 4.9 5.3 8.1 3.8 6.7 5.0 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 7.2 4.9 4.6 3.9 n/a 9.8 6.9 5.6 6.3 n/a 10.9 9.0 6.3 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 13.4 11.5 12.5 9.3 n/a 21.4 16.6 14.9 15.0 n/a 24.7 25.0 14.3 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 8.0 8.4 7.4 5.8 n/a 11.3 10.7 9.9 8.2 n/a 12.1 12.3 10.7 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 8.2 3.4 2.3 n/a n/a 10.7 4.7 4.2 n/a n/a 11.6 6.6 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 17.0 17.6 10.0 13.4 10.2 30.4 23.0 20.3 27.8 25.7 34.9 30.5 30.1 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 10.5 12.8 8.8 5.7 4.5 18.0 11.2 13.4 10.1 9.1 24.3 18.1 15.3 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 4.2 6.6 7.3 4.3 2.8 7.8 8.2 10.5 7.5 6.4 15.6 10.7 17.3 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 9.9 12.7 7.3 6.9 7.0 15.4 13.1 15.1 16.8 18.0 17.9 16.7 15.5 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.1 0.7 3.0 1.7 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.5 2.6 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.8 2.2 1.1 0.8 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 3.0 4.2 2.4 3.1 2.3 2.8 1.6 2.7 1.3 1.3 2.2 2.2 1.7 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.1 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.8 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 0.3 1.4 0.3 0.8 0.5 1.7 1.0 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.9 1.1 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.7 1.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 5.2 5.3 4.3 3.8 n/a 7.8 6.6 4.7 5.4 n/a 10.5 9.4 4.4 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.8 1.4 1.3 2.3 1.5 2.1 2.8 1.1 3.4 1.9 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 1.9 2.3 2.5 1.7 n/a 4.0 4.0 1.5 2.6 n/a 4.2 2.6 1.9 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 6.6 6.1 6.1 4.9 n/a 9.3 8.2 5.2 7.1 n/a 12.2 11.2 5.8 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 3.0 4.4 4.3 3.1 n/a 5.1 5.5 3.0 3.7 n/a 5.4 6.0 3.0 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 4.7 1.2 0.9 n/a n/a 4.6 0.5 0.8 n/a n/a 5.2 1.1 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) 9.5 10.9 4.0 6.3 n/a Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* n/a n/a 2.5 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 20.3 14.2 12.2 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.0 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 22.4 17.6 18.6 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 4.1 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 5.4 6.0 3.9 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 22.4 20.6 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 11.4 5.9 3.4 16.3 21.5 22.3 n/a 26.7 20.2 2.7 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 16.6 19.9 24.0 2.9 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 10.9 10.0 11.6 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 24.5 20.5 16.9 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.6 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 12.6 15.8 10.1 8.4 7.8 23.3 17.8 18.8 16.5 14.7 24.7 20.0 22.8 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 14.0 15.0 10.7 14.3 13.4 16.0 10.1 8.5 9.6 11.2 17.0 6.9 5.8 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 3.3 5.7 3.3 3.6 3.1 7.4 5.2 7.4 7.7 7.2 10.0 8.1 8.1 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 3.6 3.1 3.0 1.7 2.2 5.7 1.6 3.7 2.1 2.7 3.5 2.2 3.0 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 6.9 7.6 6.5 5.0 4.8 12.9 5.6 8.1 6.0 6.0 11.7 7.2 7.7 5.9 5.8 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them 17.5 11.7 8.3 9.8 12.9 11.9 6.2 8.3 8.9 11.8 13.5 7.6 5.2 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 10.7 8.1 4.8 5.5 5.4 7.4 6.5 12.5 5.6 5.5 9.5 6.5 6.9 5.6 5.5 1.4 2.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.2 2.0 1.5 2.8 1.4 1.2 Carried a handgun to school ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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 often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 92.9 86.8 87.2 88.5 91.6 92.9 88.8 92.0 94.9 93.1 88.1 94.1 4.5 5.1 5.3 5.2 4.6 2.6 3.9 3.4 2.4 3.6 6.4 2.3 2-3 times 1.2 3.1 5.3 3.4 1.5 1.0 2.7 2.1 1.6 1.8 2.2 4-5 times 0.5 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.7 6-7 times 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 8-9 times 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 12 or more times 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.1 0.8 2.3 2.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.9 79.4 79.0 80.5 85.1 82.7 89.6 90.0 91.1 91.8 91.3 94.2 94.3 2.5 1.1 1.2 0.6 1 time 11.2 11.2 10.9 8.3 8.8 6.2 4.2 4.5 6.0 5.8 1.4 2-3 times 6.2 5.5 4.7 4.1 4.6 2.0 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.2 1.9 1.4 4-5 times 1.7 1.6 2.4 1.0 1.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.4 6-7 times 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 8-9 times 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 0.9 1.2 0.9 0.7 1.3 1.3 2.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 0 times 59.7 55.5 60.5 59.8 67.8 70.8 63.1 71.6 79.6 78.3 78.9 83.0 1 time 13.0 11.2 8.9 10.3 8.8 9.5 9.5 6.7 7.1 6.2 7.2 4.1 2-3 times 10.6 12.5 11.9 12.0 9.8 8.9 9.3 9.3 6.7 4.7 6.1 5.9 4-5 times 4.0 5.3 6.2 5.1 4.4 3.6 3.2 3.8 1.3 3.6 1.9 2.0 6-7 times 1.7 2.3 0.6 2.5 1.5 1.3 2.7 1.8 0.7 2.9 1.7 1.0 8-9 times 1.4 0.8 0.9 1.8 1.3 1.3 2.7 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.3 10-11 times 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 12 or more times 8.3 11.9 10.7 7.8 5.9 4.6 9.3 5.0 3.1 3.6 3.6 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 73.9 73.8 n/a n/a 80.6 82.0 n/a n/a 85.3 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 10.7 10.5 n/a n/a 5.4 6.2 n/a n/a 3.1 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 8.0 8.8 n/a n/a 7.9 6.2 n/a n/a 3.6 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 2.1 2.3 n/a n/a 2.0 1.6 n/a n/a 3.3 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.9 1.0 n/a n/a 0.7 0.9 n/a n/a 8-9 times n/a n/a 1.2 0.7 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 n/a n/a 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.3 0.3 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 12 or more times n/a n/a 3.0 2.5 n/a n/a 3.4 2.4 n/a n/a 2.5 2.2 92.9 88.5 90.1 90.1 91.2 95.7 85.9 93.9 91.8 96.0 88.3 95.7 1 day 3.7 4.6 6.0 4.7 4.4 2.6 9.8 2.8 4.0 1.5 8.3 1.8 2-3 days 2.3 2.9 2.7 3.3 2.9 0.3 2.4 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.2 4-5 days 0.7 1.6 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 0.5 2.4 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 0 days 94.1 91.7 97.6 95.8 89.9 90.8 84.4 94.4 1 day 3.3 2.0 0.6 1.9 3.4 2.3 2.9 1.5 2-3 days 1.2 1.9 0.9 0.8 2.3 2.0 2.4 1.1 4-5 days 0.0 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 95.6 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 91.6 86.7 94.5 0.7 2.2 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.5 6 or more days 1.4 3.4 0.3 1.1 3.8 4.6 9.0 2.5 2.4 6.5 9.4 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 69.6 8.3 8.7 3.6 2.0 1.2 0.8 5.8 74.5 9.5 7.4 2.7 0.3 0.9 0.6 4.2 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 74.8 8.2 6.9 2.6 2.0 1.6 0.3 3.6 70.2 6.1 10.0 5.1 1.5 1.2 0.2 5.6 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 76.0 9.1 4.7 3.6 1.1 0.4 0.0 5.1 80.1 7.2 6.1 1.9 0.6 0.6 0.3 3.3 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2012 1 time 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 60.6 55.7 51.1 54.6 45.5 57.5 51.1 46.9 52.6 43.8 50.2 44.7 40.8 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 2.2 3.1 3.3 3.7 4.2 1.2 2.6 3.4 4.2 4.0 4.2 5.5 3.3 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 15.4 16.7 13.8 20.7 19.1 13.9 16.5 13.9 21.1 18.3 12.8 15.3 13.2 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 23.8 20.9 19.9 25.1 23.4 27.1 21.0 22.0 23.8 23.0 21.4 19.6 16.4 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 35.4 28.6 31.2 29.1 25.0 32.7 29.4 27.3 28.9 24.7 31.5 28.1 22.7 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 23.3 24.6 21.8 23.6 20.8 18.8 19.9 18.2 18.3 15.9 12.2 14.8 12.4 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 28.0 25.7 20.8 23.8 14.3 21.1 20.8 21.4 19.7 12.5 17.4 17.2 15.9 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 24.1 25.3 19.9 26.2 19.6 26.2 22.4 24.2 25.7 18.4 24.3 18.5 19.2 21.5 16.9 4.3 4.8 3.9 5.0 5.8 4.4 3.9 5.8 4.6 5.5 4.0 5.1 4.4 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size* 70 101 30 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 5.7 5.9 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 1.4 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 2,574 116 61 67 3,493 131 67 102 4,131 0.0 7.4 5.2 4.9 6.0 7.6 9.9 3.0 8.8 10.5 2.0 0.0 4.7 3.4 1.6 3.0 3.5 1.5 0.0 1.0 5.4 5.7 3.0 3.3 4.5 2.6 4.9 3.0 3.0 2.3 0.0 2.0 3.7 35.7 29.7 30.0 14.5 37.9 42.6 40.3 25.3 52.7 47.8 47.1 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 2.9 13.9 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 13.3 19.8 10.3 16.4 14.9 16.7 11.5 11.9 12.7 17.1 18.6 17.8 3.3 20.5 20.7 16.4 22.4 16.2 11.5 14.9 11.8 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 22.9 17.8 13.3 15.4 29.3 34.4 22.4 21.5 24.4 31.3 26.5 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 17.1 16.8 23.3 19.8 26.7 32.8 20.9 26.3 19.1 22.4 13.7 21.6 I got it at a party. 35.7 29.7 13.3 33.8 42.2 42.6 44.8 45.6 38.9 41.8 35.3 50.9 I took it from home. 18.6 15.8 16.7 25.2 16.4 11.5 14.9 21.8 5.3 11.9 8.8 15.2 8.6 8.9 0.0 7.5 8.6 9.8 4.5 9.2 4.6 4.5 6.9 5.7 34.3 27.7 26.7 26.3 32.8 16.4 17.9 17.8 19.8 11.9 18.6 13.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. State 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 State 2014 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 113 33 2,261 49 68 2,880 45 69 3,013 4.4 6.1 10.9 16.3 23.5 13.4 6.7 13.0 17.7 Friends 69.0 78.8 69.5 81.6 79.4 77.8 86.7 65.2 78.2 Family/relatives 17.7 24.2 16.8 22.4 16.2 14.7 22.2 14.5 11.9 Parties 18.6 12.1 25.0 49.0 30.9 28.4 40.0 21.7 27.5 Home 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.1 13.2 5.3 8.9 7.2 5.5 School 11.5 12.1 14.8 14.3 19.1 12.3 13.3 7.2 7.6 Other 31.0 18.2 28.1 24.5 26.5 21.4 28.9 21.7 21.0 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 50 70 21 1,130 74 37 46 1,428 78 45 56 1,596 Friends 50.0 51.4 47.6 47.1 62.2 70.3 60.9 56.3 64.1 57.8 50.0 59.4 Family/relatives 16.0 14.3 9.5 14.8 23.0 21.6 21.7 17.3 21.8 15.6 16.1 16.7 Parties 18.0 28.6 0.0 20.4 25.7 18.9 21.7 21.6 21.8 24.4 19.6 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 26.0 25.7 19.0 26.1 20.3 24.3 19.6 25.9 20.5 17.8 19.6 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 24.0 5.7 19.0 12.9 16.2 13.5 17.4 16.2 21.8 31.1 19.6 17.7 School 22.0 10.0 0.0 11.9 16.2 5.4 23.9 12.4 21.8 17.8 16.1 11.7 Other 16.0 21.4 14.3 17.9 17.6 13.5 8.7 14.2 12.8 8.9 19.6 13.8 4.0 0.0 4.8 2.7 4.1 0.0 4.3 3.0 1.3 2.2 0.0 1.9 12.0 5.7 0.0 8.6 10.8 5.4 6.5 5.0 6.4 4.4 1.8 5.7 Over the Internet Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 82.7 313 85.7 399 79.7 354 80.4 536 85.5 524 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 83.1 313 91.5 398 88.7 355 87.7 535 88.4 525 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 70.3 313 60.1 393 51.3 349 56.7 533 63.8 516 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 80.8 313 90.2 397 85.9 355 83.9 535 88.2 524 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 98.8 258 93.4 392 90.2 346 92.6 501 94.9 489 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 98.5 259 95.1 391 93.1 346 94.8 500 95.9 490 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 97.7 256 90.5 388 88.4 344 90.5 493 92.8 489 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 97.7 257 96.7 391 97.4 345 97.8 497 96.7 490 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 91.0 277 72.1 394 72.5 349 78.0 513 76.8 501 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 90.9 275 71.9 395 71.8 348 75.1 510 78.9 502 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 85.9 277 66.0 394 65.8 348 72.2 511 70.5 502 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 93.9 277 86.8 395 86.2 349 89.5 513 87.8 502 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 10.0 329 20.3 408 30.1 362 21.5 553 19.1 539 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 8.8 329 13.4 409 15.3 360 14.4 554 10.6 537 used marijuana Marijuana 7.3 329 15.1 405 15.5 362 13.6 550 12.1 539 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 6.1 328 5.2 407 5.8 363 4.7 551 6.7 540 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 75.1 71.7 81.9 78.5 54.0 60.1 66.5 58.3 48.9 58.1 63.3 47.1 Once 12.5 10.9 9.6 10.3 11.5 13.2 11.2 13.1 10.5 5.8 13.2 2-3 times 6.6 10.2 4.8 6.7 17.4 13.9 9.8 15.2 17.8 17.6 15.0 19.4 4-6 times 2.3 3.1 0.6 2.1 7.7 5.9 5.6 6.7 10.2 6.0 7.2 9.4 7-10 times 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.7 3.0 2.0 0.5 2.3 5.3 2.2 0.8 3.4 More than 10 times 1.6 2.8 2.1 1.7 6.4 5.0 6.4 4.4 6.7 5.6 7.8 7.5 Never 83.0 78.9 85.8 86.5 68.3 76.7 75.7 79.6 62.4 73.2 77.2 73.9 Once 6.3 9.1 4.5 6.8 10.6 8.2 6.6 8.4 9.1 8.2 6.4 9.2 2-3 times 4.0 5.6 5.1 3.7 6.8 7.5 4.7 5.3 11.1 7.8 3.9 6.8 4-6 times 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.2 4.7 3.0 3.7 2.5 5.1 1.1 4.4 3.1 7-10 times 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.5 2.6 0.7 1.7 1.2 3.1 1.5 3.3 1.6 More than 10 times 2.8 2.6 2.1 1.3 7.0 3.9 7.6 3.1 9.1 8.2 4.7 5.4 Never 79.9 70.4 79.8 75.5 63.7 70.3 65.1 57.5 62.7 67.3 68.9 54.1 Once 7.2 7.5 4.8 8.3 10.5 6.3 9.1 11.4 8.0 6.8 5.0 10.5 2-3 times 4.9 7.5 5.1 6.6 8.8 8.0 8.1 10.8 8.7 9.8 8.9 12.0 4-6 times 3.5 4.7 3.3 3.3 4.5 6.0 4.2 6.7 6.5 3.8 4.2 6.8 7-10 times 1.9 2.2 2.1 1.7 2.8 2.3 2.9 3.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 3.8 Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. 2.6 7.8 4.8 4.6 9.7 7.0 10.6 9.8 10.2 10.6 12.7 90.5 87.2 91.2 88.4 87.1 84.8 82.9 82.6 82.9 83.5 86.9 82.1 Once 5.7 5.2 3.0 5.5 6.0 7.4 5.9 7.6 7.9 6.0 3.1 6.7 2-3 times 1.6 3.6 1.5 2.7 2.1 4.4 3.7 4.3 2.5 4.9 4.2 5.0 4-6 times 0.4 1.3 1.5 1.9 0.7 1.0 2.0 2.9 1.9 1.4 2.1 7-10 times 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 More than 10 times 1.4 1.6 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 4.7 2.6 Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. Grade 8 1.1 2.7 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 32.9 33.0 30.9 30.5 74.4 28.9 34.6 Once 12.2 11.6 10.2 11.6 3.3 3.0 Twice 3.9 6.0 5.7 4.6 Three times 3.4 2.7 2.5 Four or more times 4.8 5.6 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 33.2 35.2 69.1 11.6 11.9 14.4 30.9 0.0 6.8 5.8 6.9 2.3 0.0 4.1 2.0 4.5 4.6 0.0 6.8 46.2 46.4 0.0 25.6 2.6 Grade 12 County 2014 41.1 12.1 Grade 10 County 2012 42.0 39.2 11.5 9.6 15.6 0.0 7.6 4.5 7.6 3.5 0.0 3.1 3.7 3.8 5.6 6.3 0.0 10.3 3.9 6.7 41.8 40.2 33.6 0.0 34.4 36.3 27.1 34.5 33.0 I never get offers 42.9 Never 36.4 33.4 33.0 33.6 1.3 36.3 37.1 2.9 41.1 41.5 Once 8.4 10.3 8.7 9.4 98.7 8.3 11.2 13.2 97.1 11.1 10.4 14.2 Twice 4.3 6.3 5.1 4.3 0.0 6.3 4.8 7.0 0.0 6.5 4.8 8.1 Three times 3.4 3.1 1.9 2.2 0.0 2.7 5.1 3.6 0.0 5.7 5.1 4.0 3.4 5.2 3.5 3.7 0.0 4.7 5.1 5.4 0.0 8.0 3.4 5.2 I never get offers 44.1 41.7 47.8 46.7 0.0 41.7 39.3 33.7 0.0 35.6 35.2 26.9 Never 37.4 37.1 37.0 35.4 0.8 41.0 42.8 46.0 0.4 44.6 45.1 53.3 Once 8.6 8.3 6.4 8.5 99.2 6.4 7.6 9.7 99.6 6.5 8.5 9.2 Twice 1.8 4.7 4.8 3.2 0.0 3.1 2.3 3.9 0.0 5.0 3.9 3.9 Three times 3.4 2.2 0.6 1.9 0.0 1.7 2.5 2.3 0.0 0.8 2.3 2.3 Four or more times 4.3 4.7 3.2 3.7 0.0 5.4 5.1 4.0 0.0 7.7 2.8 3.7 I never get offers 44.5 42.9 47.9 47.3 0.0 42.4 39.7 34.2 0.0 35.4 37.5 27.6 Never 39.7 38.9 35.7 38.2 0.6 42.6 45.1 49.7 0.7 44.8 50.4 57.0 Once 6.3 8.2 7.4 6.8 99.4 5.1 5.3 7.8 99.3 5.4 3.9 7.6 Twice 4.5 3.1 3.9 2.4 0.0 2.4 3.8 2.9 0.0 2.7 3.1 3.0 Three times 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 0.0 2.7 1.8 1.7 0.0 2.3 2.0 1.8 Four or more times 4.3 4.9 2.6 3.3 0.0 4.1 4.1 3.3 0.0 7.3 2.8 2.7 43.8 43.1 48.9 47.8 0.0 43.2 40.0 34.6 0.0 37.5 37.7 27.9 I never get offers 47 1.1 County 2010 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. 11.1 State 2014 Never 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 78.0 82.8 87.8 87.7 81.0 87.6 87.5 89.1 86.9 88.4 89.6 7.9 6.8 6.4 7.8 4.9 4.2 5.0 10.1 4.7 6.1 4.7 3 to 5 times 4.6 3.9 2.1 2.5 2.9 1.6 3.2 2.6 5.5 2.9 2.2 2.0 6 to 9 times 2.2 1.4 0.9 1.2 2.5 1.3 0.7 2.2 1.5 10 to 19 times 1.7 1.8 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.6 20 to 29 times 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 1.6 1.0 1.2 0.4 0.9 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 40+ times 0.7 1.8 0.9 1.0 2.5 2.9 2.7 1.1 2.2 2.2 1.7 1.3 Never 35.7 39.5 46.9 48.7 36.4 55.9 54.6 54.3 40.6 57.3 70.9 65.8 1 or 2 times 26.5 24.1 22.6 26.4 25.4 25.5 21.0 22.6 26.9 20.4 12.6 17.9 3 to 5 times 14.9 17.5 17.5 12.8 19.0 10.1 13.4 12.7 16.8 13.1 11.3 9.4 6 to 9 times 9.3 8.2 7.4 5.4 7.0 3.3 4.4 5.2 7.3 4.0 0.8 3.1 10 to 19 times 5.3 3.2 1.8 2.8 6.4 1.6 2.2 2.3 3.3 2.2 2.5 1.6 20 to 29 times 2.7 2.0 0.9 1.2 2.9 1.6 0.5 1.0 2.2 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 40+ times 5.2 4.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.6 3.9 1.5 2.4 2.6 1.4 1.2 83.6 88.4 91.3 89.8 85.0 93.7 92.2 92.4 85.4 90.5 94.0 94.5 1 or 2 times 8.3 6.9 5.7 6.0 6.6 2.6 3.4 4.2 7.1 5.8 2.7 3.0 3 to 5 times 2.9 2.2 1.5 1.9 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.4 4.2 1.8 1.6 0.9 6 to 9 times 1.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 2.7 0.0 1.2 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.5 10 to 19 times 1.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.1 40+ times 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.1 88.3 92.4 92.6 91.5 91.6 96.0 95.4 93.7 92.7 94.9 95.6 94.6 1 or 2 times 8.2 4.6 5.1 5.4 4.1 2.3 2.9 3.8 4.6 4.0 1.9 3.2 3 to 5 times 1.9 0.5 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.7 1.2 1.8 0.7 0.6 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.3 10 to 19 times 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.6 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 61.0 52.7 Once 15.2 13.9 11.8 2-3 times 11.4 14.1 4-6 times 4.1 7-10 times 1.1 58.6 Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County 61.9 53.9 66.8 70.4 11.2 11.0 14.9 10.3 10.5 10.8 9.6 12.6 11.5 11.6 5.4 5.4 3.4 4.8 7.1 2.6 0.6 0.9 2.0 3.4 Grade 12 County 60.6 Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 63.1 78.2 11.9 8.6 6.1 75.5 7.8 10.4 10.8 11.6 8.7 10.3 2.3 3.5 5.9 4.9 2.5 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.2 4.5 1.7 0.8 More than 10 times 7.2 11.3 12.7 5.9 7.7 9.2 8.0 4.1 7.7 7.5 2.8 2.6 Never n/a n/a 46.7 48.0 n/a n/a 53.8 57.8 n/a n/a 65.7 68.2 Once n/a n/a 13.6 17.8 n/a n/a 15.7 15.7 n/a n/a 16.3 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 19.4 17.2 n/a n/a 16.2 14.9 n/a n/a 9.4 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 8.5 6.8 n/a n/a 5.2 4.7 n/a n/a 4.4 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 2.7 2.8 n/a n/a 3.9 2.1 n/a n/a 1.4 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 9.1 7.5 n/a n/a 5.2 4.8 n/a n/a 2.8 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 7.2 7.6 n/a n/a 3.3 6.0 n/a n/a 6.6 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 7.2 12.4 n/a n/a 10.7 14.8 n/a n/a 9.5 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 28.9 27.6 n/a n/a 37.2 34.3 n/a n/a 31.2 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 15.4 21.5 n/a n/a 24.7 n/a n/a 24.9 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 41.3 30.9 n/a n/a 24.0 n/a n/a 27.7 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2010 7.9 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 81.5 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Pima County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Pima County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Pima county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 845 23.6 2,017 40.3 843 33.5 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 1,487 41.6 1,584 31.7 874 34.8 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 1,242 34.8 1,398 28.0 797 31.7 11,541 23.9 All Students Surveyed* 3,574 100.0 4,999 100.0 2,514 100.0 48,244 100.0 Students By Gender Male 1,666 47.6 2,415 49.5 1,210 48.5 23,460 49.1 Female 1,834 52.4 2,460 50.5 1,284 51.5 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 117 5.4 124 5.9 48 4.4 989 5.3 African American 67 3.1 71 3.4 35 3.2 574 3.1 Asian 19 0.9 21 1.0 19 1.8 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 24 1.1 28 1.3 18 1.7 220 1.2 420 19.4 641 30.2 398 36.7 6,067 32.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 83 3.8 107 5.0 56 5.2 1,027 5.5 1,430 66.2 1,129 53.2 510 47.1 9,603 51.5 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 2010 Number Percent 74 89 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 5.5 66 2.5 35 2.5 1,274 4.5 6.6 110 4.2 69 5.0 1,790 6.4 45 3.4 130 5.0 71 5.2 1,459 5.2 9 0.7 30 1.2 17 1.2 260 0.9 986 73.6 1,940 74.1 1,024 74.4 20,587 73.4 101 7.5 219 8.4 146 10.6 2,413 8.6 36 2.7 124 4.7 14 1.0 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 2,160 60.4 2,121 42.4 1,084 43.1 18,649 Percent 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 1,340 37.5 2,619 52.4 1,376 54.7 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 3,574 100.0 4,999 100.0 2,514 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Pima County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Pima County, Grade 8 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 12 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Pima County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Pima County, Grade 10 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 14 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Pima County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Pima County, Grade 12 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 16 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Pima County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Pima County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Pima County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Pima County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Pima County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Pima County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Pima County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Pima County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Pima County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Pima County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Pima County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Pima County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Pima County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 130 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 231 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 144 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Pima County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 237 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 466 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 414 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Pima County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 342 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 539 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 471 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Pima County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 121 Students** Sample (Rx): 68 Students** School Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 231 Students** Sample (Rx): 123 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 117 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Pima County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 220 Students** Sample (Rx): 98 Students** School Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 334 Students** Sample (Rx): 182 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 241 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Pima County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 209 Students** Sample (Rx): 121 Students** School Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 346 Students** Sample (Rx): 228 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 256 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 45.4 39.5 41.0 37.6 34.0 46.6 43.5 43.2 42.9 41.5 53.9 47.6 49.4 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 50.5 38.4 37.3 29.2 31.1 45.3 41.1 42.4 34.8 37.8 38.6 38.3 39.6 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 39.8 40.2 34.8 29.6 30.7 43.1 37.1 40.6 36.6 38.6 45.6 41.3 42.8 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 35.9 36.0 32.8 31.8 36.7 20.2 24.0 18.2 20.6 23.7 29.6 25.1 23.5 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 54.6 45.1 44.4 41.2 40.3 45.2 37.4 36.3 35.4 40.0 45.9 38.2 41.4 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 53.8 50.9 48.2 51.0 49.3 39.9 41.0 38.9 41.2 39.9 39.5 35.1 35.2 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 50.3 40.3 41.6 36.7 35.4 47.0 39.0 41.4 36.8 37.6 42.6 38.6 38.7 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 27.3 25.3 22.4 21.2 23.7 39.2 43.5 37.8 32.8 39.6 40.0 44.8 36.0 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 46.5 46.7 41.9 43.2 49.1 49.5 50.5 48.6 44.6 53.5 49.7 46.9 47.7 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 53.2 45.8 49.4 44.6 41.1 51.4 48.3 46.2 44.3 42.5 44.9 40.0 42.7 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 42.4 44.7 48.5 45.0 38.2 37.7 44.5 43.4 51.6 40.4 37.6 39.1 49.6 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 50.3 38.4 37.5 33.4 34.5 48.1 37.1 37.3 36.6 39.8 47.5 32.6 38.1 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 42.5 25.8 26.3 19.8 23.5 33.2 28.9 26.2 22.4 36.1 33.2 26.9 24.1 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 39.1 30.8 28.2 21.4 24.7 37.9 35.9 37.9 29.8 35.5 35.8 36.1 34.3 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 47.7 40.8 37.3 31.7 34.7 44.0 41.5 41.8 36.1 41.0 39.5 37.1 37.8 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 59.6 56.2 62.9 56.9 37.9 51.0 53.9 64.9 58.4 40.1 51.6 55.1 68.5 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 68.8 53.9 51.4 43.6 44.8 60.6 47.8 46.0 41.5 45.5 58.0 47.1 44.4 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 51.9 40.5 38.5 29.7 30.7 48.6 39.0 39.3 34.7 34.7 42.1 33.6 34.4 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 55.4 54.9 50.6 41.9 37.1 47.5 49.1 55.1 49.0 42.1 56.9 56.5 63.6 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 33.2 14.7 14.2 10.4 14.7 22.1 12.2 9.7 8.4 13.3 21.6 12.8 6.4 7.0 10.7 39.9 28.1 29.6 24.9 22.4 29.0 27.5 24.0 23.3 23.5 29.6 27.3 27.6 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 29.8 25.7 28.6 31.4 40.9 35.8 35.9 28.3 35.0 45.2 32.3 37.2 27.3 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 44.5 50.4 49.9 53.3 54.8 45.1 49.1 46.8 47.8 48.0 53.3 56.8 52.8 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 54.9 59.7 62.5 62.2 62.5 55.5 58.2 57.2 57.2 56.2 53.1 59.2 55.1 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 55.8 56.3 60.2 60.0 61.9 58.5 53.6 53.6 53.6 54.3 53.6 54.6 48.5 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 56.6 61.2 59.3 64.7 68.7 67.5 68.9 75.2 66.6 69.5 66.6 70.5 67.8 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 50.0 50.4 54.2 53.7 56.9 67.8 70.2 74.0 62.5 63.4 54.8 61.2 55.3 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 53.8 62.7 64.4 69.6 65.8 72.4 72.6 73.9 75.8 70.2 56.9 61.5 60.9 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 47.5 47.2 38.2 47.9 60.5 57.0 53.7 54.6 53.5 61.7 56.3 59.5 51.1 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 36.9 43.6 38.9 42.7 49.0 46.2 51.5 53.8 51.9 52.0 38.5 45.9 52.0 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 57.3 53.7 58.1 61.3 61.4 64.6 66.3 68.2 63.6 60.1 59.4 60.1 62.0 56.2 52.2 43.2 43.1 49.9 54.8 42.6 55.9 60.2 63.9 61.6 46.0 52.3 61.9 58.0 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 52.8 38.8 37.9 31.5 27.8 67.4 62.1 59.5 52.9 52.1 78.8 70.8 71.9 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 32.0 20.8 19.3 15.8 14.8 41.0 33.3 29.5 25.6 25.7 53.7 43.0 39.1 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 27.7 19.6 21.3 14.9 16.5 41.4 35.5 38.9 32.4 35.8 48.8 45.4 47.9 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 3.6 2.2 2.3 1.6 2.5 7.8 4.9 7.2 4.7 5.4 9.6 9.8 8.7 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 3.6 1.4 2.7 1.6 1.7 8.2 4.5 4.6 3.0 3.3 13.9 10.1 8.9 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 17.9 14.1 11.3 9.0 10.8 11.6 10.5 7.5 6.6 8.7 11.0 7.1 7.2 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.6 2.3 2.0 1.4 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.6 1.0 3.7 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 4.2 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 6.5 3.6 4.5 2.1 1.8 12.7 7.0 6.7 4.4 5.7 15.0 12.1 9.5 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.5 1.2 2.2 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.5 1.2 2.6 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 14.3 9.8 9.4 7.0 n/a 21.5 14.5 13.9 12.0 n/a 25.8 20.7 17.3 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 3.9 2.0 1.9 1.6 4.2 6.6 6.6 4.4 5.3 8.1 8.4 9.8 9.7 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 10.1 4.0 5.0 3.9 n/a 12.8 6.8 7.0 6.3 n/a 13.4 9.2 8.9 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 18.4 12.0 11.3 9.3 n/a 26.2 17.7 16.7 15.0 n/a 29.8 23.9 21.2 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 10.2 7.6 7.2 5.8 n/a 12.9 10.6 9.6 8.2 n/a 14.7 11.1 11.4 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 10.5 3.3 2.3 n/a n/a 13.8 5.4 4.2 n/a n/a 19.4 9.8 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 29.0 16.7 18.6 13.4 10.2 37.2 35.0 30.6 27.8 25.7 48.2 44.4 45.5 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 12.0 7.6 7.9 5.7 4.5 17.2 14.7 11.3 10.1 9.1 28.6 21.6 17.1 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 2.7 1.9 7.3 4.3 2.8 4.2 4.8 7.8 7.5 6.4 8.0 6.7 12.2 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 13.4 9.3 9.8 6.9 7.0 18.8 18.6 21.5 16.8 18.0 22.4 23.2 23.2 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.5 0.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 2.6 1.5 2.3 1.7 1.1 2.8 2.7 1.7 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.5 1.9 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.8 4.8 3.4 2.5 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 8.1 5.1 3.5 3.1 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.5 0.6 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.5 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 2.5 1.5 1.3 0.8 0.5 3.3 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.2 3.5 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.8 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 7.2 4.6 6.0 3.8 n/a 9.5 7.1 6.5 5.4 n/a 10.4 7.8 6.2 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.4 2.5 2.7 1.3 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 4.8 1.8 2.8 1.7 n/a 5.3 2.9 2.9 2.6 n/a 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 9.2 5.8 7.4 4.9 n/a 12.9 8.6 7.5 7.1 n/a 12.8 10.4 8.0 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 6.5 5.0 3.2 3.1 n/a 6.6 4.6 3.7 3.7 n/a 5.8 4.6 4.4 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 6.6 0.7 0.9 n/a n/a 6.4 1.2 0.8 n/a n/a 8.4 0.8 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 17.5 8.4 9.5 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 4.5 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 24.8 18.0 15.9 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.3 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 33.2 28.4 26.2 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 6.6 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 8.0 4.1 4.2 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 36.9 24.5 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 10.0 6.2 5.2 23.0 21.5 22.3 n/a 34.5 24.0 3.6 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 21.9 19.9 24.0 3.2 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 16.8 13.2 11.4 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 37.1 27.5 24.6 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.9 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 21.8 12.4 13.4 8.4 7.8 26.1 21.8 20.2 16.5 14.7 25.1 22.5 21.8 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 26.2 17.1 18.5 14.3 13.4 18.6 13.2 11.2 9.6 11.2 13.9 10.0 9.7 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 9.0 6.2 6.1 3.6 3.1 13.7 10.1 10.0 7.7 7.2 12.3 10.3 11.0 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 5.3 2.9 1.8 1.7 2.2 7.0 3.3 1.7 2.1 2.7 5.3 1.5 2.1 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 13.6 7.2 8.1 5.0 4.8 14.9 10.0 8.5 6.0 6.0 12.9 10.1 8.0 5.9 5.8 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them 20.9 13.7 12.6 9.8 12.9 18.5 11.3 11.6 8.9 11.8 15.8 7.6 6.9 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 9.6 7.1 6.5 5.5 5.4 9.3 5.9 6.3 5.6 5.5 9.7 6.0 5.3 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 2.3 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 2.7 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.2 2.2 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.2 ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 0 times 91.3 86.0 84.6 88.5 92.4 92.3 92.7 92.0 94.4 94.9 92.8 94.1 1 time 4.5 7.2 6.5 5.2 3.9 3.2 3.0 3.4 2.7 2.3 2.9 2.3 2-3 times 2.7 3.4 4.8 3.4 1.8 1.9 2.5 2.1 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.2 4-5 times 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 6-7 times 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.5 8-9 times 0.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 10-11 times 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 During the past 12 months, how often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** 0.8 1.3 1.7 1.1 0.7 1.5 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 74.4 80.1 80.8 85.1 85.9 89.2 91.0 91.1 90.5 93.9 94.6 94.3 1 time 2.5 13.5 9.8 9.9 8.3 7.9 6.3 4.6 4.5 5.6 3.4 2.5 2-3 times 6.7 6.1 5.7 4.1 3.6 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.4 4-5 times 2.7 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 6-7 times 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.6 0.8 0.3 8-9 times 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 1.0 1.2 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.7 65.9 55.3 54.6 83.0 59.8 73.9 73.3 72.7 71.6 83.6 84.5 83.5 1 time 11.5 11.5 11.5 10.3 8.8 6.8 6.3 6.7 5.2 5.9 4.8 4.1 2-3 times 8.0 10.9 12.3 12.0 8.5 7.9 10.9 9.3 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.9 4-5 times 4.6 6.5 5.7 5.1 2.6 3.8 4.1 3.8 1.9 1.2 1.6 2.0 6-7 times 0.5 2.6 2.6 2.5 1.3 2.2 1.5 1.8 0.2 1.0 0.6 1.0 8-9 times 1.2 2.0 2.2 1.8 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.7 10-11 times 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 12 or more times 7.1 10.7 10.3 7.8 4.0 5.0 3.1 5.0 3.1 1.7 3.2 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 71.5 73.8 n/a n/a 80.1 82.0 n/a n/a 86.9 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 11.3 10.5 n/a n/a 7.9 6.2 n/a n/a 4.0 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 9.6 8.8 n/a n/a 6.1 6.2 n/a n/a 2.9 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 2.0 2.3 n/a n/a 1.8 1.6 n/a n/a 1.9 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.8 1.0 n/a n/a 0.5 0.9 n/a n/a 1.4 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.9 0.7 n/a n/a 0.8 0.4 n/a n/a 0.4 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.4 0.3 n/a n/a 0.1 0.2 n/a n/a 0.3 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 2.6 2.5 n/a n/a 2.7 2.4 n/a n/a 2.3 2.2 84.2 88.8 87.5 90.1 92.4 95.8 95.7 93.9 94.3 97.5 95.5 95.7 1 day 8.2 6.0 5.1 4.7 4.3 1.7 1.5 2.8 2.9 1.3 2.0 1.8 2-3 days 4.7 3.0 4.3 3.3 2.2 1.4 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.2 4-5 days 1.2 1.3 1.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 1.8 0.8 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.8 93.2 93.5 93.1 95.8 94.9 94.0 94.0 94.4 94.0 96.1 92.4 94.5 1 day 3.7 2.8 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.5 2.0 0.8 1.8 2-3 days 1.4 1.4 1.8 0.8 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.7 1.9 4-5 days 0.4 0.3 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 2.1 2.5 2.3 1.7 3.3 2.8 74.9 6.8 7.3 3.9 1.6 1.3 0.9 3.2 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 79.8 6.5 6.6 1.8 1.0 0.6 0.3 3.4 80.0 5.0 6.9 1.8 1.5 0.9 0.5 3.4 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 0 days 6 or more days 1.3 2.0 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 68.6 10.1 9.1 3.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 5.1 2.1 1.1 2.0 2.5 67.9 9.6 9.1 4.4 1.8 1.0 0.6 5.5 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 74.1 6.9 8.6 3.1 1.6 1.1 0.3 4.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 State 2014 0 times 0 times During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 12 County 2012 12 or more times During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 1.1 1.1 0.5 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 59.6 59.7 54.4 54.6 45.5 59.9 57.7 56.0 52.6 43.8 55.3 53.6 50.6 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 4.6 4.8 4.3 3.7 4.2 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.2 4.0 5.9 4.0 5.1 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 16.8 21.5 20.7 20.7 19.1 22.7 20.2 22.9 21.1 18.3 17.1 19.7 21.3 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 30.1 26.3 24.7 25.1 23.4 27.0 24.1 24.5 23.8 23.0 25.4 20.9 19.9 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 34.7 33.1 28.7 29.1 25.0 34.9 31.8 33.3 28.9 24.7 29.9 29.1 30.2 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 27.2 20.7 20.6 23.6 20.8 21.0 17.0 18.4 18.3 15.9 13.0 11.5 12.5 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 23.1 23.6 20.8 23.8 14.3 20.2 19.7 21.8 19.7 12.5 14.7 16.9 14.9 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 31.5 27.0 26.4 26.2 19.6 28.1 24.0 28.0 25.7 18.4 24.4 21.0 22.9 21.5 16.9 Bet on a horse or other animal race? 10.6 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.8 7.8 5.0 5.9 4.6 5.5 6.9 4.3 4.4 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Sample size* Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 144 231 130 2,574 414 466 237 3,493 471 539 342 4,131 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 9.7 5.2 12.3 7.4 7.5 7.3 6.3 7.6 18.5 11.7 11.1 10.5 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 4.9 4.3 6.9 4.7 1.7 3.9 3.0 3.5 5.5 5.2 5.3 5.4 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. 4.2 2.6 8.5 4.5 3.1 4.1 2.5 3.0 4.0 2.2 4.7 3.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. 22.2 16.9 20.8 14.5 34.8 22.3 25.7 25.3 41.4 36.4 34.8 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 16.7 16.9 25.4 19.8 12.1 17.6 21.1 16.7 11.0 13.7 17.3 17.1 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 23.6 16.0 20.8 20.5 15.7 17.6 16.5 16.2 17.6 17.8 15.2 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 16.0 15.2 20.8 15.4 24.9 21.2 23.2 21.5 30.8 29.5 29.5 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 15.3 22.1 26.9 19.8 21.5 23.8 23.6 26.3 19.7 23.2 28.7 21.6 I got it at a party. 34.7 32.0 32.3 33.8 51.7 50.0 49.8 45.6 55.0 54.0 58.5 50.9 I took it from home. 26.4 26.0 33.1 25.2 18.4 19.3 18.6 21.8 12.7 13.0 15.8 15.2 6.9 13.9 11.5 7.5 10.1 8.8 9.3 9.2 5.7 5.9 6.7 5.7 23.6 26.8 27.7 26.3 19.8 18.2 18.1 17.8 15.9 13.7 13.2 13.7 I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 231 121 2,261 334 220 2,880 346 209 3,013 6.9 14.0 10.9 9.9 10.5 13.4 10.4 15.3 17.7 Friends 75.3 75.2 69.5 82.9 82.3 77.8 83.8 84.2 78.2 Family/relatives 16.5 20.7 16.8 18.0 13.6 14.7 10.4 12.0 11.9 Parties 23.8 33.1 25.0 31.7 29.5 28.4 30.1 36.4 27.5 Home 6.9 9.9 6.3 7.8 4.5 5.3 6.4 5.7 5.5 School 20.3 23.1 14.8 15.9 14.5 12.3 9.2 9.6 7.6 Other 29.0 28.1 28.1 20.4 18.6 21.4 24.3 17.7 21.0 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size** 117 123 68 1,130 241 182 98 1,428 256 228 121 1,596 Friends 60.7 49.6 48.5 47.1 68.0 59.3 59.2 56.3 73.0 64.0 65.3 59.4 Family/relatives 23.1 10.6 19.1 14.8 27.0 13.7 17.3 17.3 22.3 16.2 19.8 16.7 Parties 22.2 13.8 19.1 20.4 25.3 22.5 28.6 21.6 27.0 23.7 23.1 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 23.9 25.2 33.8 26.1 24.5 31.9 20.4 25.9 22.7 23.7 21.5 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 11.1 15.4 16.2 12.9 14.5 12.6 17.3 16.2 19.9 18.9 15.7 17.7 School 18.8 13.0 14.7 11.9 17.0 19.8 12.2 12.4 24.2 17.1 17.4 11.7 Other 17.9 12.2 17.6 17.9 22.0 18.1 11.2 14.2 13.7 15.8 14.9 13.8 Over the Internet 4.3 3.3 1.5 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.0 3.0 1.2 0.0 1.7 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 8.5 8.1 8.8 8.6 5.8 6.0 8.2 5.0 7.8 4.8 5.8 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 72.2 734 81.7 802 76.8 766 74.4 1,084 79.8 1,200 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 75.3 738 87.5 806 88.4 767 84.0 1,089 84.2 1,204 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 56.4 721 44.3 795 40.0 760 41.5 1,078 51.6 1,180 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 73.9 736 85.0 802 82.7 764 80.2 1,083 81.6 1,201 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 94.1 640 92.9 705 87.2 744 90.5 979 91.9 1,097 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 96.0 642 95.9 703 91.9 744 93.7 978 95.2 1,097 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 94.6 632 88.3 701 82.9 744 87.7 970 88.8 1,094 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 95.6 635 96.9 703 95.8 742 96.4 975 95.8 1,092 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 78.8 664 68.9 729 62.4 747 66.4 997 72.4 1,129 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 83.1 663 74.8 730 62.6 745 68.1 994 77.3 1,130 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 71.4 661 46.4 728 39.3 746 48.3 995 54.2 1,126 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 85.3 658 79.7 728 77.5 746 79.4 993 81.6 1,125 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 18.6 781 30.6 844 45.5 778 31.7 1,142 31.5 1,242 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 7.9 789 11.3 848 17.1 780 13.4 1,152 10.7 1,247 used marijuana Marijuana 9.8 774 21.5 836 23.2 771 20.4 1,129 16.5 1,234 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 7.4 770 7.5 838 8.0 774 6.3 1,128 9.0 1,236 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? marijuana? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 65.0 73.0 74.5 78.5 48.2 53.2 57.3 58.3 37.8 40.9 39.8 47.1 Once 15.0 12.2 12.2 10.3 17.0 13.6 14.9 13.1 14.2 13.7 16.6 13.2 2-3 times 12.3 8.1 7.1 6.7 18.2 17.3 14.9 15.2 22.0 19.8 21.7 19.4 4-6 times 3.9 2.9 2.5 2.1 8.2 7.7 7.2 6.7 10.9 12.5 9.8 9.4 7-10 times 0.7 1.4 0.6 0.7 2.5 2.6 2.1 2.3 6.4 4.5 4.4 3.4 3.1 2.4 3.0 1.7 6.0 5.6 3.7 4.4 8.7 8.7 7.8 7.5 79.1 81.8 80.9 86.5 67.3 75.0 76.9 79.6 58.5 64.9 70.1 73.9 Once 10.1 8.3 8.5 6.8 10.2 8.6 9.5 8.4 11.0 10.2 9.1 9.2 2-3 times 5.2 5.1 4.0 3.7 9.9 6.1 6.7 5.3 10.8 8.8 8.4 6.8 4-6 times 2.7 1.8 3.3 1.2 3.8 3.2 3.2 2.5 4.9 4.4 3.9 3.1 7-10 times 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.5 1.6 2.3 1.4 1.2 3.7 2.2 1.8 1.6 More than 10 times 2.5 2.1 2.7 1.3 7.2 4.8 2.2 3.1 11.1 9.5 6.7 5.4 Never 62.2 68.8 67.2 75.5 52.5 58.3 48.6 57.5 57.3 55.8 49.8 54.1 Once 12.6 9.5 10.5 8.3 13.6 9.8 14.6 11.4 10.5 10.3 14.2 10.5 2-3 times 9.5 8.1 7.5 6.6 12.3 11.1 12.8 10.8 10.5 9.2 13.6 12.0 4-6 times 3.9 3.9 4.7 3.3 6.4 6.4 8.6 6.7 5.7 6.7 7.7 6.8 7-10 times 3.3 2.6 2.2 1.7 3.8 3.8 5.3 3.8 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.8 8.5 7.1 7.9 4.6 10.6 10.0 9.8 12.7 14.4 10.7 12.7 Never 86.3 88.0 82.4 88.4 78.8 82.4 78.7 82.6 81.3 82.0 78.4 82.1 Once 6.0 5.3 8.2 5.5 8.4 7.9 9.2 7.6 6.9 6.2 8.6 6.7 2-3 times 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.7 5.6 4.1 5.9 4.3 4.8 5.3 6.0 5.0 4-6 times 1.7 2.8 2.2 3.1 2.0 2.4 2.2 1.9 2.1 7-10 times 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 More than 10 times 2.2 1.8 3.6 1.7 3.3 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 33.1 25.7 34.8 30.5 66.2 30.9 32.2 35.2 56.6 33.1 39.6 39.2 Once 17.0 14.7 13.9 11.6 33.8 16.5 17.7 14.4 43.4 15.9 18.6 15.6 Twice 8.0 4.6 4.5 4.6 0.0 7.1 9.6 6.9 0.0 9.1 8.4 7.6 Three times 4.1 2.6 1.6 2.3 0.0 3.6 3.4 3.5 0.0 4.3 3.4 3.8 Four or more times 9.3 7.2 7.1 4.6 0.0 6.8 6.0 6.3 0.0 8.7 7.5 6.7 I never get offers 28.5 45.2 38.2 46.4 0.0 35.1 31.2 33.6 0.0 28.9 22.5 27.1 Never 39.4 31.2 38.3 33.3 Once 14.0 10.2 Twice 7.0 Three times 3.6 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. 1.1 2.4 1.1 11.5 1.1 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 33.6 2.5 33.1 37.1 7.8 34.8 43.1 41.5 11.4 9.4 97.5 15.1 16.1 13.2 92.2 15.2 16.8 14.2 5.1 4.5 4.3 0.0 7.5 7.8 7.0 0.0 9.9 9.3 8.1 4.0 2.2 2.2 0.0 3.3 5.0 3.6 0.0 4.4 3.5 4.0 8.0 5.0 4.8 3.7 0.0 6.6 6.5 5.4 0.0 6.8 5.8 5.2 I never get offers 28.1 44.5 38.7 46.7 0.0 34.4 31.3 33.7 0.0 28.9 21.6 26.9 Never 42.5 33.9 41.4 35.4 0.6 44.6 47.5 46.0 2.3 50.2 57.3 53.3 Once 12.1 9.8 8.7 8.5 99.4 9.9 9.9 9.7 97.7 10.5 10.9 9.2 Twice 4.5 3.0 3.3 3.2 0.0 3.6 4.5 3.9 0.0 3.8 3.7 3.9 Three times 3.3 2.2 2.1 1.9 0.0 2.1 1.5 2.3 0.0 2.0 2.5 2.3 Four or more times 8.9 5.0 5.4 3.7 0.0 4.5 4.4 4.0 0.0 3.9 2.9 3.7 I never get offers 28.6 46.2 39.1 47.3 0.0 35.3 32.2 34.2 0.0 29.6 22.7 27.6 Never 46.7 36.5 43.2 38.2 1.0 46.7 48.3 49.7 1.7 52.2 59.4 57.0 Once 9.5 9.2 8.0 6.8 99.0 8.7 11.1 7.8 98.3 8.9 10.4 7.6 Twice 5.0 2.5 2.2 2.4 0.0 3.4 2.9 2.9 0.0 3.5 3.3 3.0 Three times 3.2 1.6 1.5 1.5 0.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 0.0 2.1 1.5 1.8 Four or more times 6.3 4.2 4.4 3.3 0.0 3.6 3.5 3.3 0.0 3.2 2.4 2.7 29.2 45.9 40.6 47.8 0.0 35.6 32.5 34.6 0.0 30.2 23.0 27.9 I never get offers 47 State 2014 Never More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 More than 10 times cigarettes? Grade 8 County 2010 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 84.0 84.2 87.7 79.9 86.5 89.1 89.1 81.2 87.7 88.6 89.6 9.3 7.5 6.8 6.4 8.3 6.5 5.7 5.0 8.7 5.9 5.2 4.7 3 to 5 times 2.9 3.5 3.6 2.5 3.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 3.5 2.6 2.1 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.2 1.8 2.1 1.2 2.4 1.3 0.9 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.2 10 to 19 times 2.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 3.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.6 0.7 1.0 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 40+ times 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.0 1.5 1.5 0.6 1.1 2.3 1.7 1.5 1.3 Never 27.9 37.6 46.8 48.7 32.9 50.0 52.7 54.3 41.3 57.8 62.8 65.8 1 or 2 times 24.7 26.3 24.7 26.4 25.8 24.1 21.7 22.6 26.4 22.1 20.7 17.9 3 to 5 times 19.6 15.8 14.5 12.8 18.6 14.2 13.8 12.7 15.1 10.5 9.5 9.4 6 to 9 times 10.2 8.7 5.9 5.4 9.5 6.4 5.5 5.2 6.4 4.4 2.8 3.1 10 to 19 times 7.1 4.1 3.8 2.8 7.4 2.1 3.0 2.3 5.2 2.3 2.0 1.6 20 to 29 times 3.3 2.9 1.0 1.2 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.3 0.6 0.7 30 to 39 times 1.3 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.3 40+ times 5.9 3.9 2.7 2.3 3.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 3.1 1.2 1.5 1.2 Never 75.6 86.3 87.2 89.8 78.2 90.9 90.0 92.4 79.6 91.6 93.8 94.5 1 or 2 times 12.6 6.9 7.9 6.0 9.9 5.0 6.0 4.2 12.1 4.7 3.8 3.0 3 to 5 times 4.9 2.2 2.0 1.9 4.1 1.9 0.9 1.4 3.2 1.7 0.6 0.9 6 to 9 times 2.2 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.9 0.9 1.2 0.7 1.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 10 to 19 times 2.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 3.9 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 40+ times 1.5 1.2 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.5 0.6 0.5 79.3 1.1 88.0 88.3 91.5 82.7 91.5 91.1 93.7 84.1 92.7 93.4 94.6 1 or 2 times 11.8 6.9 7.1 5.4 10.5 5.4 5.3 3.8 9.6 4.6 4.3 3.2 3 to 5 times 3.2 1.8 2.1 1.2 2.8 1.4 1.6 1.2 3.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 6 to 9 times 1.8 1.0 1.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 1.2 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 10 to 19 times 1.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 1.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 40+ times 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 62.2 55.7 66.1 Once 13.8 16.4 11.4 9.8 11.7 9.1 4-6 times 3.5 5.2 7-10 times 2.9 2.5 More than 10 times 7.7 Never Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 59.4 69.4 70.4 66.7 60.8 77.0 11.2 13.2 14.0 12.7 10.5 12.3 13.8 7.3 7.8 9.6 12.9 13.4 9.0 10.4 10.0 12.8 10.4 10.3 4.7 3.4 5.2 5.7 3.2 3.5 4.4 4.9 2.6 3.0 1.2 0.9 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.9 2.1 0.3 0.8 8.5 7.4 5.9 5.8 5.9 4.2 4.1 4.7 5.5 2.5 2.6 n/a n/a 52.9 48.0 n/a n/a 57.5 57.8 n/a n/a 65.5 68.2 Once n/a n/a 17.1 17.8 n/a n/a 15.9 15.7 n/a n/a 13.5 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 15.8 17.2 n/a n/a 14.9 14.9 n/a n/a 12.9 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 4.6 6.8 n/a n/a 4.9 4.7 n/a n/a 4.0 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 1.9 2.8 n/a n/a 2.8 2.1 n/a n/a 1.0 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 7.7 7.5 n/a n/a 4.0 4.8 n/a n/a 3.1 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 10.1 7.6 n/a n/a 4.9 6.0 n/a n/a 5.4 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 13.1 12.4 n/a n/a 16.9 14.8 n/a n/a 19.9 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 25.3 27.6 n/a n/a 34.3 34.3 n/a n/a 35.7 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 20.3 21.5 n/a n/a 24.9 n/a n/a 21.0 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 31.3 30.9 n/a n/a 19.0 n/a n/a 18.0 21.9 2-3 times 69.0 Grade 10 County 60.8 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 State 2014 81.8 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 75.5 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Pinal County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Pinal County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Pinal county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Grade 8 1,633 45.9 1,675 41.4 516 19.2 22,675 47.0 Grade 10 1,170 32.9 1,462 36.2 1,435 53.3 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 757 21.3 906 22.4 741 27.5 11,541 23.9 3,560 100.0 4,043 100.0 2,692 100.0 48,244 100.0 Students By Grade All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 1,756 50.1 1,946 49.0 1,260 47.2 23,460 49.1 Female 1,749 49.9 2,023 51.0 1,411 52.8 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 102 5.6 125 6.5 97 7.6 989 5.3 African American 44 2.4 48 2.5 46 3.6 574 3.1 Asian 10 0.6 13 0.7 11 0.9 169 0.9 Pacific Islander 21 1.2 21 1.1 14 1.1 220 1.2 404 22.3 558 29.0 357 28.0 6,067 32.5 White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 92 5.1 123 6.4 88 6.9 1,027 5.5 1,140 62.9 1,036 53.9 660 51.9 9,603 51.5 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 2010 Number County 2012 Percent Number Percent 132 8.2 106 5.5 180 11.2 202 10.5 44 2.7 49 2.6 24 1.5 13 0.7 1,060 65.8 1,265 144 8.9 209 27 1.7 77 County 2014 Number State 2014 Percent Number Percent 84 6.3 1,274 4.5 196 14.7 1,790 6.4 45 3.4 1,459 5.2 12 0.9 260 0.9 65.9 841 63.0 20,587 73.4 10.9 147 11.0 2,413 8.6 4.0 10 0.8 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Hispanic Students 1,813 50.9 1,924 47.6 1,273 47.3 18,649 Percent 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 1,611 45.3 1,921 47.5 1,335 49.6 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 3,560 100.0 4,043 100.0 2,692 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 8 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 12 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Pinal County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Pinal County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Pinal County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Pinal County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Pinal County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Pinal County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Pinal County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Pinal County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Pinal County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Pinal County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Pinal County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 74 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 230 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 308 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Pinal County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 332 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 303 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 309 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Pinal County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 196 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 267 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 309 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Pinal County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 68 Students** Sample (Rx): 35 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 200 Students** Sample (Rx): 117 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 163 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Pinal County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 278 Students** Sample (Rx): 140 Students** School Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 228 Students** Sample (Rx): 154 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 174 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Pinal County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 160 Students** Sample (Rx): 111 Students** School Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 187 Students** Sample (Rx): 140 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 153 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 42.1 41.7 44.7 37.6 34.0 47.3 49.2 52.8 42.9 41.5 55.5 55.8 55.3 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 42.2 38.0 37.6 29.2 31.1 51.2 42.5 41.8 34.8 37.8 44.8 38.5 34.6 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 44.3 38.6 37.1 29.6 30.7 46.8 45.4 40.2 36.6 38.6 50.3 41.3 37.4 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 38.9 41.1 38.0 31.8 36.7 28.1 25.8 26.2 20.6 23.7 32.6 33.1 29.5 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 48.7 46.2 48.7 41.2 40.3 47.8 36.8 38.3 35.4 40.0 46.2 38.6 34.5 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 59.0 55.3 53.7 51.0 49.3 43.6 41.3 45.5 41.2 39.9 41.1 43.1 40.2 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 50.3 46.8 46.9 36.7 35.4 53.5 45.5 46.1 36.8 37.6 47.7 43.6 39.0 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 28.4 25.2 21.1 21.2 23.7 39.7 38.0 32.7 32.8 39.6 41.9 40.0 29.6 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 54.2 49.3 46.4 43.2 49.1 51.8 49.9 44.4 44.6 53.5 51.2 46.6 41.4 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 52.8 49.0 50.7 44.6 41.1 57.4 51.9 49.6 44.3 42.5 43.0 47.0 45.5 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 43.5 39.2 51.2 45.0 38.2 43.3 44.5 54.4 51.6 40.4 45.4 46.9 55.0 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 47.5 40.6 39.3 33.4 34.5 47.5 44.0 41.4 36.6 39.8 50.0 41.3 37.2 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 36.6 29.2 31.1 19.8 23.5 37.8 30.1 26.8 22.4 36.1 38.3 31.5 25.0 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 33.9 26.8 26.9 21.4 24.7 37.5 34.1 28.7 29.8 35.5 37.2 30.6 24.6 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 46.6 37.9 39.4 31.7 34.7 46.0 40.8 36.6 36.1 41.0 44.3 35.0 33.1 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 54.0 52.7 66.7 56.9 37.9 49.5 49.9 59.5 58.4 40.1 53.4 54.5 61.0 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 65.2 56.1 60.2 43.6 44.8 66.1 56.0 50.6 41.5 45.5 65.3 54.3 44.5 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 48.4 39.5 42.4 29.7 30.7 45.9 38.9 34.1 34.7 34.7 41.3 33.8 25.4 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 51.3 43.5 53.3 41.9 37.1 47.6 45.4 44.7 49.0 42.1 58.8 55.0 52.2 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 26.7 20.6 19.6 10.4 14.7 29.2 15.1 12.8 8.4 13.3 22.1 18.3 7.5 7.0 10.7 41.8 35.7 32.0 24.9 22.4 33.7 27.9 24.1 23.3 23.5 39.7 29.8 21.5 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 24.2 28.6 23.1 31.4 40.9 35.5 35.9 31.2 35.0 45.2 35.0 37.9 31.4 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 42.5 47.6 46.4 53.3 54.8 40.5 41.2 42.6 47.8 48.0 50.0 51.5 54.0 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 55.1 57.1 58.0 62.2 62.5 50.5 53.0 53.5 57.2 56.2 50.1 52.9 54.6 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 55.5 54.5 54.3 60.0 61.9 50.1 50.0 47.7 53.6 54.3 51.4 49.7 48.4 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 62.4 64.3 56.4 64.7 68.7 59.2 62.4 62.3 66.6 69.5 54.6 58.8 65.7 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 43.5 54.1 37.2 53.7 56.9 53.3 59.3 54.0 62.5 63.4 38.1 48.1 46.1 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 54.6 60.5 59.8 69.6 65.8 68.2 70.4 73.1 75.8 70.2 50.3 56.9 60.5 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 51.6 49.0 47.2 47.9 60.5 53.4 53.3 48.9 53.5 61.7 50.2 51.2 45.0 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 35.7 38.5 42.2 42.7 49.0 38.3 46.7 46.2 51.9 52.0 30.1 34.5 41.8 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 60.9 59.3 55.9 61.3 61.4 59.8 58.7 62.8 63.6 60.1 51.9 54.8 56.8 56.2 52.2 47.3 51.6 38.8 54.8 42.6 47.6 52.2 52.9 61.6 46.0 46.4 49.9 51.2 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 53.4 42.3 42.1 31.5 27.8 70.4 57.2 54.7 52.9 52.1 77.8 67.6 63.4 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 31.6 26.0 25.1 15.8 14.8 44.7 37.2 31.3 25.6 25.7 55.6 46.4 38.6 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 21.9 19.9 19.8 14.9 16.5 37.7 32.9 34.0 32.4 35.8 51.0 41.4 40.2 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 2.3 1.9 2.3 1.6 2.5 4.9 4.3 4.8 4.7 5.4 8.1 5.5 7.2 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 3.0 1.6 2.3 1.6 1.7 7.4 4.2 3.8 3.0 3.3 13.2 8.5 6.5 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 19.3 12.3 11.5 9.0 10.8 14.9 10.7 6.5 6.6 8.7 14.4 9.1 8.2 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 1.0 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.4 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.6 4.9 2.4 1.9 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 1.0 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.0 2.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.8 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 4.3 2.9 3.7 2.1 1.8 7.3 6.2 5.5 4.4 5.7 10.5 9.8 7.1 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.2 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.8 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.3 2.6 2.5 1.8 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 12.3 9.6 9.3 7.0 n/a 20.8 15.4 14.2 12.0 n/a 26.9 20.3 15.5 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 3.5 1.8 1.9 1.6 4.2 5.7 6.2 4.7 5.3 8.1 7.2 7.2 5.9 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 8.2 4.5 3.5 3.9 n/a 9.6 7.5 6.5 6.3 n/a 14.2 8.4 9.3 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 17.3 11.5 11.8 9.3 n/a 24.2 18.6 17.0 15.0 n/a 30.1 22.2 18.5 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 11.1 7.9 8.9 5.8 n/a 16.7 10.3 9.0 8.2 n/a 16.5 12.8 11.6 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 6.7 2.2 2.3 n/a n/a 11.4 3.5 4.2 n/a n/a 13.0 5.6 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 25.9 19.3 19.7 13.4 10.2 38.1 27.7 27.2 27.8 25.7 47.4 37.4 31.5 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 12.2 11.0 8.3 5.7 4.5 16.4 15.3 10.5 10.1 9.1 27.7 22.8 14.7 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 3.8 3.3 6.7 4.3 2.8 5.6 4.3 7.1 7.5 6.4 9.9 6.7 9.3 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 10.2 7.7 10.5 6.9 7.0 17.5 14.1 15.3 16.8 18.0 22.3 19.1 18.9 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.1 0.8 1.7 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.3 2.4 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.2 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 2.3 1.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 3.6 3.0 1.6 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 6.4 4.7 4.9 3.1 2.3 3.5 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.5 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 1.6 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.5 2.0 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.2 3.6 2.0 1.5 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 5.6 4.7 5.0 3.8 n/a 9.7 7.9 6.8 5.4 n/a 13.5 8.2 5.9 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.4 2.0 2.8 2.0 2.1 2.8 2.0 2.7 1.2 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 3.3 2.2 1.5 1.7 n/a 2.8 3.4 2.9 2.6 n/a 5.5 2.1 3.0 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 8.4 6.4 6.0 4.9 n/a 11.0 9.8 8.5 7.1 n/a 15.4 9.1 7.8 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 5.6 4.1 5.0 3.1 n/a 9.0 5.8 5.0 3.7 n/a 8.4 4.5 5.0 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 3.2 0.9 0.9 n/a n/a 4.8 0.4 0.8 n/a n/a 5.5 1.2 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 14.6 11.1 9.5 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 3.1 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 24.1 14.9 13.1 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.0 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 31.5 22.7 16.4 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 5.3 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 5.5 5.1 6.6 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 30.2 27.6 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 8.7 4.7 5.2 24.4 21.5 22.3 n/a 32.3 22.8 2.3 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 21.5 19.9 24.0 2.9 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 17.7 11.9 7.6 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 34.9 27.3 19.2 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.3 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 14.3 11.7 12.1 8.4 7.8 27.0 16.6 17.7 16.5 14.7 26.0 21.1 18.6 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 22.8 20.1 24.3 14.3 13.4 18.4 15.9 13.7 9.6 11.2 11.7 12.5 11.4 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 4.9 5.0 5.2 3.6 3.1 11.8 8.7 8.6 7.7 7.2 10.9 10.6 6.8 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 4.0 2.6 2.8 1.7 2.2 6.7 3.3 2.9 2.1 2.7 2.9 2.9 1.3 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 7.2 6.6 8.4 5.0 4.8 14.5 7.5 8.8 6.0 6.0 11.3 9.5 7.1 5.9 5.8 18.9 13.1 13.6 9.8 12.9 18.8 10.2 10.5 8.9 11.8 16.2 8.9 8.8 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 7.3 6.2 8.0 5.5 5.4 10.4 6.2 7.1 5.6 5.5 10.4 7.9 6.7 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 1.1 1.2 2.0 0.8 0.9 3.2 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.2 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 90.4 88.4 84.3 88.5 91.3 91.3 89.3 92.0 94.4 91.7 92.6 94.1 4.3 4.8 5.0 5.2 4.1 3.6 4.2 3.4 2.7 2.3 2.4 2.3 2-3 times 3.1 3.1 5.0 3.4 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.1 2.6 1.7 1.2 4-5 times 0.8 1.1 2.2 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.6 0.1 0.7 1.0 0.6 6-7 times 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 8-9 times 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.2 10-11 times 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.2 12 or more times 0.7 1.7 2.2 1.1 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 0 times 76.4 80.9 79.4 85.1 85.7 90.1 89.4 91.1 90.6 91.1 94.7 94.3 1 time 2.5 12.3 10.0 10.7 8.3 7.4 5.7 5.2 4.5 5.9 4.0 2.5 2-3 times 7.0 5.1 3.8 4.1 4.1 2.2 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.4 4-5 times 2.3 1.7 3.2 1.0 1.3 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 6-7 times 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 8-9 times 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.2 10-11 times 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 12 or more times 0.8 0.9 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.7 57.7 83.0 61.7 49.4 59.8 74.8 72.6 72.3 71.6 85.4 82.6 80.1 1 time 11.6 9.1 9.7 10.3 9.6 6.9 6.1 6.7 4.9 4.0 5.2 4.1 2-3 times 12.3 11.5 13.5 12.0 7.4 7.5 9.3 9.3 3.9 5.3 7.2 5.9 4-5 times 5.7 5.2 7.9 5.1 2.7 3.7 4.1 3.8 1.9 1.5 1.9 2.0 6-7 times 1.7 1.6 2.6 2.5 0.8 1.9 2.0 1.8 0.7 0.9 1.7 1.0 8-9 times 1.1 2.2 2.2 1.8 0.8 1.6 1.4 1.4 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.3 10-11 times 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 12 or more times 9.2 8.1 14.3 7.8 3.4 5.6 4.5 5.0 2.4 4.1 2.8 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 65.5 73.8 n/a n/a 82.3 82.0 n/a n/a 86.7 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 10.7 10.5 n/a n/a 5.6 6.2 n/a n/a 3.3 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 13.7 8.8 n/a n/a 5.4 6.2 n/a n/a 4.6 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 4.2 2.3 n/a n/a 1.7 1.6 n/a n/a 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.6 1.0 n/a n/a 1.3 0.9 n/a n/a 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.6 0.7 n/a n/a 0.5 0.4 n/a 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.2 0.3 n/a n/a 0.1 0.2 n/a 12 or more times n/a n/a 3.6 2.5 n/a n/a 3.1 2.4 87.6 91.7 85.8 90.1 92.8 95.9 92.1 1 day 7.1 3.9 5.1 4.7 3.5 1.4 2-3 days 3.7 2.7 5.9 3.3 1.9 1.7 4-5 days 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.8 0 days 6 or more days 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.6 n/a 1.0 0.4 n/a 0.0 0.2 n/a n/a 2.6 2.2 93.9 95.3 93.6 95.1 95.7 3.6 2.8 2.3 2.7 2.5 1.8 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.4 2.4 1.0 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.8 94.6 93.4 93.5 95.8 94.1 94.6 95.1 94.4 93.6 93.8 93.9 94.5 1 day 2.8 3.3 3.6 1.9 2.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.1 2-3 days 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.5 4-5 days 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.4 6 or more days 0.9 1.7 1.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 71.5 10.1 7.9 3.5 1.6 1.2 0.6 3.7 64.5 8.2 11.6 5.0 1.4 2.0 0.8 6.6 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 74.4 7.1 7.8 3.5 1.7 0.8 0.6 4.2 74.4 5.4 8.5 3.6 1.5 1.1 0.8 4.7 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 78.2 5.5 7.3 1.6 2.3 0.8 0.5 3.8 79.5 5.4 6.0 3.8 1.0 1.0 0.1 3.2 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 0 days ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2012 1 time 0 times During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.5 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 62.2 55.4 51.6 54.6 45.5 59.3 54.0 52.4 52.6 43.8 62.0 53.0 42.9 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 5.3 4.6 3.6 3.7 4.2 5.1 4.3 3.7 4.2 4.0 6.3 3.9 3.4 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 20.7 20.1 22.8 20.7 19.1 21.4 21.3 21.0 21.1 18.3 23.9 21.7 18.7 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 30.8 25.2 21.5 25.1 23.4 23.8 23.2 25.8 23.8 23.0 27.5 22.2 17.7 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 35.5 29.5 26.0 29.1 25.0 33.9 29.1 26.7 28.9 24.7 37.3 28.5 24.5 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 27.2 23.6 20.7 23.6 20.8 19.6 20.5 17.3 18.3 15.9 17.9 13.0 12.1 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 27.1 21.7 19.6 23.8 14.3 21.3 20.7 19.1 19.7 12.5 22.6 15.9 14.4 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 29.9 25.0 27.1 26.2 19.6 27.9 25.0 26.5 25.7 18.4 31.1 22.5 19.3 21.5 16.9 4.6 3.9 3.8 5.0 5.8 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.6 5.5 3.8 4.6 3.7 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Sample size* Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 308 230 74 2,574 309 303 332 3,493 309 267 196 4,131 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 5.2 7.8 4.1 7.4 8.7 5.3 9.0 7.6 13.6 10.9 8.7 10.5 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 1.9 3.0 5.4 4.7 3.2 1.7 4.2 3.5 3.2 1.9 5.6 5.4 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.5 4.2 3.3 3.6 3.0 3.2 1.9 4.6 3.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. 19.2 25.2 20.3 14.5 28.8 26.1 23.8 25.3 50.5 39.3 32.1 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 15.6 14.8 14.9 19.8 11.7 16.8 19.3 16.7 10.4 14.2 24.5 17.1 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 15.9 20.9 14.9 20.5 17.2 23.8 22.9 16.2 18.4 21.0 22.4 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 17.9 18.3 17.6 15.4 26.9 30.4 22.6 21.5 30.7 31.1 33.2 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 23.1 23.5 21.6 19.8 22.7 27.1 25.9 26.3 17.2 21.3 17.9 21.6 I got it at a party. 35.7 37.4 31.1 33.8 46.0 44.9 40.1 45.6 46.9 48.3 45.9 50.9 I took it from home. 35.4 23.9 16.2 25.2 22.0 19.8 22.3 21.8 10.4 10.1 13.3 15.2 I took it from a store or someone else's home. 10.7 8.7 5.4 7.5 9.1 5.9 7.2 9.2 4.5 3.7 6.6 5.7 I got it some other w ay. 26.6 27.8 31.1 26.3 21.0 18.2 21.1 17.8 15.9 15.0 17.3 13.7 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 200 68 2,261 228 278 2,880 187 160 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 11.5 13.2 10.9 7.9 13.7 13.4 9.1 15.0 17.7 Friends 75.0 73.5 69.5 81.6 76.3 77.8 75.4 75.0 78.2 Family/relatives 20.0 16.2 16.8 11.8 20.1 14.7 17.1 11.3 11.9 Parties 23.5 30.9 25.0 28.9 27.0 28.4 27.3 27.5 27.5 Home 5.5 5.9 6.3 6.1 8.6 5.3 6.4 5.0 5.5 School 14.0 17.6 14.8 15.8 16.5 12.3 11.8 8.8 7.6 Other 31.0 22.1 28.1 30.3 27.0 21.4 28.3 28.1 21.0 Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size** 163 117 35 1,130 174 154 140 1,428 153 140 111 1,596 Friends 50.9 56.4 48.6 47.1 67.8 58.4 59.3 56.3 66.7 60.7 59.5 59.4 Family/relatives 24.5 17.1 14.3 14.8 23.6 14.9 15.0 17.3 22.2 20.0 12.6 16.7 Parties 28.2 19.7 11.4 20.4 27.0 24.0 19.3 21.6 28.8 17.9 19.8 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 33.1 23.1 20.0 26.1 31.6 28.6 22.9 25.9 25.5 18.6 28.8 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 16.0 13.7 11.4 12.9 15.5 11.7 17.1 16.2 23.5 17.9 19.8 17.7 School 15.3 11.1 8.6 11.9 19.0 15.6 13.6 12.4 22.9 14.3 15.3 11.7 Other 22.7 17.1 11.4 17.9 21.3 18.8 18.6 14.2 22.2 20.7 15.3 13.8 Over the Internet 2.5 1.7 0.0 2.7 4.0 1.9 3.6 3.0 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 6.1 3.4 11.4 8.6 7.5 3.9 6.4 5.0 2.0 3.6 6.3 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 74.4 434 77.4 1,286 73.9 656 74.1 1,082 77.4 1,277 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 75.4 439 83.8 1,282 80.9 655 81.9 1,078 81.0 1,282 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 51.2 430 47.2 1,271 45.0 653 44.2 1,069 50.1 1,268 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 76.0 433 79.6 1,282 76.7 658 78.3 1,077 78.3 1,279 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 95.7 347 90.0 1,159 87.0 624 89.3 969 90.7 1,145 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 97.2 351 96.8 1,165 93.2 620 94.8 972 96.7 1,148 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 95.1 347 90.3 1,153 88.2 618 89.4 963 91.3 1,139 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 94.3 351 96.1 1,159 94.2 623 95.4 972 95.2 1,145 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 76.1 372 65.4 1,202 58.6 636 63.0 998 67.3 1,197 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 81.2 372 75.2 1,199 65.4 636 70.7 998 75.7 1,195 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 66.9 372 55.3 1,200 52.8 636 55.6 998 57.4 1,195 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 83.6 373 79.7 1,195 75.8 636 78.6 998 79.9 1,192 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 19.7 478 27.2 1,346 31.5 685 24.9 1,156 28.6 1,334 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 8.3 481 10.5 1,357 14.7 687 13.0 1,161 9.7 1,345 used marijuana Marijuana 10.5 475 15.3 1,337 18.9 672 15.9 1,143 14.8 1,323 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 6.0 463 8.5 1,335 7.8 681 7.2 1,142 8.4 1,319 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 Never 65.7 70.4 76.5 78.5 Once 13.2 12.6 10.6 10.3 2-3 times 12.2 10.0 6.7 6.7 4-6 times 4.6 3.9 2.9 7-10 times 1.4 1.0 More than 10 times 3.0 75.0 Once marijuana? Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 47.1 56.1 58.5 58.3 35.7 46.0 52.6 47.1 15.1 14.4 12.8 13.1 14.9 14.3 13.8 13.2 20.4 15.9 15.9 15.2 20.5 20.0 17.9 19.4 2.1 7.9 5.8 5.8 6.7 13.0 9.3 7.0 9.4 1.5 0.7 2.4 3.4 1.9 2.3 5.9 3.6 1.9 3.4 2.0 1.9 1.7 7.1 4.4 5.1 4.4 10.1 6.8 6.9 7.5 79.4 85.3 86.5 67.3 71.4 78.9 79.6 55.8 62.1 74.9 73.9 8.8 5.5 6.8 11.6 11.5 8.4 8.4 12.5 11.2 8.4 9.2 5.9 4.8 3.7 8.8 7.7 6.4 5.3 11.0 11.3 7.9 6.8 4-6 times 2.5 2.4 2.5 1.2 3.7 3.2 1.9 2.5 5.4 5.4 2.2 3.1 7-10 times 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5 2.0 2.9 1.5 1.2 3.6 2.7 1.6 1.6 More than 10 times 3.2 2.8 1.3 1.3 6.6 3.3 3.0 3.1 11.7 7.3 5.0 5.4 Never 72.0 73.6 70.6 75.5 56.5 60.3 57.6 57.5 53.7 60.1 57.1 54.1 Once 8.6 8.9 7.9 8.3 10.1 11.7 10.8 11.4 9.8 9.3 10.6 10.5 2-3 times 8.6 6.4 8.1 6.6 10.8 9.9 10.2 10.8 11.9 10.4 12.1 12.0 4-6 times 4.0 3.3 2.7 3.3 7.2 6.1 7.0 6.7 6.6 6.7 5.3 6.8 7-10 times 2.1 2.2 2.9 1.7 4.3 3.8 4.5 3.8 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.8 4.8 5.7 7.7 4.6 8.1 9.9 9.8 10.3 11.9 12.7 Never 87.4 89.2 86.6 88.4 83.4 82.5 78.4 82.6 78.6 81.3 81.5 82.1 Once 6.1 4.6 4.4 5.5 6.3 7.8 9.3 7.6 8.2 7.6 5.6 6.7 2-3 times 3.3 2.6 3.6 2.7 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.3 5.4 5.5 4.8 5.0 4-6 times 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.2 1.9 2.4 2.0 2.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 7-10 times 0.6 0.5 2.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.9 1.0 2.0 1.2 1.5 1.0 More than 10 times 1.4 1.9 1.3 1.7 3.5 2.2 3.0 2.6 3.4 2.7 4.8 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 33.0 31.6 34.0 30.5 65.3 33.0 32.7 35.2 57.5 33.5 40.4 39.2 Once 16.5 12.7 14.8 11.6 34.7 14.7 15.9 14.4 42.5 13.6 13.9 15.6 Twice 7.6 5.0 4.6 4.6 0.0 7.0 7.0 6.9 0.0 8.8 6.3 7.6 Three times 3.7 3.0 3.0 2.3 0.0 3.4 3.5 3.5 0.0 4.0 4.7 3.8 Four or more times 6.3 6.5 5.9 4.6 0.0 9.7 7.3 6.3 0.0 10.8 7.5 6.7 I never get offers 32.9 41.2 37.7 46.4 0.0 32.2 33.6 33.6 0.0 29.4 27.2 27.1 Never 38.8 35.2 35.0 33.6 2.9 40.0 40.1 37.1 5.8 39.0 44.1 41.5 Once 13.4 11.3 12.3 9.4 97.1 10.2 12.5 13.2 94.2 13.1 13.2 14.2 Twice 7.7 4.8 8.1 4.3 0.0 7.4 5.8 7.0 0.0 8.1 7.5 8.1 Three times 2.9 2.4 2.8 2.2 0.0 4.1 2.7 3.6 0.0 3.5 3.5 4.0 1.1 11.0 Grade 8 14.1 Grade 10 Grade 12 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.7 0.0 6.2 5.5 5.4 0.0 6.3 4.8 5.2 I never get offers 32.7 41.9 38.4 46.7 0.0 32.1 33.6 33.7 0.0 30.1 26.9 26.9 Never 40.2 37.8 40.9 35.4 44.3 44.8 46.0 1.4 46.1 49.9 53.3 Once 13.5 8.9 8.3 8.5 98.9 10.2 10.7 9.7 98.6 10.2 10.3 9.2 Twice 4.4 3.4 3.7 3.2 0.0 4.0 3.6 3.9 0.0 4.9 4.3 3.9 Three times 3.0 3.2 4.1 1.9 0.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.0 2.7 2.5 2.3 Four or more times 5.2 5.0 4.6 3.7 0.0 6.0 4.7 4.0 0.0 4.8 5.4 3.7 I never get offers 33.7 41.7 38.4 47.3 0.0 33.2 33.9 34.2 0.0 31.3 27.6 27.6 Never 43.8 41.4 40.8 38.2 1.4 47.9 48.8 49.7 1.4 48.7 56.2 57.0 Once 10.4 7.6 10.1 6.8 98.6 9.2 9.0 7.8 98.6 7.2 7.2 7.6 Twice 4.8 2.4 3.7 2.4 0.0 2.6 2.5 2.9 0.0 5.2 1.8 3.0 Three times 2.6 2.2 2.8 1.5 0.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 0.0 2.7 3.1 1.8 Four or more times 4.6 4.6 3.2 3.3 0.0 5.2 3.8 3.3 0.0 4.7 3.1 2.7 33.8 41.8 39.4 47.8 0.0 33.1 34.1 34.6 0.0 31.6 28.6 27.9 I never get offers 47 State 2014 7.1 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. County 2014 11.3 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. County 2012 2-3 times More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 Never cigarettes? Grade 8 County 2010 1.1 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 w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 79.1 82.3 86.9 87.7 77.9 85.8 85.0 1 or 2 times 10.3 9.8 5.2 6.4 10.4 5.8 6.3 89.1 81.4 86.1 86.6 89.6 5.0 8.5 5.3 5.9 3 to 5 times 3.6 3.1 2.4 2.5 3.3 3.0 4.4 4.7 2.6 3.9 3.0 2.8 6 to 9 times 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.2 2.1 1.5 1.3 2.0 1.7 1.7 1.3 10 to 19 times 1.6 1.2 1.2 0.7 3.7 1.4 0.8 1.2 0.6 1.7 1.2 1.1 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.4 0.6 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.7 30 to 39 times 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.6 40+ times 2.3 1.4 1.2 1.0 2.1 0.2 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.6 2.0 1.4 Never 23.5 38.9 32.5 48.7 1.3 26.1 36.3 49.5 54.3 30.0 47.7 62.4 65.8 1 or 2 times 27.3 26.9 25.7 3 to 5 times 21.2 16.7 19.2 26.4 24.7 22.9 22.5 22.6 24.7 21.6 17.0 17.9 12.8 20.4 19.4 14.1 12.7 19.0 16.2 11.1 6 to 9 times 12.0 8.1 7.6 5.4 9.4 11.2 10.4 7.0 5.2 11.8 6.4 5.2 10 to 19 times 6.1 4.0 5.0 3.1 2.8 9.4 4.9 3.4 2.3 7.7 3.6 2.0 20 to 29 times 3.1 1.7 1.6 2.8 1.2 3.2 2.7 1.6 1.0 2.8 1.4 0.7 0.7 30 to 39 times 1.3 40+ times 5.5 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 2.9 5.8 2.3 4.7 2.7 1.4 1.5 3.1 2.7 1.3 Never 1.2 78.5 85.6 83.0 89.8 78.5 89.1 89.4 92.4 80.1 89.9 93.4 94.5 1 or 2 times 12.4 9.0 8.4 6.0 10.6 6.0 6.2 4.2 10.6 5.4 3.2 3.0 3 to 5 times 4.5 2.6 2.4 1.9 4.1 2.1 1.5 1.4 5.5 1.4 1.3 0.9 6 to 9 times 1.3 1.2 2.6 1.0 1.9 0.8 1.2 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.5 10 to 19 times 1.3 0.4 1.4 0.4 3.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 1.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 40+ times 0.9 0.7 1.8 0.6 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.2 0.6 0.5 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* 1.1 86.8 87.7 88.2 91.5 84.5 91.6 90.9 93.7 86.0 92.8 91.7 94.6 7.8 7.9 5.8 5.4 9.0 5.5 5.7 3.8 8.5 4.3 5.3 3.2 3 to 5 times 2.7 1.8 2.0 1.2 2.2 1.2 2.2 1.2 2.1 1.2 1.3 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.9 0.6 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 10 to 19 times 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.7 0.9 1.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 Never Grade 8 County 63.9 Grade 8 County Grade 8 State 57.7 71.7 1.1 Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County 62.6 58.6 69.3 70.4 Grade 12 County 66.4 Grade 12 County 57.6 Grade 12 State 75.1 75.5 Once 11.9 14.7 8.7 11.2 12.2 14.3 10.9 10.5 11.6 14.1 5.7 7.8 2-3 times 11.1 12.4 9.9 9.6 10.5 12.8 9.9 10.4 8.8 13.5 10.3 10.3 4-6 times 4.5 5.0 3.1 3.4 5.7 4.9 3.6 3.5 5.0 7.0 4.3 3.0 7-10 times 2.2 1.8 0.9 0.9 2.4 1.7 1.5 1.0 2.0 3.1 1.0 0.8 More than 10 times 6.4 8.4 5.6 5.9 6.7 7.6 4.8 4.1 6.2 4.7 3.4 2.6 Never n/a n/a 55.9 48.0 n/a n/a 58.7 57.8 n/a n/a 68.7 68.2 Once n/a n/a 14.1 17.8 n/a n/a 14.9 15.7 n/a n/a 11.5 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 15.1 17.2 n/a n/a 14.6 14.9 n/a n/a 10.9 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 4.4 6.8 n/a n/a 4.8 4.7 n/a n/a 3.1 7-10 times n/a n/a 2.7 2.8 n/a n/a 1.8 2.1 n/a n/a 1.7 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 7.8 7.5 n/a n/a 5.3 4.8 n/a n/a 4.1 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 8.3 7.6 n/a n/a 6.9 6.0 n/a n/a 7.1 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 9.2 12.4 n/a n/a 11.6 14.8 n/a n/a 13.1 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 27.6 27.6 n/a n/a 28.0 34.3 n/a n/a 29.8 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 24.8 21.5 n/a n/a 22.5 n/a n/a 20.8 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 30.2 30.9 n/a n/a 30.9 n/a n/a 29.2 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 State 2014 1 or 2 times Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? Grade 12 County 2012 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 3.4 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Santa Cruz County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Santa Cruz County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Santa Cruz county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 221 22.2 493 81.1 316 84.7 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 371 37.3 49 8.1 26 7.0 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 402 40.4 66 10.9 31 8.3 11,541 23.9 All Students Surveyed* 994 100.0 608 100.0 373 100.0 48,244 100.0 Students By Gender Male 449 45.7 313 53.0 205 55.6 23,460 49.1 Female 533 54.3 278 47.0 164 44.4 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 15 1.6 22 3.9 6 1.7 989 5.3 African American 25 2.6 22 3.9 6 1.7 574 3.1 5 0.5 3 0.5 2 0.6 169 0.9 Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 11 1.2 4 0.7 3 0.9 220 1.2 254 26.8 226 40.1 93 26.7 6,067 32.5 15 1.6 11 2.0 4 1.2 1,027 5.5 623 65.7 276 48.9 234 67.2 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 2 5.4 1 4.2 1 7.1 1,274 4.5 0 0.0 2 8.3 1 7.1 1,790 6.4 1 2.7 3 12.5 3 21.4 1,459 5.2 1 2.7 0 0.0 1 7.1 260 0.9 27 73.0 15 62.5 8 57.1 20,587 73.4 1 2.7 1 4.2 0 0.0 2,413 8.6 5 13.5 2 8.3 0 0.0 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 948 95.4 564 92.8 348 93.3 18,649 Percent 38.7 37 3.7 24 4.0 14 3.8 28,051 58.1 994 100.0 608 100.0 373 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 26 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 27 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Any Gambling Past Year BH Norm 2014 Bet on a horse/other race? State 2014 Bet on Games of Skill County 2014 Bet on Dice 28 County 2012 Played Bingo * Sample footnote text here. Bet on Cards Bet on Sports Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker County 2010 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 37 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 60 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 38 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 10 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 9 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 130 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 11 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 24 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 189 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 20 Students** Sample (Rx): 11 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 37 Students** Sample (Rx): 14 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 10 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 10 Students** Sample (Rx): 5 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 10 Students** Sample (Rx): 5 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 43 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Santa Cruz County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 5 Students** Sample (Rx): 6 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 19 Students** Sample (Rx): 13 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 52 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 37.7 30.2 30.5 37.6 34.0 33.1 45.2 61.9 42.9 41.5 46.9 57.6 40.0 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 33.7 26.3 22.8 29.2 31.1 43.9 52.5 50.0 34.8 37.8 37.1 29.8 40.0 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 28.1 32.2 28.1 29.6 30.7 42.4 48.7 31.6 36.6 38.6 40.7 36.8 47.8 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 24.0 28.3 28.1 31.8 36.7 16.5 21.1 9.5 20.6 23.7 22.8 29.8 21.7 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 38.5 36.0 38.5 41.2 40.3 32.3 47.5 63.2 35.4 40.0 39.2 38.2 52.2 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 39.5 45.8 52.3 51.0 49.3 39.4 47.5 36.8 41.2 39.9 34.6 26.8 73.9 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 40.1 38.5 37.9 36.7 35.4 42.2 52.5 45.0 36.8 37.6 32.8 32.8 56.0 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 19.2 20.8 22.0 21.2 23.7 36.8 39.0 55.0 32.8 39.6 36.2 41.1 54.2 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 38.5 41.7 46.3 43.2 49.1 46.6 43.9 50.0 44.6 53.5 46.3 45.6 62.5 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 45.6 50.9 49.0 44.6 41.1 45.8 73.9 79.2 44.3 42.5 40.8 66.1 77.4 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 37.3 31.7 38.5 45.0 38.2 31.4 35.4 41.7 51.6 40.4 30.1 48.4 45.2 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 41.9 38.6 31.5 33.4 34.5 48.5 46.8 52.2 36.6 39.8 52.4 33.3 14.8 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 25.1 20.7 17.5 19.8 23.5 29.9 32.7 29.2 22.4 36.1 26.2 32.3 36.7 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 18.6 22.7 15.9 21.4 24.7 39.1 33.3 29.2 29.8 35.5 37.9 37.1 20.0 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 35.5 32.2 32.0 31.7 34.7 42.0 26.5 33.3 36.1 41.0 39.8 32.3 33.3 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 50.2 42.3 50.3 56.9 37.9 37.6 63.6 77.3 58.4 40.1 46.1 52.6 42.3 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 60.8 48.4 46.3 43.6 44.8 59.3 66.0 39.1 41.5 45.5 51.4 65.0 59.3 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 37.0 37.3 26.2 29.7 30.7 55.2 45.7 17.4 34.7 34.7 42.2 35.6 48.1 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 39.7 39.3 43.6 41.9 37.1 54.1 25.5 25.0 49.0 42.1 60.1 46.8 53.3 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 14.4 8.6 8.5 10.4 14.7 25.8 21.4 28.6 8.4 13.3 14.9 33.9 16.7 7.0 10.7 23.5 17.7 22.5 24.9 22.4 30.2 32.7 29.2 23.3 23.5 24.1 27.0 32.3 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 29.5 37.8 36.2 31.4 40.9 41.1 50.0 33.3 35.0 45.2 32.8 42.4 48.0 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 59.3 58.8 59.3 53.3 54.8 51.1 41.0 21.1 47.8 48.0 55.5 45.5 40.9 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 66.9 73.4 61.6 62.2 62.5 59.6 55.3 36.8 57.2 56.2 55.5 47.3 54.5 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 69.4 66.7 64.2 60.0 61.9 67.9 51.3 21.1 53.6 54.3 60.2 50.9 52.4 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 57.3 65.4 65.7 64.7 68.7 65.9 20.4 20.8 66.6 69.5 64.6 25.8 19.4 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 49.1 62.9 57.1 53.7 56.9 56.1 83.7 79.2 62.5 63.4 42.6 65.1 51.6 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 66.0 70.0 74.2 69.6 65.8 71.2 76.1 73.9 75.8 70.2 54.3 67.8 77.8 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 53.5 56.8 51.0 47.9 60.5 69.4 34.0 13.0 53.5 61.7 66.1 33.9 37.0 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 33.0 44.8 45.9 42.7 49.0 42.4 22.9 8.3 51.9 52.0 38.3 14.5 3.3 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 63.5 66.7 61.6 61.3 61.4 60.3 57.4 45.8 63.6 60.1 57.0 38.7 64.5 56.2 52.2 54.8 52.0 66.5 54.8 42.6 60.9 51.0 29.2 61.6 46.0 55.2 39.7 38.7 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 52.6 38.5 35.1 31.5 27.8 74.7 47.8 39.1 52.9 52.1 84.2 80.0 80.8 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 24.8 18.6 13.1 15.8 14.8 47.0 48.9 34.8 25.6 25.7 60.1 61.7 70.4 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 7.5 13.8 8.3 14.9 16.5 33.1 37.0 26.1 32.4 35.8 35.7 48.3 50.0 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.0 0.7 0.6 1.6 2.5 3.9 4.3 4.3 4.7 5.4 6.0 5.0 3.8 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.5 0.7 0.3 1.6 1.7 7.8 2.2 4.3 3.0 3.3 9.2 15.0 11.5 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 8.5 8.2 8.6 9.0 10.8 12.3 8.7 0.0 6.6 8.7 11.2 11.7 0.0 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.3 2.2 0.0 1.1 1.6 1.6 3.3 0.0 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 0.0 1.1 1.9 2.1 1.8 7.6 15.6 8.7 4.4 5.7 7.1 10.0 26.9 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.5 0.2 1.6 1.5 1.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.3 1.0 5.0 0.0 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 8.0 7.7 8.0 7.0 n/a 17.1 13.3 13.0 12.0 n/a 13.7 15.3 15.4 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.4 0.2 1.6 1.6 4.2 5.1 2.2 4.3 5.3 8.1 3.2 8.5 7.7 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 7.1 1.8 4.2 3.9 n/a 11.3 8.7 4.3 6.3 n/a 9.4 5.1 8.3 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 12.2 8.8 9.9 9.3 n/a 22.5 15.2 13.0 15.0 n/a 20.5 20.3 19.2 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 3.3 5.4 5.4 5.8 n/a 13.0 10.9 4.3 8.2 n/a 12.3 20.3 12.5 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 3.8 2.3 2.3 n/a n/a 8.7 17.4 4.2 n/a n/a 18.6 4.2 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 25.6 19.3 11.5 13.4 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 10.2 42.1 26.1 30.4 27.8 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 25.7 58.9 53.3 61.5 40.6 39.2 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 6.3 8.1 5.1 5.7 4.5 20.4 21.3 17.4 10.1 9.1 33.4 30.0 37.0 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 1.9 2.0 3.2 4.3 2.8 3.6 4.3 17.4 7.5 6.4 7.2 3.3 14.8 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 2.8 5.1 3.2 6.9 7.0 18.3 17.4 17.4 16.8 18.0 12.8 26.7 19.2 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.8 1.1 2.2 0.0 1.7 1.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.5 3.4 2.2 0.0 0.9 0.8 3.9 6.7 3.8 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 2.3 2.2 2.9 3.1 2.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 3.1 3.3 0.0 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.5 2.8 0.0 8.7 1.3 1.2 2.4 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.7 0.0 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 2.9 4.3 4.8 3.8 n/a 10.5 6.7 13.0 5.4 n/a 5.8 5.1 3.8 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.8 1.4 1.4 0.0 4.3 2.1 2.8 0.5 6.8 3.8 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 1.9 1.4 1.9 1.7 n/a 2.8 4.3 0.0 2.6 n/a 2.4 1.8 0.0 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 3.8 5.4 6.1 4.9 n/a 12.4 8.7 13.0 7.1 n/a 7.9 10.2 3.8 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 0.9 2.9 2.6 3.1 n/a 5.4 6.5 0.0 3.7 n/a 6.6 3.4 4.2 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 2.6 0.3 0.9 n/a n/a 6.8 4.3 0.8 n/a n/a 11.9 0.0 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 14.1 11.0 6.4 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 1.6 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 27.9 12.8 23.8 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 17.4 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 40.8 35.0 40.7 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 4.2 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 6.0 5.0 1.3 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 31.2 25.8 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 11.8 4.3 8.7 24.6 21.5 22.3 n/a 37.6 30.4 1.0 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 31.8 19.9 24.0 9.5 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 25.2 6.9 18.5 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 48.4 32.2 33.3 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 3.2 6.6 3.2 8.4 7.8 17.1 19.6 12.5 16.5 14.7 17.3 27.9 16.7 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 14.6 17.1 12.1 14.3 13.4 12.2 25.0 37.5 9.6 11.2 12.0 19.4 10.0 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 2.7 2.1 2.2 3.6 3.1 9.2 6.3 0.0 7.7 7.2 8.6 8.1 10.0 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 4.6 2.3 1.0 1.7 2.2 3.5 6.5 0.0 2.1 2.7 4.2 4.8 3.4 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 3.2 2.7 2.2 5.0 4.8 8.7 18.8 8.3 6.0 6.0 7.3 17.7 6.7 5.9 5.8 12.4 9.7 7.0 9.8 12.9 13.2 6.3 13.6 8.9 11.8 10.5 16.1 13.3 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 6.5 4.8 3.5 5.5 5.4 7.8 8.5 0.0 5.6 5.5 7.0 11.3 13.3 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 1.9 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.2 2.6 4.8 3.6 1.4 1.2 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question 0 times During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 94.9 94.2 94.5 88.5 95.3 89.8 87.5 92.0 94.6 90.2 93.5 94.1 3.2 2.9 3.2 5.2 1.4 6.1 0.0 3.4 3.6 0.0 3.2 2.3 2-3 times 0.9 1.3 1.3 3.4 1.9 4.1 4.2 2.1 0.8 1.6 0.0 1.2 4-5 times 0.0 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 3.2 0.6 6-7 times 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.0 8.3 0.4 0.5 1.6 0.0 0.5 8-9 times 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.2 12 or more times 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 times 78.1 79.0 84.6 85.1 84.6 89.8 83.3 91.1 91.0 83.9 90.3 94.3 1 time 12.1 11.7 9.3 8.3 9.1 6.1 8.3 4.5 4.4 8.1 3.2 2.5 2-3 times 6.5 5.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.8 4.8 6.5 1.4 4-5 times 0.9 1.9 1.3 1.0 1.1 4.1 0.0 0.6 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.4 6-7 times 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.4 0.8 1.6 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.0 4.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 1.9 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 72.4 83.0 66.4 65.2 59.8 72.2 85.7 87.5 71.6 81.7 90.0 93.5 1 time 11.7 10.0 9.3 10.3 10.7 6.1 0.0 6.7 7.2 3.3 3.2 4.1 2-3 times 6.5 11.0 12.1 12.0 9.4 2.0 0.0 9.3 5.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 4-5 times 1.4 3.7 4.2 5.1 3.6 4.1 8.3 3.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 6-7 times 0.9 1.7 1.3 2.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.8 1.0 3.3 0.0 1.0 8-9 times 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.8 0.6 0.0 4.2 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 10-11 times 0.0 1.0 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 12 or more times 6.1 4.8 5.1 7.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.3 3.3 3.2 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 70.3 73.8 n/a n/a 83.3 82.0 n/a n/a 93.5 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 14.4 10.5 n/a n/a 4.2 6.2 n/a n/a 0.0 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 11.2 8.8 n/a n/a 0.0 6.2 n/a n/a 3.2 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.6 2.3 n/a n/a 4.2 1.6 n/a n/a 0.0 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.0 1.0 n/a n/a 4.2 0.9 n/a n/a 3.2 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.7 n/a n/a 4.2 0.4 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.0 0.3 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 1.6 2.5 n/a n/a 0.0 2.4 n/a n/a 0.0 2.2 85.4 91.3 90.7 90.1 93.9 95.9 91.7 93.9 93.3 91.9 90.3 95.7 1 day 6.1 3.3 4.5 4.7 4.4 2.0 4.2 2.8 3.1 4.8 6.5 1.8 2-3 days 4.7 2.3 3.2 3.3 1.4 0.0 4.2 2.0 2.1 3.2 0.0 1.2 4-5 days 2.3 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 3.2 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 1.4 1.7 0.6 1.0 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 96.3 98.1 98.4 95.8 96.7 95.9 87.5 94.4 96.6 95.1 90.3 94.5 1 day 0.9 0.4 0.6 1.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.3 1.6 0.0 2-3 days 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.0 8.3 1.1 0.3 0.0 6.5 4-5 days 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.3 2.0 4.2 0.5 0.3 1.6 0.0 6 or more days 0.9 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.8 2.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 1.6 3.2 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 77.2 8.6 8.6 1.5 0.6 0.8 0.0 2.7 74.8 8.0 8.9 2.9 1.9 0.3 0.0 3.2 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 83.7 8.2 4.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 87.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 79.0 6.5 6.5 3.2 1.6 0.0 1.6 1.6 96.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 0 days ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2012 1 time 0 times During the past 12 months, how often have you been picked on or bullied by a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? Grade 10 County 2010 1.1 1.1 0.5 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 73.5 65.5 63.6 54.6 45.5 71.0 55.3 47.8 52.6 43.8 63.5 65.0 57.1 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 8.3 5.0 5.4 3.7 4.2 11.0 8.7 13.0 4.2 4.0 9.5 8.3 17.9 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 19.4 22.4 17.5 20.7 19.1 26.0 19.1 13.0 21.1 18.3 25.9 23.3 21.4 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 44.9 40.8 34.6 25.1 23.4 40.6 25.5 21.7 23.8 23.0 37.9 30.0 28.6 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 46.5 34.4 29.1 29.1 25.0 46.0 34.1 26.1 28.9 24.7 39.6 33.3 28.6 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 30.8 31.6 27.7 23.6 20.8 21.9 19.6 21.7 18.3 15.9 19.9 11.9 17.9 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 20.1 24.9 23.2 23.8 14.3 27.4 17.0 21.7 19.7 12.5 19.5 20.0 21.4 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 32.9 34.7 26.9 26.2 19.6 38.3 21.7 26.1 25.7 18.4 30.6 31.7 32.1 21.5 16.9 7.0 9.3 7.9 5.0 5.8 8.8 14.9 13.0 4.6 5.5 9.0 15.0 17.9 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Sample size* 38 60 37 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 5.3 5.0 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 5.3 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. I gave someone else money to buy it for me. County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 2,574 130 9 10 3,493 189 24 11 4,131 2.7 7.4 4.6 33.3 20.0 7.6 14.8 37.5 18.2 10.5 1.7 0.0 4.7 1.5 11.1 20.0 3.5 6.3 25.0 36.4 5.4 2.6 3.3 2.7 4.5 1.5 11.1 40.0 3.0 2.1 4.2 27.3 3.7 5.3 18.3 5.4 14.5 43.1 44.4 20.0 25.3 35.4 25.0 36.4 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 13.2 10.0 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 13.5 19.8 7.7 11.1 40.0 16.7 5.3 20.8 0.0 17.1 21.1 13.3 29.7 20.5 16.9 22.2 20.0 16.2 12.2 16.7 54.5 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 21.1 15.0 21.6 15.4 30.0 33.3 30.0 21.5 22.2 16.7 18.2 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 10.5 15.0 13.5 19.8 25.4 0.0 30.0 26.3 12.7 8.3 27.3 21.6 I got it at a party. 44.7 61.7 54.1 33.8 67.7 77.8 60.0 45.6 63.0 50.0 54.5 50.9 I took it from home. 13.2 13.3 13.5 25.2 13.8 33.3 20.0 21.8 12.2 16.7 9.1 15.2 7.9 1.7 5.4 7.5 3.8 0.0 10.0 9.2 4.2 4.2 18.2 5.7 21.1 13.3 21.6 26.3 22.3 22.2 20.0 17.8 10.6 12.5 54.5 13.7 I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. State 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 State 2014 ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 37 20 2,261 10 10 2,880 19 5 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 2.7 10.0 10.9 20.0 30.0 13.4 5.3 0.0 17.7 64.9 60.0 69.5 50.0 30.0 77.8 68.4 60.0 78.2 5.4 5.0 16.8 10.0 20.0 14.7 15.8 20.0 11.9 Parties 35.1 30.0 25.0 10.0 20.0 28.4 15.8 60.0 27.5 Home 5.4 0.0 6.3 0.0 10.0 5.3 5.3 0.0 5.5 School 5.4 20.0 14.8 10.0 20.0 12.3 5.3 60.0 7.6 32.4 30.0 28.1 40.0 60.0 21.4 47.4 80.0 21.0 Friends Family/relatives Other Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 10 14 11 1,130 43 5 5 1,428 52 13 6 1,596 Friends 10.0 42.9 36.4 47.1 74.4 60.0 40.0 56.3 44.2 76.9 50.0 59.4 Family/relatives 50.0 0.0 0.0 14.8 23.3 40.0 20.0 17.3 25.0 30.8 0.0 16.7 Parties 30.0 28.6 9.1 20.4 41.9 20.0 20.0 21.6 30.8 7.7 33.3 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 30.0 0.0 45.5 26.1 25.6 40.0 20.0 25.9 36.5 23.1 16.7 22.2 17.7 Doctor/pharmacy 0.0 7.1 0.0 12.9 16.3 0.0 20.0 16.2 19.2 15.4 16.7 School 10.0 0.0 9.1 11.9 27.9 0.0 40.0 12.4 25.0 7.7 16.7 11.7 Other 30.0 14.3 27.3 17.9 23.3 0.0 0.0 14.2 28.8 7.7 33.3 13.8 Over the Internet 10.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 20.0 7.1 9.1 8.6 18.6 0.0 40.0 5.0 21.2 15.4 16.7 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 82.1 308 47.6 21 61.5 26 76.2 193 82.9 158 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 85.0 307 59.1 22 88.5 26 84.5 193 84.2 158 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 71.8 301 27.3 22 53.8 26 63.7 190 73.5 155 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 80.1 306 50.0 22 73.1 26 79.8 193 76.4 157 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 95.3 298 75.0 20 72.0 25 90.3 185 96.1 154 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 98.3 300 95.0 20 66.7 24 93.5 185 99.4 155 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 97.0 296 83.3 18 87.5 24 95.1 183 97.4 151 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 95.7 299 95.0 20 91.7 24 96.8 185 94.2 154 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 88.9 305 68.4 19 40.0 25 78.8 189 90.4 156 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 93.1 305 81.0 21 40.0 25 85.2 189 92.4 158 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 87.8 304 57.1 21 44.0 25 77.4 190 89.1 156 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 93.5 306 80.0 20 80.0 25 87.9 190 96.2 157 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 11.5 312 30.4 23 61.5 26 16.2 197 16.3 160 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 5.1 313 17.4 23 37.0 27 7.6 198 9.3 161 used marijuana Marijuana 3.2 313 17.4 23 19.2 26 6.6 198 3.8 160 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 6.1 312 13.0 23 3.8 26 3.5 198 10.1 159 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 62.4 65.6 78.8 78.5 Once 18.3 11.8 9.0 10.3 42.6 51.1 60.9 58.3 24.4 45.0 33.3 47.1 16.7 10.6 17.4 13.1 12.6 20.0 22.2 2-3 times 9.4 12.5 7.1 13.2 6.7 16.4 17.0 13.0 15.2 30.1 20.0 18.5 4-6 times 6.1 5.5 19.4 3.2 2.1 12.3 10.6 0.0 6.7 14.9 8.3 11.1 7-10 times 0.9 9.4 1.3 0.3 0.7 4.5 6.4 0.0 2.3 6.4 1.7 3.7 More than 10 times 3.4 2.8 3.3 1.6 1.7 7.5 4.3 8.7 4.4 11.6 5.0 11.1 Never 80.2 77.1 86.2 86.5 53.1 65.2 73.9 79.6 41.6 58.3 40.7 Once Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. 29.6 11.2 7.7 6.8 15.6 19.6 8.7 8.4 17.6 16.7 5.2 6.2 3.8 3.7 15.1 10.9 13.0 5.3 15.2 10.0 11.1 6.8 4-6 times 2.8 2.4 1.0 1.2 7.8 2.2 0.0 2.5 10.1 8.3 11.1 3.1 7-10 times 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.5 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 3.4 1.7 0.0 1.6 More than 10 times 0.5 2.4 1.0 1.3 5.0 2.2 4.3 3.1 12.1 5.0 7.4 5.4 57.5 55.6 54.1 87.7 71.1 77.8 75.5 56.3 61.7 60.9 58.4 63.3 Once 8.5 12.1 8.7 8.3 13.8 10.6 13.0 11.4 14.7 5.0 11.1 10.5 2-3 times 1.4 6.8 6.8 6.6 8.7 4.3 4.3 10.8 12.1 6.7 7.4 12.0 4-6 times 0.5 4.0 2.6 3.3 7.3 10.6 4.3 6.7 4.7 5.0 0.0 6.8 7-10 times 0.9 1.3 0.6 1.7 3.7 4.3 4.3 3.8 2.1 3.3 3.7 3.8 0.9 4.6 3.5 4.6 8.5 13.0 9.8 8.0 16.7 22.2 12.7 Never 92.9 87.7 89.7 88.4 79.7 80.9 78.3 82.6 85.2 88.1 77.8 82.1 Once 2.8 5.7 6.1 5.5 9.3 12.8 13.0 7.6 4.7 3.4 7.4 6.7 2-3 times 2.4 3.5 2.3 2.7 4.8 2.1 4.3 4.3 4.1 1.7 0.0 5.0 4-6 times 0.0 2.8 2.1 0.0 2.0 1.3 1.7 0.0 2.1 7-10 times 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 More than 10 times 1.4 1.8 0.6 1.7 2.5 2.1 4.3 2.6 3.4 5.1 14.8 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 34.7 27.2 27.4 30.5 Once 14.4 12.4 16.0 11.6 Twice 5.0 6.1 4.9 Three times 5.0 2.7 Four or more times 6.4 I never get offers 1.1 1.0 1.1 10.1 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 60.1 40.0 40.9 35.2 46.3 36.2 20.0 39.2 39.9 15.6 27.3 14.4 53.7 15.5 40.0 15.6 4.6 0.0 6.7 4.5 6.9 0.0 8.6 8.0 7.6 3.3 2.3 0.0 8.9 4.5 3.5 0.0 6.9 8.0 3.8 8.3 4.2 4.6 0.0 13.3 13.6 6.3 0.0 10.3 12.0 6.7 34.7 43.4 44.3 46.4 0.0 15.6 9.1 33.6 0.0 22.4 12.0 27.1 Never 41.8 30.9 32.7 33.6 1.8 52.3 54.5 37.1 7.6 43.1 50.0 41.5 Once 13.9 10.2 12.7 9.4 98.2 15.9 22.7 13.2 92.4 19.0 23.1 14.2 Twice 3.5 6.1 4.2 4.3 0.0 6.8 9.1 7.0 0.0 6.9 11.5 8.1 Three times 4.0 2.7 1.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.4 0.0 4.0 4.5 7.5 4.2 3.7 0.0 9.1 4.5 5.4 0.0 6.9 I never get offers 32.3 42.6 44.8 46.7 0.0 15.9 9.1 33.7 0.0 20.7 Never 37.8 29.6 30.4 35.4 0.6 48.8 63.6 46.0 3.3 47.4 42.3 53.3 Once 14.4 12.7 10.5 8.5 99.4 16.3 18.2 9.7 96.7 17.5 23.1 9.2 Twice 6.0 2.2 5.6 3.2 0.0 4.7 0.0 3.9 0.0 3.5 3.8 3.9 Three times 3.0 3.9 2.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 4.5 2.3 0.0 1.8 15.4 2.3 7.0 7.3 4.6 3.7 0.0 14.0 4.5 4.0 0.0 5.3 I never get offers 31.8 44.3 46.1 47.3 0.0 16.3 9.1 34.2 0.0 24.6 Never 46.3 3.8 11.5 5.2 26.9 3.7 27.6 32.3 36.6 38.2 0.6 48.9 68.2 49.7 50.0 53.8 57.0 11.8 9.3 6.9 6.8 99.4 13.3 22.7 7.8 98.9 10.3 23.1 7.6 Twice 3.4 4.2 1.6 2.4 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.9 0.0 6.9 0.0 3.0 Three times 1.0 2.9 3.3 1.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 1.7 0.0 6.9 3.8 1.8 Four or more times 4.9 7.1 4.2 3.3 0.0 11.1 0.0 3.3 0.0 3.4 7.7 2.7 32.5 44.3 47.4 47.8 0.0 9.1 34.6 0.0 22.4 17.8 1.1 3.8 11.5 Once I never get offers 47 9.2 Never Four or more times Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. 7.5 73.9 10.8 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. State 2014 2-3 times 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 11.5 27.9 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 77.0 89.8 92.1 87.7 82.4 91.7 87.5 89.1 83.8 80.0 89.6 5.2 5.4 6.4 8.6 4.2 8.3 5.0 7.7 13.1 16.7 4.7 3 to 5 times 2.7 2.7 1.0 2.5 3.2 2.1 4.2 2.6 2.5 3.3 0.0 2.0 6 to 9 times 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.6 0.0 1.2 10 to 19 times 2.7 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 40+ times 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.4 2.1 0.0 1.1 1.7 3.3 3.3 1.3 Never 34.1 43.5 45.4 48.7 31.3 68.8 62.5 54.3 43.8 54.8 60.0 65.8 1 or 2 times 36.9 26.7 30.2 26.4 31.3 25.0 16.7 22.6 25.3 19.4 13.3 17.9 3 to 5 times 14.3 14.9 14.3 12.8 17.7 6.3 8.3 12.7 14.5 14.5 16.7 9.4 6 to 9 times 6.5 6.0 4.8 5.4 8.7 0.0 4.2 5.2 7.0 4.8 3.3 3.1 10 to 19 times 3.7 3.1 2.9 2.8 5.7 0.0 8.3 2.3 6.0 4.8 3.3 1.6 20 to 29 times 1.8 1.4 0.6 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 30 to 39 times 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 1.6 0.0 0.3 40+ times 2.3 3.9 1.6 2.3 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 3.3 1.2 85.8 91.3 94.0 89.8 80.7 91.7 87.5 92.4 84.2 80.6 83.3 94.5 1 or 2 times 6.4 5.2 4.1 6.0 10.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 8.3 9.7 6.7 3.0 3 to 5 times 2.3 1.2 0.0 1.9 4.1 0.0 4.2 1.4 1.8 1.6 0.0 0.9 6 to 9 times 1.8 1.2 0.6 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.3 4.8 6.7 0.5 10 to 19 times 2.8 0.0 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.0 4.2 0.5 2.5 3.2 0.0 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 4.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 3.3 0.5 1.1 89.4 92.3 93.9 91.5 88.0 93.8 87.5 93.7 91.4 82.3 86.7 94.6 1 or 2 times 6.0 4.8 3.8 5.4 7.1 2.1 4.2 3.8 4.6 12.9 3.3 3.2 3 to 5 times 1.9 0.6 0.3 1.2 1.9 0.0 8.3 1.2 0.5 1.6 3.3 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.6 3.3 0.3 10 to 19 times 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.8 2.1 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.1 40+ times 1.4 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 3.3 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 62.1 42.3 61.2 Once 13.3 21.4 16.3 2-3 times 14.2 16.7 4-6 times 2.4 7-10 times 0.9 More than 10 times Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 56.6 70.2 68.2 70.4 61.6 66.7 53.8 11.2 16.6 6.4 13.6 10.5 13.3 10.0 23.1 7.8 12.7 9.6 13.8 12.8 0.0 10.4 13.3 8.3 0.0 10.3 6.2 3.3 3.4 3.7 0.0 4.5 3.5 5.0 6.7 11.5 3.0 3.6 0.3 0.9 1.7 2.1 4.5 1.0 2.1 5.0 0.0 0.8 7.1 9.8 6.2 5.9 7.6 8.5 9.1 4.1 4.7 3.3 11.5 Never n/a n/a 42.8 48.0 n/a n/a 73.9 57.8 n/a n/a 63.0 68.2 Once n/a n/a 20.8 17.8 n/a n/a 8.7 15.7 n/a n/a 14.8 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 17.6 17.2 n/a n/a 4.3 14.9 n/a n/a 14.8 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 5.8 6.8 n/a n/a 4.3 4.7 n/a n/a 7.4 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 3.5 2.8 n/a n/a 0.0 2.1 n/a n/a 0.0 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 9.6 7.5 n/a n/a 8.7 4.8 n/a n/a 0.0 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 5.7 7.6 n/a n/a 13.6 6.0 n/a n/a 4.0 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 14.7 12.4 n/a n/a 4.5 14.8 n/a n/a 8.0 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 29.7 27.6 n/a n/a 31.8 34.3 n/a n/a 32.0 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 17.0 21.5 n/a n/a 18.2 n/a n/a 28.0 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 33.0 30.9 n/a n/a 31.8 n/a n/a 28.0 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2010 7.8 Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 84.5 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 75.5 2.6 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Yavapai County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Yavapai County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Yavapai county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1,033 40.5 904 40.2 877 43.6 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 893 35.0 806 35.9 698 34.7 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 627 24.6 538 23.9 435 21.6 11,541 23.9 2,553 100.0 2,248 100.0 2,010 100.0 48,244 100.0 All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 1,283 51.1 1,117 50.5 977 49.1 23,460 49.1 Female 1,228 48.9 1,097 49.5 1,014 50.9 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 26 4.0 29 4.4 39 5.6 989 5.3 African American 19 3.0 9 1.4 16 2.3 574 3.1 7 1.1 10 1.5 6 0.9 169 0.9 Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 9 1.4 9 1.4 9 1.3 220 1.2 173 26.8 202 30.6 255 36.3 6,067 32.5 40 6.2 37 5.6 41 5.8 1,027 5.5 371 57.5 364 55.2 337 47.9 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 58 3.1 46 3.1 30 2.4 1,274 4.5 31 1.7 25 1.7 15 1.2 1,790 6.4 25 1.4 18 1.2 26 2.1 1,459 5.2 24 1.3 15 1.0 5 0.4 260 0.9 1,557 84.2 1,223 83.3 1,062 85.0 20,587 73.4 127 6.9 103 7.0 99 7.9 2,413 8.6 27 1.5 38 2.6 13 1.0 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number 645 25.3 660 29.4 703 35.0 18,649 38.7 Non-Hispanic Students 1,849 72.4 1,468 65.3 1,250 62.2 28,051 58.1 Total Students** 2,553 100.0 2,248 100.0 2,010 100.0 48,244 100.0 Hispanic Students Percent ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 8 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 12 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 10 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 14 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 12 100 Community Family School Peer and Individual Total 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Total Protection 16 BH Norm 2014 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. Prosocial Involvement State 2014 Interaction with Prosocial Peers County 2014 Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2012 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 111 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 130 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 164 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 170 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 230 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 261 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 163 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 237 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 218 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 100 Students** Sample (Rx): 47 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 85 Students** Sample (Rx): 53 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 78 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 164 Students** Sample (Rx): 69 Students** School Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 203 Students** Sample (Rx): 113 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 166 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Yavapai County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 125 Students** Sample (Rx): 46 Students** School Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 145 Students** Sample (Rx): 91 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 119 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 40.9 38.9 43.4 37.6 34.0 48.0 50.4 49.5 42.9 41.5 56.8 58.8 57.3 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 36.1 33.3 36.9 29.2 31.1 48.0 47.3 40.7 34.8 37.8 40.6 48.2 38.9 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 35.4 34.8 36.5 29.6 30.7 44.9 46.7 38.1 36.6 38.6 43.1 41.2 43.7 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 38.3 43.4 39.7 31.8 36.7 28.8 26.5 25.5 20.6 23.7 29.3 39.8 30.0 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 43.8 42.1 43.9 41.2 40.3 40.7 40.1 40.6 35.4 40.0 43.9 42.0 39.1 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 51.0 49.2 52.5 51.0 49.3 43.7 39.6 41.0 41.2 39.9 36.7 38.3 39.2 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 40.0 39.3 43.9 36.7 35.4 42.7 51.4 44.8 36.8 37.6 38.6 44.1 44.4 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 29.6 26.4 29.9 21.2 23.7 46.1 46.3 37.3 32.8 39.6 47.0 50.3 40.9 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 51.5 52.1 51.2 43.2 49.1 57.4 58.2 47.0 44.6 53.5 57.2 60.2 48.7 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 44.0 47.0 49.7 44.6 41.1 46.6 50.8 44.8 44.3 42.5 37.9 41.6 42.4 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 39.8 40.0 50.6 45.0 38.2 49.3 53.8 55.3 51.6 40.4 48.9 50.8 60.0 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 41.8 33.4 37.2 33.4 34.5 48.6 44.4 38.2 36.6 39.8 39.0 41.9 37.0 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 32.0 28.0 24.0 19.8 23.5 33.9 34.6 28.4 22.4 36.1 25.5 34.3 29.8 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 28.8 28.0 29.8 21.4 24.7 39.5 43.9 38.1 29.8 35.5 38.1 44.1 34.1 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 41.0 41.2 39.2 31.7 34.7 52.1 48.2 43.5 36.1 41.0 45.7 42.9 39.2 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 49.0 47.1 62.6 56.9 37.9 50.1 59.0 70.4 58.4 40.1 53.6 62.7 68.5 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 51.4 51.3 48.7 43.6 44.8 58.1 56.0 46.5 41.5 45.5 46.7 54.2 49.1 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 36.6 39.5 35.0 29.7 30.7 44.5 48.9 42.0 34.7 34.7 33.1 38.8 35.2 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 44.0 44.0 45.4 41.9 37.1 47.3 55.2 52.1 49.0 42.1 51.3 66.6 63.7 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 17.7 13.2 11.9 10.4 14.7 18.7 13.5 10.6 8.4 13.3 10.3 12.1 3.9 7.0 10.7 31.8 31.6 33.7 24.9 22.4 37.7 34.8 29.5 23.3 23.5 32.5 35.8 30.3 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 34.4 35.6 32.3 31.4 40.9 37.2 36.2 30.4 35.0 45.2 34.1 35.0 26.4 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 52.5 54.7 51.6 53.3 54.8 42.3 46.5 44.6 47.8 48.0 56.3 52.4 52.0 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 60.0 63.7 60.7 62.2 62.5 50.8 51.9 52.0 57.2 56.2 54.1 55.4 54.3 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 60.3 60.0 57.8 60.0 61.9 51.6 53.0 49.1 53.6 54.3 55.5 49.6 47.2 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 67.3 60.9 62.7 64.7 68.7 62.0 55.9 61.5 66.6 69.5 61.8 64.0 59.6 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 56.6 54.8 52.5 53.7 56.9 61.9 60.0 66.9 62.5 63.4 42.4 51.8 45.5 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 64.7 65.9 63.4 69.6 65.8 65.6 67.9 71.0 75.8 70.2 57.0 52.3 58.9 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 57.6 52.8 42.1 47.9 60.5 52.5 46.8 46.4 53.5 61.7 56.4 51.6 42.9 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 44.6 44.5 41.7 42.7 49.0 46.5 47.1 42.2 51.9 52.0 47.3 44.4 40.2 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 64.3 60.2 59.5 61.3 61.4 57.3 57.7 61.2 63.6 60.1 58.7 47.8 49.8 56.2 52.2 54.2 55.7 53.2 54.8 42.6 56.2 51.4 52.5 61.6 46.0 58.2 53.9 48.4 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 46.1 42.8 35.4 31.5 27.8 64.4 66.3 59.0 52.9 52.1 73.4 76.9 71.5 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 26.6 24.5 22.7 15.8 14.8 39.7 44.5 35.1 25.6 25.7 42.9 48.4 47.9 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 17.3 17.0 17.6 14.9 16.5 34.6 41.9 39.0 32.4 35.8 40.4 49.7 49.1 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 3.0 2.4 2.2 1.6 2.5 7.7 7.6 6.2 4.7 5.4 8.5 10.8 10.4 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.5 1.3 2.7 1.6 1.7 3.8 5.9 3.4 3.0 3.3 6.0 5.5 5.9 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 12.3 11.4 9.8 9.0 10.8 13.9 10.8 9.5 6.6 8.7 7.9 7.7 7.2 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.4 2.2 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.6 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.6 1.0 3.0 2.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 3.1 1.3 0.7 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 4.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 1.8 9.9 9.0 5.5 4.4 5.7 9.7 12.5 7.5 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.1 3.0 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.3 1.6 2.1 2.7 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 11.7 9.0 7.9 7.0 n/a 24.3 17.7 10.8 12.0 n/a 25.2 22.5 12.0 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 2.7 3.5 1.6 1.6 4.2 6.7 4.9 4.5 5.3 8.1 6.8 6.0 6.2 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 8.1 4.9 5.1 3.9 n/a 13.1 9.9 7.1 6.3 n/a 13.4 12.6 6.0 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 16.0 11.2 10.5 9.3 n/a 28.3 21.5 14.3 15.0 n/a 28.9 25.1 14.6 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 10.5 7.3 6.7 5.8 n/a 14.0 13.0 8.9 8.2 n/a 12.4 12.7 9.3 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 7.3 3.5 2.3 n/a n/a 12.4 5.8 4.2 n/a n/a 15.7 6.0 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 21.3 18.6 15.2 13.4 10.2 34.7 35.6 30.5 27.8 25.7 39.2 50.4 43.7 40.6 39.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 11.1 11.1 9.9 5.7 4.5 19.0 20.8 14.7 10.1 9.1 20.2 25.7 22.7 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 3.9 2.7 5.8 4.3 2.8 10.4 5.1 11.3 7.5 6.4 10.7 7.4 14.2 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 7.6 7.6 9.0 6.9 7.0 18.1 21.3 20.7 16.8 18.0 19.0 25.8 25.6 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.8 2.4 2.0 2.2 1.7 1.1 2.6 1.1 2.2 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.5 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 4.4 3.6 3.0 3.1 2.3 2.9 2.9 1.7 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.9 1.2 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 1.3 0.2 0.9 0.8 0.5 2.8 2.2 2.0 1.3 1.2 2.4 1.9 1.3 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.8 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 5.3 4.8 4.5 3.8 n/a 13.1 7.8 4.2 5.4 n/a 9.5 8.5 3.7 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.4 2.4 2.6 1.7 2.1 2.8 2.1 2.3 1.3 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 3.4 2.4 2.2 1.7 n/a 5.8 4.0 2.5 2.6 n/a 4.1 5.1 1.3 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 7.8 6.3 5.6 4.9 n/a 15.0 9.8 5.9 7.1 n/a 12.0 11.0 4.7 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 5.2 3.5 4.3 3.1 n/a 6.9 5.0 4.2 3.7 n/a 5.8 4.4 4.0 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 4.6 1.1 0.9 n/a n/a 4.5 1.9 0.8 n/a n/a 4.6 0.5 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 12.2 10.0 8.1 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 2.7 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 21.1 20.4 14.9 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.9 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 25.0 30.5 25.4 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 3.5 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 4.2 3.0 3.7 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 25.4 23.6 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 7.9 7.4 5.2 22.0 21.5 22.3 n/a 29.0 26.9 2.1 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 19.3 19.9 24.0 3.5 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 12.6 13.2 12.0 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 26.0 29.0 21.8 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.1 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 10.4 11.0 9.8 8.4 7.8 22.3 24.1 18.1 16.5 14.7 22.0 22.9 17.6 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 16.0 15.1 15.2 14.3 13.4 13.4 14.9 10.6 9.6 11.2 6.5 11.9 5.3 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 4.2 4.7 5.1 3.6 3.1 11.1 11.6 9.8 7.7 7.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 4.1 1.1 3.2 1.7 2.2 4.3 3.8 3.0 2.1 2.7 1.3 2.3 1.2 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 8.3 5.1 7.6 5.0 4.8 9.9 6.9 7.7 6.0 6.0 6.4 6.8 5.5 5.9 5.8 17.0 11.5 10.7 9.8 12.9 16.3 13.2 10.9 8.9 11.8 8.7 12.1 6.2 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 6.8 6.6 6.7 5.5 5.4 8.5 5.8 6.5 5.6 5.5 5.4 7.2 4.8 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.7 1.1 1.3 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.2 1.4 1.2 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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 often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** Grade 10 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 0 times 91.7 89.5 87.4 88.5 90.4 88.8 92.1 92.0 94.8 92.8 94.8 94.1 1 time 4.3 4.5 5.1 5.2 4.2 4.9 3.1 3.4 2.1 3.0 2.6 2.3 2-3 times 2.3 3.6 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.8 2.1 1.0 1.2 4-5 times 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 6-7 times 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 8-9 times 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 12 or more times 0.6 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.4 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.9 0 times 74.5 79.7 83.3 85.1 81.4 83.1 88.5 91.1 92.9 92.3 95.5 94.3 1 time 2.5 State 2014 14.4 10.5 9.8 8.3 10.4 10.3 5.6 4.5 4.7 4.3 2.4 2-3 times 6.7 6.5 4.4 4.1 5.8 3.6 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.4 4-5 times 2.3 1.5 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 6-7 times 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.3 8-9 times 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.7 0 times 58.0 56.5 59.8 65.3 63.2 67.9 71.6 84.0 74.9 76.1 83.0 1 time 14.0 10.0 11.3 10.3 10.2 9.0 6.0 6.7 4.7 5.7 5.9 4.1 2-3 times 11.7 13.9 11.5 12.0 9.9 10.3 10.9 9.3 5.3 8.7 8.8 5.9 4-5 times 4.7 4.9 6.3 5.1 4.0 6.3 4.1 3.8 2.1 2.6 2.8 2.0 6-7 times 1.7 2.7 3.1 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.8 0.3 1.1 1.4 1.0 8-9 times 2.0 2.6 2.2 1.8 0.9 2.2 2.4 1.4 0.2 1.7 1.2 0.7 10-11 times 0.4 0.6 1.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 12 or more times 7.4 8.8 11.1 7.8 7.1 7.0 6.0 5.0 2.9 4.7 3.1 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 73.8 n/a n/a 77.6 82.0 n/a n/a 82.9 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 11.4 10.5 n/a n/a 6.9 6.2 n/a n/a 5.9 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 11.0 8.8 n/a n/a 7.9 6.2 n/a n/a 4.5 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 3.1 2.3 n/a n/a 2.3 1.6 n/a n/a 2.1 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 1.2 1.0 n/a n/a 1.5 0.9 n/a n/a 0.2 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.7 0.7 n/a n/a 0.9 0.4 n/a n/a 0.2 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.6 0.3 n/a n/a 0.3 0.2 n/a n/a 0.9 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 2.7 2.5 n/a n/a 2.6 2.4 n/a n/a 3.1 2.2 0 days 92.1 94.6 88.3 90.1 90.7 94.3 92.7 93.9 96.4 94.4 96.5 95.7 1 day 4.5 2.8 6.2 4.7 5.2 3.8 3.4 2.8 1.3 2.8 1.2 1.8 2-3 days 1.7 1.6 4.1 3.3 2.4 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.2 4-5 days 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.4 6 or more days 53.0 69.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 94.7 92.7 96.4 95.8 90.2 91.3 91.7 94.4 92.1 92.4 94.3 94.5 1 day 2.2 3.1 1.5 1.9 2.4 2.9 1.9 1.5 1.8 2.5 1.9 2-3 days 1.7 1.6 0.9 0.8 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.3 1.3 1.0 4-5 days 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.0 0 days 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.5 6 or more days 1.2 2.0 0.9 1.1 4.6 3.3 4.1 2.5 5.5 3.4 2.9 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 70.9 9.9 7.8 3.4 2.0 1.0 0.8 4.3 68.1 7.7 9.0 4.1 3.0 1.9 0.7 5.5 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 69.0 7.4 9.9 4.3 2.4 0.9 0.9 5.1 72.3 7.2 8.4 3.2 1.6 1.3 1.2 4.7 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 74.4 5.6 8.9 2.8 1.5 0.8 0.8 5.3 78.8 5.7 7.4 3.3 1.2 0.5 0.2 2.9 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2010 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 61.1 57.9 56.2 54.6 45.5 62.4 59.6 52.6 52.6 43.8 55.3 58.4 42.8 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 4.9 2.1 3.7 3.7 4.2 3.3 4.1 3.3 4.2 4.0 4.0 5.3 3.7 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 19.8 21.1 19.4 20.7 19.1 19.4 23.6 21.8 21.1 18.3 14.4 21.3 17.6 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 27.2 24.3 26.8 25.1 23.4 26.7 27.7 23.1 23.8 23.0 19.1 24.1 18.7 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 39.5 30.8 29.3 29.1 25.0 40.5 37.7 27.1 28.9 24.7 35.7 34.7 23.8 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 22.1 23.1 23.4 23.6 20.8 19.2 17.1 18.6 18.3 15.9 15.3 14.8 10.0 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 25.3 23.6 23.3 23.8 14.3 23.0 22.8 20.2 19.7 12.5 14.4 19.3 14.0 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 29.3 23.9 29.2 26.2 19.6 28.5 28.9 26.1 25.7 18.4 21.8 26.3 20.1 21.5 16.9 4.2 3.3 7.0 5.0 5.8 4.9 3.1 2.4 4.6 5.5 2.9 3.6 2.7 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Sample size* Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 164 130 111 2,574 261 230 170 3,493 218 237 163 4,131 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 3.0 3.1 6.3 7.4 5.4 3.5 5.3 7.6 5.5 5.5 6.7 10.5 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 1.8 2.3 1.8 4.7 1.5 2.6 4.1 3.5 4.1 2.5 2.5 5.4 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. 1.2 3.1 1.8 4.5 2.3 3.0 1.8 3.0 1.4 1.7 3.7 3.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. 20.1 13.1 12.6 14.5 39.8 37.0 27.6 25.3 49.1 45.6 43.6 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 19.5 18.5 25.2 19.8 17.2 11.7 17.1 16.7 16.5 11.4 14.7 17.1 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 8.5 10.8 17.1 20.5 17.6 15.7 17.1 16.2 17.0 14.3 10.4 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 15.9 19.2 12.6 15.4 24.9 28.3 22.4 21.5 32.6 36.7 33.1 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 19.5 23.1 17.1 19.8 24.9 23.9 22.4 26.3 14.7 24.5 21.5 21.6 I got it at a party. 30.5 30.8 24.3 33.8 51.0 51.7 39.4 45.6 46.8 61.2 55.8 50.9 I took it from home. 39.0 30.8 25.2 25.2 25.3 20.4 22.4 21.8 13.3 12.2 10.4 15.2 6.7 8.5 13.5 7.5 11.1 8.7 11.2 9.2 3.2 4.6 3.7 5.7 23.2 22.3 28.8 26.3 16.9 23.5 23.5 17.8 11.0 17.7 16.0 13.7 I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Sample size** 85 100 2,261 203 164 2,880 145 125 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 1.2 17.0 10.9 9.9 14.6 13.4 15.2 20.0 17.7 Friends 69.4 78.0 69.5 72.9 76.2 77.8 81.4 80.0 78.2 Family/relatives 12.9 12.0 16.8 11.8 15.2 14.7 19.3 12.0 11.9 Parties 18.8 28.0 25.0 23.2 30.5 28.4 41.4 26.4 27.5 Home 7.1 8.0 6.3 6.9 3.0 5.3 6.9 7.2 5.5 School 8.2 19.0 14.8 14.8 15.2 12.3 11.7 7.2 7.6 32.9 33.0 28.1 36.0 25.0 21.4 25.5 24.8 21.0 Other Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 78 53 47 1,130 166 113 69 1,428 119 91 46 1,596 Friends 59.0 47.2 42.6 47.1 69.9 51.3 52.2 56.3 72.3 58.2 52.2 59.4 Family/relatives 15.4 13.2 12.8 14.8 23.5 11.5 20.3 17.3 25.2 25.3 15.2 16.7 Parties 17.9 17.0 14.9 20.4 28.3 15.0 31.9 21.6 31.9 24.2 23.9 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 37.2 34.0 42.6 26.1 30.1 34.5 31.9 25.9 19.3 18.7 32.6 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 12.8 9.4 14.9 12.9 23.5 19.5 11.6 16.2 16.0 20.9 10.9 17.7 School 11.5 15.1 12.8 11.9 22.9 17.7 15.9 12.4 26.1 14.3 6.5 11.7 Other 15.4 24.5 17.0 17.9 21.1 19.5 20.3 14.2 17.6 11.0 30.4 13.8 Over the Internet 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.7 1.8 1.8 2.9 3.0 0.8 2.2 0.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 3.8 5.7 4.3 8.6 6.6 5.3 2.9 5.0 4.2 4.4 2.2 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 73.8 789 72.4 627 75.6 397 69.8 863 77.5 936 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 77.5 791 79.7 629 85.8 400 78.1 868 82.0 938 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 57.9 779 39.0 620 37.4 398 43.1 859 50.5 924 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 79.9 787 81.5 626 81.2 398 79.5 862 81.9 935 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 91.6 738 88.5 602 85.7 385 88.3 813 90.1 897 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 96.6 735 95.0 601 86.0 386 93.3 811 94.1 896 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 93.5 727 88.8 599 84.1 383 89.8 805 89.9 889 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 97.1 736 96.8 595 96.4 387 97.8 809 96.2 894 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 77.0 756 64.0 606 55.4 392 65.4 835 70.2 905 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 81.5 752 71.2 608 55.9 390 70.4 832 74.1 904 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 71.4 747 50.7 605 39.5 390 55.8 828 58.4 901 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 87.0 754 82.1 603 81.2 389 85.4 831 82.9 902 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 15.2 833 30.5 652 43.7 405 26.7 909 26.7 965 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 9.9 825 14.7 652 22.7 406 15.7 906 13.0 962 used marijuana Marijuana 9.0 823 20.7 647 25.6 403 17.9 894 15.7 964 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 5.6 825 5.9 643 4.7 403 4.1 893 6.7 963 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? cigarettes? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 71.9 70.7 75.8 78.5 48.7 45.5 56.4 58.3 47.2 32.5 42.1 47.1 Once 11.6 14.3 10.1 10.3 15.1 16.2 14.1 13.1 11.7 14.3 13.6 13.2 2-3 times 9.9 8.2 9.5 6.7 18.8 20.2 14.7 15.2 21.3 23.0 22.3 19.4 4-6 times 3.6 3.4 1.8 2.1 7.5 7.9 7.3 6.7 9.4 14.1 11.6 9.4 7-10 times 1.3 1.4 1.0 0.7 5.1 4.1 2.1 2.3 4.4 4.8 4.2 3.4 More than 10 times 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.7 4.8 6.1 5.4 4.4 6.0 11.4 6.2 7.5 Never 79.0 78.7 80.6 86.5 62.8 64.8 73.9 79.6 66.9 57.4 65.7 73.9 Once 8.9 8.9 8.3 6.8 10.9 11.4 9.2 8.4 10.6 12.4 10.6 9.2 2-3 times 6.0 5.5 6.5 3.7 9.0 8.6 4.6 5.3 8.8 11.8 10.4 6.8 4-6 times 2.0 2.1 2.1 1.2 3.6 6.0 3.7 2.5 2.8 4.4 4.9 3.1 1.0 0.4 0.5 4.2 2.8 2.1 1.2 2.6 2.1 1.5 1.6 3.0 3.9 2.2 1.3 9.5 6.5 6.4 3.1 8.4 12.0 6.9 5.4 Never 79.7 76.7 72.0 75.5 57.7 52.0 52.9 57.5 61.7 47.7 50.9 54.1 Once 6.5 7.3 8.4 8.3 11.2 10.9 12.0 11.4 12.8 12.8 10.9 10.5 2-3 times 6.5 6.9 9.2 6.6 9.1 12.1 10.7 10.8 7.0 14.1 11.7 12.0 4-6 times 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.3 6.8 7.2 5.7 6.7 6.0 7.3 6.9 6.8 7-10 times 1.4 1.9 2.4 1.7 4.0 5.5 5.2 3.8 2.6 3.6 4.2 3.8 More than 10 times 2.6 3.8 4.8 4.6 12.4 13.5 9.8 9.9 14.5 15.4 12.7 92.5 88.8 87.9 88.4 81.0 82.5 82.5 82.6 82.3 79.8 83.3 82.1 Once 4.2 4.1 5.4 5.5 8.7 6.4 6.9 7.6 7.0 8.4 7.2 6.7 2-3 times 1.2 3.2 3.4 2.7 3.9 5.6 4.6 4.3 5.4 5.5 4.2 5.0 4-6 times 0.4 1.5 1.8 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.3 1.7 1.7 2.1 7-10 times 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.2 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.7 1.0 More than 10 times 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.7 3.4 2.5 3.7 2.6 2.3 3.4 2.7 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 32.4 28.8 30.2 30.5 67.8 36.4 38.3 35.2 63.7 35.1 41.8 39.2 Once 12.9 11.5 13.4 11.6 32.2 16.5 14.5 14.4 36.3 15.9 16.9 15.6 Twice 5.8 4.0 4.8 4.6 0.0 7.7 7.8 6.9 0.0 10.1 7.6 7.6 Three times 2.3 3.3 2.5 2.3 0.0 4.2 3.0 3.5 0.0 4.3 4.0 3.8 Four or more times 4.3 4.6 5.0 4.6 0.0 8.8 6.8 6.3 0.0 12.0 6.3 6.7 I never get offers 42.2 47.9 44.1 46.4 0.0 26.3 29.6 33.6 0.0 22.5 23.4 27.1 Never 36.7 30.5 31.6 33.6 1.6 36.7 39.2 37.1 1.9 34.0 37.1 41.5 Once 10.6 10.4 11.7 9.4 98.4 15.6 14.0 13.2 98.1 18.7 17.9 14.2 Twice 5.8 3.9 5.0 4.3 0.0 10.1 8.0 7.0 0.0 10.5 12.4 8.1 Three times 2.3 3.9 3.1 2.2 0.0 6.0 3.3 3.6 0.0 3.9 3.5 4.0 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. 1.1 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 3.1 4.0 4.7 3.7 0.0 5.6 5.4 5.4 0.0 10.7 6.1 5.2 41.4 47.4 43.9 46.7 0.0 26.0 30.0 33.7 0.0 22.2 23.0 26.9 Never 38.5 33.9 36.6 35.4 0.5 48.9 55.6 53.3 Once 8.9 8.9 9.7 8.5 99.5 Twice 3.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 Three times 2.2 1.6 1.5 48.3 46.0 1.5 47.9 11.4 9.8 9.7 98.5 13.0 11.5 0.0 5.5 6.2 3.9 0.0 5.4 2.8 3.9 1.9 0.0 3.4 1.4 2.3 0.0 3.1 1.3 2.3 9.2 3.6 4.4 4.6 3.7 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 7.2 4.1 3.7 I never get offers 43.1 48.2 44.6 47.3 0.0 26.8 30.2 34.2 0.0 23.3 24.7 27.6 Never 42.0 35.1 39.2 38.2 0.7 52.2 50.2 49.7 0.5 54.2 58.0 57.0 Once 6.3 7.7 7.9 6.8 99.3 8.9 9.8 7.8 99.5 10.7 9.9 7.6 Twice 3.8 2.6 2.4 2.4 0.0 5.5 4.3 2.9 0.0 3.5 3.8 3.0 Three times 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.5 0.0 2.3 1.3 1.7 0.0 2.1 0.8 1.8 Four or more times 2.8 4.1 4.1 3.3 0.0 4.1 3.4 3.3 0.0 5.8 3.3 2.7 43.1 48.5 44.7 47.8 0.0 27.0 34.6 0.0 23.6 24.2 27.9 I never get offers 47 1.1 11.1 I never get offers Four or more times Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. 1.1 State 2014 Never More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 7-10 times marijuana? Grade 8 County 2010 31.1 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 w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 78.7 84.5 83.4 87.7 78.1 82.7 84.9 1 or 2 times 10.3 7.3 9.0 6.4 8.4 6.8 7.3 3 to 5 times 4.8 3.4 2.6 2.5 4.4 4.3 3.1 6 to 9 times 1.5 2.3 1.8 1.2 1.7 2.0 1.3 10 to 19 times 2.1 1.0 1.1 0.7 2.7 1.7 0.4 0.6 20 to 29 times 0.9 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 30 to 39 times 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 40+ times 1.5 0.9 1.3 1.0 3.4 1.7 2.1 1.1 Never 28.8 33.5 40.5 48.7 27.3 34.8 52.2 1 or 2 times 29.6 29.7 30.0 26.4 25.5 25.0 25.0 3 to 5 times 18.3 18.7 14.6 12.8 21.2 21.6 11.2 6 to 9 times 10.6 7.4 5.6 5.4 12.1 8.8 10 to 19 times 5.6 3.8 3.8 2.8 6.7 20 to 29 times 2.2 2.5 1.9 1.2 2.9 During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 89.1 84.3 87.2 89.9 89.6 5.0 6.9 4.9 6.3 4.7 2.6 2.1 3.6 1.2 2.0 1.1 1.8 1.1 0.5 1.2 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.2 2.2 1.5 0.5 1.3 54.3 43.0 45.3 61.4 65.8 22.6 26.9 28.0 19.9 17.9 12.7 17.8 14.0 11.8 9.4 7.1 5.2 5.6 5.9 3.4 3.1 4.0 2.4 2.3 3.4 2.5 2.4 1.6 1.4 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.0 4.0 3.2 2.7 2.3 3.0 3.8 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.7 0.5 1.2 84.0 87.7 90.4 89.8 78.7 88.5 92.3 92.4 90.6 90.5 96.0 94.5 1 or 2 times 9.6 6.4 5.2 6.0 14.9 5.9 3.9 4.2 4.8 5.7 1.9 3.0 3 to 5 times 2.6 2.4 1.4 1.9 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.8 2.1 1.9 0.9 6 to 9 times 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.4 1.5 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 10 to 19 times 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 1.9 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.1 90.5 91.2 91.5 91.5 91.5 92.6 93.2 93.7 93.4 94.9 98.6 94.6 1 or 2 times 5.4 6.3 5.9 5.4 5.3 4.5 4.3 3.8 4.2 2.6 1.0 3.2 3 to 5 times 2.0 1.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.0 0.9 6 to 9 times 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 10 to 19 times 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 20 to 29 times 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.7 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Never 62.8 54.7 66.1 Once 13.7 14.7 11.3 2-3 times 11.9 13.1 4-6 times 3.0 7-10 times 2.1 More than 10 times Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Grade 10 County Grade 10 State 1.1 Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 64.1 57.0 69.9 70.4 67.7 56.0 67.3 11.2 13.1 16.4 10.6 10.5 10.5 12.7 10.6 7.8 10.5 9.6 10.7 11.4 10.2 10.4 10.0 14.8 16.3 10.3 6.2 3.8 3.4 4.4 5.0 5.2 3.5 3.7 6.7 3.2 3.0 2.2 2.0 0.9 2.7 2.6 0.8 1.0 1.9 3.3 1.2 0.8 6.4 9.2 6.4 5.9 5.0 7.5 3.3 4.1 6.0 6.5 1.2 2.6 Never n/a n/a 46.8 48.0 n/a n/a 58.0 57.8 n/a n/a 67.9 68.2 Once n/a n/a 19.8 17.8 n/a n/a 13.3 15.7 n/a n/a 11.6 12.9 2-3 times n/a n/a 17.7 17.2 n/a n/a 16.2 14.9 n/a n/a 13.1 11.4 4-6 times n/a n/a 6.2 6.8 n/a n/a 5.1 4.7 n/a n/a 3.0 3.4 7-10 times n/a n/a 2.9 2.8 n/a n/a 3.1 2.1 n/a n/a 1.5 1.2 More than 10 times n/a n/a 6.6 7.5 n/a n/a 4.3 4.8 n/a n/a 3.0 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 6.8 7.6 n/a n/a 7.1 6.0 n/a n/a 4.5 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 12.7 12.4 n/a n/a 12.5 14.8 n/a n/a 15.2 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 25.2 27.6 n/a n/a 33.5 34.3 n/a n/a 35.1 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 26.7 21.5 n/a n/a 23.6 n/a n/a 23.0 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 28.5 30.9 n/a n/a 23.4 n/a n/a 22.2 21.9 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2010 40+ times Grade 8 County In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 30 to 39 times Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 County 2010 21.1 23.8 75.5 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Yuma County 1 Acknowlegements 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 2014 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. Additionally, the success of the 2014 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. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Charts and Tables in this Report The Community Data Project 5 6 7 The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group 8 School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles 11 Substance Use 17 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior 20 School Safety 23 Gambling 26 Sources of Alcohol 29 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs 32 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions Appendix 49 Contacts for Prevention 3 50 35 10 Introduction 2014 Arizona Youth Survey Yuma County Summary Report This report summarizes findings from the 2014 Arizona Youth Survey (AYS) administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during spring 2014. The results for Yuma county are presented along with comparisons to 2010 and 2012 survey results, where applicable, as well as to the overall results for the state. The survey was designed to assess school safety, adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that are correlated with these adolescent problem behaviors. Table 1. Characteristics of Participants County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 810 58.2 833 89.4 693 84.5 22,675 47.0 Students By Grade Grade 8 Grade 10 435 31.3 48 5.2 56 6.8 14,028 29.1 Grade 12 146 10.5 51 5.5 71 8.7 11,541 23.9 1,391 100.0 932 100.0 820 100.0 48,244 100.0 All Students Surveyed* Students By Gender Male 684 50.1 459 50.5 434 53.3 23,460 49.1 Female 680 49.9 450 49.5 380 46.7 24,353 50.9 Table 2. Race/Ethnicity of Participants Hispanic Student marked 'Yes' to Are you Hispanic or Latino? and marked their race as: County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Native American 37 3.6 33 4.7 30 4.7 989 5.3 African American 17 1.7 22 3.2 18 2.8 574 3.1 8 0.8 6 0.9 4 0.6 169 0.9 Asian Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Race Unmarked 10 1.0 1 0.1 10 1.6 220 1.2 211 20.6 245 35.2 207 32.5 6,067 32.5 42 4.1 13 1.9 26 4.1 1,027 5.5 699 68.3 376 54.0 343 53.8 9,603 51.5 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 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 8 2.4 4 2.8 13 7.9 1,274 4.5 22 6.7 3 2.1 9 5.5 1,790 6.4 9 2.7 3 2.1 6 3.6 1,459 5.2 3 0.9 1 0.7 1 0.6 260 0.9 73.4 235 71.0 97 68.3 108 65.5 20,587 48 14.5 16 11.3 23 13.9 2,413 8.6 6 1.8 18 12.7 5 3.0 268 1.0 Totals County 2010 Hispanic Students Non-Hispanic Students Total Students** County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1,024 73.6 696 74.7 638 77.8 18,649 38.7 331 23.8 142 15.2 165 20.1 28,051 58.1 1,391 100.0 932 100.0 820 100.0 48,244 100.0 ***As a small percentage of students skipped the question Are you Hispanic or Latino? (at the state level, 1,544 students, or 3.2% of the total), the sum of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic students is less than Total Students. 4 All schools in Arizona are eligible to participate in the survey, 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 12th grades in Arizona. Tables 1 and 2 describe 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, or Alaska Native, etc.). This method for obtaining ethnicity and race information provides more comprehensive data on youth cultural and racial self-identification, 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.   Protective     The  Risk and Factor Model of  Prevention  isa science.   Protective   Prevention The  Risk and Factor         sub Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing       stance abuse and its related consequences. This model is   premise    a problem  based on the simple that to prevent    we      from happening, need to identify the factors that in          crease the risk of that problem developing and then find    researchers  have  ways to reduce the  risks. Just as medical         found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in           fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers           at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk        factors for youth problem behaviors.           Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students their peer      and  groups known to predict increased likelihood drug       of use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors         among youth. For example, children who  live in fami      lies with high levels of conflict are more likely to become        involved in delinquency drug than children     and   use   who live families characterized by low levels of family  in        conflict.             The chart below  shows the links between 19 risk factors and five problem check marks  indicate   behaviors.  The    where at least two well designed, published research         studies shown a link between the risk  factor and have       the problem behavior.                                                                                                         Many and protective factors can be linked to specific risk        types of interventions that have been shown be effec     to  tive either reducing or enhancing protection(s).  in   risk(s)     The steps outlined here will help your school make key        decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and        when to address needs, which strategies are   specific    and    most and known produce results.  effective    to                     factors exert      Protective a positive influence and buffer         against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the   will    be likelihood that adolescents engage in problem      haviors. Protective factors identified through research strong     include bonding to  family,  school, community        and peers, and healthy beliefs and clear standards for     behavior.         Research on risk and protective factors also has import     ant implications for children’s academic success, positive       youth development, and prevention of health and behav         ior problems. In order to promote academic success and       positive youth development and to prevent problem be         haviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict         these outcomes. measuring and protective factors  By  risk     in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and        widespread can be identified and targeted by policies,         programs, and actions reduce those risk factors   shown to    and to promote protective factors.      T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T  T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T      T T T T T T T T                      5  Charts and Tables in this Report There are seven types of charts presented in this report: 1. Risk profiles 2. Protective profiles 3. Lifetime and 30-day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) use 4. Binge drinking and antisocial behavior 5. School safety and cyber-bullying 6. Gambling 7. Where youth acquired alcohol, marijuana, and prescription drugs 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 2014 AYS. • The Barson 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. Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the AYS: 2010, 2012, and 2014. 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, Diamonds, and Triangles.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 and triangles represent national data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey and the Bach Harrison Norm, respectively. 6 The Bach Harrison Norm was developed by Bach Harrison L.L.C. to provide states and communities 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. 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. 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 they 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. Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use • Lifetime useis 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 useis 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 proxy for the level of current use of the substance. Charts and Tables in this Report (cont’d) Binge Drinking and Antisocial Behavior • Binge Drinkingis measured as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to the survey. • Impaired Driving is measured by youth drinking alcohol and driving in the past 30 days, or riding with a driver in the past 30 days who had been drinking alcohol. • 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. 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, bullied another student, or were harassed or mistreated while online or using an electronic device. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10. 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, played bingo, 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. 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 larger the influence of a student’s responses (e.g., if only one student in a particular grade reported where they 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 readers know when caution should be taken as a result of a small sample. 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 reporting. 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, and past 30-day 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 website, the public has 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 the criminal justice system 7 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 data-for-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.bach-harrison.com/arizonadataproject/Indicators.aspx The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) is the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Acting Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and staff support is provided by the GOCYF. The body is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations, and is used as the conduit through which its Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP is tasked with developing and utilizing a shared-planning process that encourages state and local partnerships to maximize existing resources and with building the capacity of local communities to meet their identified needs. Further, the body is tasked with integrating strategies across systems to leverage existing funding and with increasing access to services at the community level. Specifically, the ASAP has the following duties and responsibilities: a. Compile and summarize information and data on substance misuse and abuse and associated consequences and correlates, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. Identify and address data gaps in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. b. Utilize evaluation and research reports to promote the most effective and evidence-based programs, policies and practices across the state and make recommendations for modification as needed. c. Encourage state and local partnerships to engage in shared planning processes and build the capacity of local communities to meet identified needs and maximize resources. d. Identify and share effective practices to integrate strategies across systems that will leverage existing funding and increase access to services at the community level. e. Analyze current state and federal laws and programs governing substance misuse and abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement and recommend any changes that would enhance the effectiveness of these laws or programs. 8 f. Recommend specific drug and alcohol related policy and budget line-items for consideration by Arizona state agencies and/or the Arizona Legislature. Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group (Epi Work Group) operates under the authority of the Arizona Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families (GOCYF) and the direction of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership (ASAP) in conformance with Executive Order 2007-12 signed by the Governor of Arizona on June 13, 2007 and continued by Executive Order 2013-05 on May 28, 2013. Arizona’s Epi Work Group was formed in 2004 as a requirement of the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) received by Arizona from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and became an official standing work group of the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership via Executive Order 2007-12 and Executive Order 2013-05. In the past, the Epi Work Group was responsible for releasing a biennial comprehensive, informative and functional profile of substance use indicators for use by practitioners, policymakers, coalitions, agencies, individuals in relevant fields, and other key stakeholders. In order to publish the first Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile in 2005, the Epi Work Group identified indicators of substance use and consequence patterns and thoroughly analyzed available data. In 2007, the second edition expanded upon the first report in that it contained a broader array of epidemiological data, including measures of tobacco-related mortality and morbidity, outlined differential consequences and/ or consumption patterns by gender and race and ethnicity, and provided a more complete assessment of methamphetamine use and its effects on Arizona’s adults and youth. The 2007 report also uncovered gaps in Arizona’s data systems, including the need for data on the relationship between child welfare and substance use, sub-county data, substance-specific data, measures of the severity of substance use, and tribal data. The Epi Work Group and the GOCYF have dedicated themselves to addressing these data gaps in order to lay a solid foundation for reducing the state’s substance use problem and to provide ASAP and Epi Work Group (cont’d) an accurate depiction of the impact of substance use on Arizona and its populace. Recently, the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile has been replaced by the Community Data Project (CDP). While not yet as comprehensive in scope as the Arizona Substance Abuse Epidemiology Profile, the CDP is an interactive, user-friendly, data-sharing website that provides data online, a customizable, cost-effective and user-driven alternative to the hard-bound profiles. The CDP website currently houses over 300 indicators of substance use/prevalence and associated consequences. Data are provided over time in graph, table, and map formats and are available at the county- and community-level, and by race and ethnicity, gender, and age (where applicable and available). The Epi 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’s principles are to: • Establish a clear purpose and set of goals and objectives consistent with a public health model; • Establish work plans that identify specific workgroup products, schedules, and milestones; • Establish and maintain regular contacts with appropriate State advisory group(s) and key State decision-makers; • Ensure an ongoing and meaningful exchange of data and information between the Epi Work Group, State leaders and SAMHSA; • Emphasize outcomes; • Support data-driven decision-making at the State-level and local-level; • Provide community-oriented data for use in community planning, and for monitoring and evaluation purposes; • Promote continual improvements in data gathering for assessments; and 9 • Use data sources that will provide multiple measures over time and meet data quality technical standards The Epi Work Group functions as a work group of the ASAP, the single statewide council on substance abuse prevention, treatment, enforcement, and recovery issues. The ASAP is chaired by the Director of Governor Janice K. Brewer’s Office for Children, Youth and Families; is composed of representatives from state governmental bodies, federal entities and community organizations; and is used as the conduit through which the Epi Work Group facilitates data-driven decisions and solutions to the critical substance abuse problems facing Arizona. The ASAP utilizes the data and analysis provided by the Epi Work Group to devise strategies and solutions and to guide decisions about the allocation of resources, including the funding of prevention, treatment, recovery, and enforcement efforts, and to inform the public about the prevalence of substance use and associated consequences, such as mortality and morbidity. The Epi Work Group has three major goals, which are to: 1. Maintain and update the Community Data Project, the interactive website for substance misuse and abuse and associated consequence and correlate data, including mental illness and emerging trends, through a collaborative and cooperative data-sharing process. 2. Identify data gaps and address them in order to provide Arizona with a comprehensive picture of substance misuse and abuse in the state. 3. Serve as a resource to the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and member agencies to support datadriven decision-making that makes the best use of the resources available to address substance misuse abuse and related issues in Arizona. Staffed by the Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families, the Epi Work Group is composed of statisticians, data analysts, academics, and holders of key datasets from various state agencies and universities who collaborate and advise on epidemiological reports and respond to data gaps and pressing substance use-related inquiries. 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 or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the state or the Bach Harrison Norm? • Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high? ◦◦Which substances are your students using the most? ◦◦At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels? • Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high? • Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most? • At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels? How to 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 notes Protective factors 8th grade Favorable Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @14% (8% > BH Norm.) 10th grade School rewards for prosocial involvement down 7% from 2 yrs ago Substance abuse 8th grade 30-day Marijuana @7% (3% above state av.) Antisocial behavior 12th grade - Drunk/high at school @ 5% (same as state, but still too high) Risk factors 10 Priority rate 1 Priority rate 2 Priority rate 3 Data Charts: Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 11 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 8 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 12 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 13 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 10 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 14 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles RISK PROFILE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Total Risk* Gang Involvement Rewards For Antisocial Behavior Friend's Use of Drugs Interaction With Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Early Initiation of Drug Use Rebelliousness Low Commitment to School Academic Failure Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns Perceived Availability of Drugs Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Low Neighborhood Attachment 15 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 12 Total Protection Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Belief in the Moral Order Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 16 60 40 Percentage (%) ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Total Peer and Individual School Family Community 100 80 20 0 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 8 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 17 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 10 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 18 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Substance Use LIFETIME & 30-DAY ATOD USE 2014 Yuma County, Grade 12 Lifetime Use 100 30-Day Use 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† Prescription Drugs† 19 Prescription Sedatives† ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014. *† 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. Prescription Stimulants MTF 2013 Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine State 2014 Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana County 2014 Chewing Tobacco Cigarette Alcohol Synthetic Drugs**/† Over-the-Counter Drugs† County 2012 Prescription Drugs† Prescription Sedatives† Prescription Stimulants Prescription Pain Relievers† Steroids Ecstasy* Heroin* Methamphetamine Inhalants Cocaine Hallucinogen Marijuana Cigarette Alcohol County 2010 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Yuma County, Grade 8 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 20 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Yuma County, Grade 10 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 21 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 Heavy Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior ALCOHOL & PRESCIPTION DRUGS, IMPAIRED DRIVING, & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2014 Yuma County, Grade 12 Carried a Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Suspended from School Drunk or High at School DRIVE a car when you had been taking prescription drugs to get ''high''?* RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? Simultaneous Use of Alcohol and RX Drugs, Past 30 Days* 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? 22 60 40 Percentage (%) ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014. MTF 2013 BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Antisocial Behavior Impaired Driving 100 Alcohol and Prescription Drugs 80 20 0 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Yuma County, Grade 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 23 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Yuma County, Grade 10 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 24 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey student reports of bullying against others. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 School Safety SCHOOL SAFETY & CYBER-BULLYING 2014 Yuma County, Grade 12 Percentage of Students Reporting Any Experience with the Indicated Safety Issue in the Past Year 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 25 State 2014 Felt Unsafe at School ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. County 2014 Carried a Weapon on School Property County 2012 Threatened or Injured on School Property In a Physical Fight on School Property Picked on or Bullied on School Property Harassed or Mistreated On-Line or Electronically* Bullied Another Student on School Property** County 2010 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Yuma County, Grade 8 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 26 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Yuma County, Grade 10 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 27 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Gambling GAMBLING 2014 Yuma County, Grade 12 60 40 Percentage (%) Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse/other race? Bet on Games of Skill Bet on Dice Played Bingo BH Norm 2014 State 2014 County 2014 County 2012 County 2010 Bet on Cards Bet on Sports * Sample footnote text here. Played the Lottery Played Slots/Video Poker 28 Gambling Behavior Past Year 100 80 20 0 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Yuma County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 74 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 93 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 145 Students* State 2014 Sample: 2,574 Students* ***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. 29 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Yuma County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 7 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 18 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 132 Students* State 2014 Sample: 3,493 Students* ***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 Sources of Alcohol WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED ALCOHOL 2014 Yuma County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Alcohol 100 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Got it some other way Store or someone else's home Took it from home County 2014 Sample: 20 Students* Got at a party Someone under 21 years Someone not related, 21+ County 2012 Sample: 16 Students* 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 2010 Sample: 48 Students* State 2014 Sample: 4,131 Students* ***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 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Yuma County, Grade 8 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 55 Students** Sample (Rx): 40 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 60 Students** Sample (Rx): 42 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 72 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,261 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,130 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 32 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Yuma County, Grade 10 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 12 Students** Sample (Rx): 8 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 7 Students** Sample (Rx): 13 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 68 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 2,880 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,428 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 33 Sources of Marijuana and Prescription Drugs WHERE YOUTH OBTAINED MARIJUANA & PRESCRIPTION DRUGS* 2014 Yuma County, Grade 12 Sources of Obtaining Marijuana in the Past 30 Days* 100 Sources of Obtaining Prescription Drugs 80 Percentage (%) 60 40 20 0 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) Over the Internet Other School County 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 19 Students** Sample (Rx): 15 Students** Doctor/Pharmacy Home (e.g.,Medicine Cabinet) Parties Family/Relatives County 2012 Sample (Marijuana): 11 Students** Sample (Rx): 8 Students** Friends Other School Home Parties Family/Relative Friends From someone with a Medical Marijuana Card County 2010 Sample (Rx): 21 Students** State 2014 Sample (Marijuana): 3,013 Students** Sample (Rx): 1,596 Students** ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 34 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. 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward 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. Drug Use 1 Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors 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 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. Behavior 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 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. Involvement 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. *Blah 35 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 1 Rewards 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. 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 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 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. Behavior and Drug Use 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, 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. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 1 Prosocial Involvement Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement *Blah 36 Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Data Tables Table 4. Percentage of Students at Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Low Neighborhood Attachment 40.5 40.1 35.2 37.6 34.0 50.6 43.2 53.3 42.9 41.5 68.1 53.2 59.7 47.8 45.9 Law s & Norms Favorable to Drug Use 34.6 29.7 30.8 29.2 31.1 46.1 48.8 38.3 34.8 37.8 45.3 31.8 34.4 33.7 38.1 Perceived Availability of Drugs 34.0 33.8 29.9 29.6 30.7 42.8 63.6 37.0 36.6 38.6 43.8 52.1 41.0 39.8 41.0 Perceived Availability of Handguns 28.6 31.9 32.3 31.8 36.7 25.7 36.4 21.7 20.6 23.7 33.1 44.7 32.8 27.5 27.6 Family Poor Family Management 49.7 45.7 44.8 41.2 40.3 47.8 48.8 30.2 35.4 40.0 44.5 45.7 46.6 38.4 40.5 Family Conflict 51.5 49.6 55.9 51.0 49.3 44.3 37.2 41.9 41.2 39.9 49.1 46.8 41.4 39.0 38.0 Family History of Antisocial Behavior 44.3 33.8 41.3 36.7 35.4 39.4 56.8 34.1 36.8 37.6 44.2 60.0 45.8 35.9 35.9 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 25.1 22.7 21.1 21.2 23.7 42.5 53.5 34.9 32.8 39.6 39.3 38.8 42.1 33.0 40.3 Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 43.8 43.0 46.9 43.2 49.1 54.7 50.0 39.5 44.6 53.5 58.1 39.6 42.1 43.2 52.9 School Academic Failure 49.0 44.2 46.2 44.6 41.1 52.4 52.6 56.0 44.3 42.5 58.4 59.1 51.5 40.9 37.9 Low Commitment to School 34.0 32.5 39.4 45.0 38.2 42.8 41.3 29.6 51.6 40.4 45.8 37.5 35.3 55.3 42.1 Peer and Individual Rebelliousness 49.6 36.6 35.0 33.4 34.5 53.6 52.2 46.9 36.6 39.8 55.8 46.0 41.2 36.6 37.7 Early Initiation of Drug Use 33.8 23.0 21.7 19.8 23.5 31.3 41.3 27.3 22.4 36.1 31.5 47.9 36.2 23.4 44.5 Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use 33.0 23.5 22.7 21.4 24.7 37.2 43.5 27.8 29.8 35.5 34.0 25.0 27.5 29.5 36.0 Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 41.1 33.5 31.0 31.7 34.7 47.6 39.1 24.1 36.1 41.0 45.7 29.2 31.9 35.6 39.0 Perceived Risk of Drug Use 49.9 48.3 59.4 56.9 37.9 46.8 56.8 65.3 58.4 40.1 50.0 54.2 62.5 65.4 47.4 Interaction With Antisocial Peers 59.7 48.6 42.6 43.6 44.8 61.1 58.7 58.0 41.5 45.5 65.7 61.2 64.7 40.1 43.7 Friend's Use of Drugs 43.5 34.2 31.2 29.7 30.7 41.9 43.5 34.0 34.7 34.7 44.8 34.0 40.3 32.0 32.6 Rew ards For Antisocial Behavior 55.3 39.2 42.9 41.9 37.1 47.1 34.1 30.2 49.0 42.1 52.4 57.4 50.7 60.3 54.7 Gang Involvement 27.2 16.4 7.4 10.4 14.7 29.8 40.5 20.5 8.4 13.3 23.8 34.9 18.0 7.0 10.7 33.0 22.6 21.9 24.9 22.4 36.9 34.0 20.0 23.3 23.5 34.9 32.0 26.1 23.6 24.1 Total Students at High Risk* ***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.) Note that in 2010/2012, there were 21 possible risk scales for this Total Risk calculation and in 2014, there were 20 possible risk scales. 37 Data Tables Table 5. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Community Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 24.9 28.6 27.1 31.4 40.9 40.7 39.5 40.0 35.0 45.2 41.5 34.0 35.5 34.0 44.5 Family Family Attachment 42.8 50.2 51.0 53.3 54.8 46.3 23.8 34.9 47.8 48.0 50.0 58.1 48.2 55.2 57.9 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 53.0 56.3 58.2 62.2 62.5 50.1 47.6 51.2 57.2 56.2 48.6 53.3 49.1 56.8 56.2 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 56.0 55.5 55.9 60.0 61.9 51.4 46.5 53.7 53.6 54.3 51.8 40.0 43.6 52.0 54.0 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 61.4 66.5 63.7 64.7 68.7 52.1 34.8 40.7 66.6 69.5 58.3 40.8 52.2 67.4 71.4 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 48.4 57.6 59.2 53.7 56.9 58.4 75.6 66.7 62.5 63.4 44.4 61.2 68.1 47.8 52.4 School Peer and Individual Belief in the Moral Order 58.9 66.0 67.4 69.6 65.8 64.6 69.6 85.7 75.8 70.2 52.9 62.0 62.1 59.6 55.6 Interaction w ith Prosocial Peers 48.7 47.7 43.9 47.9 60.5 56.9 35.6 49.0 53.5 61.7 46.9 56.0 38.2 49.6 60.0 Prosocial Involvement 31.9 37.2 35.9 42.7 49.0 34.6 34.0 34.0 51.9 52.0 30.2 22.9 20.3 44.2 47.9 Rew ards for Prosocial Involvement 59.1 61.9 63.0 61.3 61.4 62.7 68.2 75.9 63.6 60.1 49.7 63.8 50.7 56.2 52.2 43.1 47.1 50.1 54.8 42.6 54.8 47.9 49.1 61.6 46.0 43.2 56.9 45.7 54.8 43.4 Total Students w ith High Protection* ***High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have four or more protective factors operating in their lives. 38 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During Their Lifetime In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once.) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 50.5 36.6 36.4 31.5 27.8 63.7 71.1 50.0 52.9 52.1 76.3 74.0 65.7 67.0 68.2 Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 26.9 17.7 16.4 15.8 14.8 36.1 41.3 36.0 25.6 25.7 56.9 68.0 52.2 35.7 38.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 16.4 10.2 13.9 14.9 16.5 29.2 26.7 36.5 32.4 35.8 42.8 62.0 51.5 44.7 45.5 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 1.4 0.5 0.9 1.6 2.5 4.2 2.3 3.8 4.7 5.4 5.8 4.0 2.9 8.0 7.6 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 1.8 1.5 0.9 1.6 1.7 6.3 13.3 3.8 3.0 3.3 8.7 22.0 13.2 6.2 4.5 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 14.5 10.6 10.7 9.0 10.8 10.7 17.8 7.7 6.6 8.7 15.3 16.0 3.0 5.4 6.9 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.8 0.3 0.9 0.5 1.4 3.3 4.5 3.8 1.1 1.6 3.7 10.0 3.0 1.3 1.5 Heroin* used heroin? 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 1.3 1.0 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 2.4 1.2 2.3 2.1 1.8 7.2 11.4 7.7 4.4 5.7 10.3 20.0 13.4 7.4 7.1 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 1.5 1.2 2.2 1.5 1.1 1.2 2.2 0.0 1.9 1.3 0.7 2.0 1.5 1.9 2.1 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 11.7 7.9 9.0 7.0 n/a 17.4 22.7 15.4 12.0 n/a 22.2 30.0 17.9 15.0 11.1 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 2.4 1.6 2.2 1.6 4.2 6.3 4.4 7.7 5.3 8.1 6.7 6.0 6.0 8.4 12.4 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 6.8 4.4 4.8 3.9 n/a 9.3 8.9 7.7 6.3 n/a 8.9 8.0 9.0 7.8 7.5 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 17.1 10.8 11.4 9.3 n/a 22.1 26.7 17.3 15.0 n/a 23.0 30.0 20.9 18.7 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 8.1 4.5 6.2 5.8 n/a 14.9 13.6 11.5 8.2 n/a 17.0 24.5 16.4 9.6 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 4.5 2.2 2.3 n/a n/a 18.2 9.6 4.2 n/a n/a 18.0 9.0 6.4 n/a ** Denotes a change in the wording of the question between administrations. Consult appendix for a detailed explanation. ** Substance categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). *† 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. 39 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 7. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs One or More Occasions During the Past 30 Days In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you... (Percentage reporting use at least once in the past 30 days.) Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 25.3 15.3 13.0 13.4 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 10.2 38.2 42.2 19.2 27.8 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 MTF 2013 25.7 47.8 42.9 29.9 40.6 39.2 Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? Cigarette smoked cigarettes? 8.8 6.8 6.3 5.7 4.5 15.4 23.9 20.0 10.1 9.1 24.4 24.0 25.4 15.7 16.3 Chew ing tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 2.1 2.0 3.8 4.3 2.8 4.9 4.3 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.2 6.0 15.2 10.4 8.1 Marijuana used marijuana? 7.5 2.7 6.2 6.9 7.0 13.9 9.3 13.5 16.8 18.0 19.4 16.3 27.9 22.9 22.7 Hallucinogen used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.4 1.4 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 2.1 4.4 0.0 0.9 0.8 1.4 4.0 1.5 2.1 1.1 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 4.6 4.6 2.9 3.1 2.3 1.9 8.9 1.9 1.3 1.3 2.9 4.0 0.0 0.9 1.0 Methamphetamine used methamphetamines (meth, crystal meth)? 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.6 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.4 1.5 4.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Heroin* used heroin? 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 Ecstasy* used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.5 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.2 2.9 6.0 3.0 1.7 1.5 Steroids used steroids or anabolic steroids (such as Anadrol, Oxandrin, Durabolin, Equipoise or Depotesterone)? 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.8 1.0 Prescription pain relievers† used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 6.9 4.7 3.7 3.8 n/a 10.0 9.5 9.6 5.4 n/a 9.6 14.0 4.5 5.5 2.8 Prescription stimulants used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.3 1.0 1.1 0.8 1.4 3.5 4.5 2.0 2.1 2.8 3.7 4.0 0.0 2.8 4.1 Prescription sedatives† used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? 3.3 2.4 1.6 1.7 n/a 3.3 7.0 1.9 2.6 n/a 3.0 4.2 0.0 2.7 2.2 Prescription drugs† combined results of prescription stimulant, sedative and pain reliever questions (see appendix for details) 10.4 6.0 5.0 4.9 n/a 12.3 15.9 9.6 7.1 n/a 10.4 14.0 4.5 8.0 n/a Over-the-counter drugs† used over-the-counter drugs (such as cough syrup, cold medicine, or diet pills) for the purposes of getting high? 4.1 2.8 3.0 3.1 n/a 7.5 7.0 5.8 3.7 n/a 10.4 10.4 4.5 3.4 n/a Synthetic drugs**/† used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lightning or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? n/a 2.4 0.5 0.9 n/a n/a 9.1 1.9 0.8 n/a n/a 6.1 1.5 0.9 n/a ***Denotes a change in the wording of the question between 2014 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 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). †*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. 40 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 8. Percentage of Students Who Used Alcohol & Prescription Drugs, & Reported Impaired Driving Alcohol And Prescription Drugs Grade 8 How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 w eeks? (One or more times) Drank beer, w ine, or hard liquor at the same time you used prescription drugs during the past 30 days?* Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 15.7 8.0 5.7 6.3 n/a n/a n/a 3.0 2.7 n/a MTF 2013 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 5.1 23.5 28.3 8.0 14.4 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.8 4.6 n/a MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 13.7 30.4 28.0 23.9 22.7 n/a 22.1 n/a n/a n/a 6.0 4.8 n/a n/a Impaired Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 DRIVE a car w hen you had been drinking alcohol? 6.9 4.9 3.6 RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? 34.5 27.0 n/a n/a DRIVE a car w hen you had been taking prescription drugs to get "high"?* Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 3.1 5.6 n/a 8.6 15.2 4.0 25.3 21.5 22.3 n/a 35.6 42.2 2.0 2.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 4.5 5.3 n/a 26.5 19.9 24.0 6.0 3.1 n/a State 2014 BH Norm 2014 MTF 2013 18.6 12.0 9.0 9.9 11.8 n/a n/a 40.9 54.0 37.9 21.5 24.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0 5.4 n/a n/a Table 9. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Grade 8 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 Drunk or high at school 12.9 6.7 7.0 8.4 7.8 23.4 23.4 20.4 16.5 14.7 25.0 27.1 20.3 19.8 17.3 Suspended from school 20.4 11.1 12.7 14.3 13.4 11.8 29.8 29.6 9.6 11.2 16.3 20.8 15.9 7.1 8.5 Sold illegal drugs 3.4 2.2 2.2 3.6 3.1 10.7 17.4 11.1 7.7 7.2 15.7 16.7 4.3 8.9 8.6 Stolen or tried to steal a motor vehicle 4.2 2.8 1.8 1.7 2.2 3.9 2.2 3.7 2.1 2.7 4.2 4.2 1.4 1.8 2.0 Been arrested 9.9 4.3 5.2 5.0 4.8 9.3 29.8 18.5 6.0 6.0 13.5 8.3 17.4 5.9 5.8 17.4 10.6 10.4 9.8 12.9 16.5 14.9 16.7 8.9 11.8 16.2 14.6 8.8 6.6 9.6 Carried a handgun 5.8 4.7 7.0 5.5 5.4 9.5 6.5 5.6 5.6 5.5 11.3 8.3 7.2 5.6 5.5 Carried a handgun to school 1.9 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.9 2.1 2.2 0.0 0.8 1.2 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.4 1.2 Attacked someone w ith the idea of seriously hurting them ***Categories that were not measured and reported in one or more survey administrations prior to 2014 (also denoted by ‘n/a’ in the data column). 41 County 2014 Grade 12 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety and Cyber-Bullying Issues Grade 8 Question During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you w ith a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times w ere you in a physical fight ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? 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 often have you picked on or bullied another student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?* During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you w ould be unsafe at school or on your w ay to or from school? During the past 30 days, on how many days did you carry a w eapon such as a gun, knife, or club ON SCHOOL PROPERTY? During the past 12 months, how many times have you been harassed, mistreated, or made fun of by another person w hile on-line or through a cell phone or other electronic device?** Grade 10 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 0 times 94.1 89.4 89.7 88.5 92.1 100.0 92.6 92.0 93.5 89.4 94.1 94.1 1 time 3.8 4.8 5.9 5.2 3.3 0.0 1.9 3.4 2.9 4.3 5.9 2.3 2-3 times 1.4 2.8 2.5 3.4 2.8 0.0 3.7 2.1 2.9 4.3 0.0 1.2 4-5 times 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 6-7 times 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.5 8-9 times 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 12 or more times 0.1 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 times 79.8 83.6 85.4 85.1 87.0 78.3 92.6 91.1 92.1 97.9 94.1 94.3 1 time 2.5 State 2014 10.5 8.0 8.2 8.3 6.3 13.0 1.9 4.5 2.9 2.1 2.9 2-3 times 7.3 5.3 3.4 4.1 3.9 8.7 3.7 2.3 2.9 0.0 0.0 1.4 4-5 times 1.3 1.2 1.9 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 2.9 0.4 6-7 times 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 8-9 times 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 10-11 times 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 12 or more times 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0 times 62.6 67.0 66.6 59.8 75.4 80.4 77.8 71.6 83.6 91.7 88.2 83.0 1 time 14.8 9.2 8.8 10.3 7.5 4.3 7.4 6.7 6.4 0.0 2.9 4.1 2-3 times 10.5 10.3 11.6 12.0 8.7 6.5 3.7 9.3 3.6 4.2 4.4 5.9 4-5 times 3.5 3.4 3.5 5.1 2.6 2.2 0.0 3.8 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 6-7 times 1.3 1.3 1.6 2.5 0.9 2.2 5.6 1.8 0.7 4.2 1.5 1.0 8-9 times 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.7 10-11 times 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 12 or more times 5.3 7.2 6.0 7.8 3.5 4.3 5.6 5.0 2.9 0.0 1.5 3.0 0 times n/a n/a 74.1 73.8 n/a n/a 86.8 82.0 n/a n/a 97.1 88.6 1 time n/a n/a 10.3 10.5 n/a n/a 5.7 6.2 n/a n/a 1.5 3.3 2-3 times n/a n/a 10.0 8.8 n/a n/a 5.7 6.2 n/a n/a 0.0 3.5 4-5 times n/a n/a 1.8 2.3 n/a n/a 0.0 1.6 n/a n/a 0.0 1.2 6-7 times n/a n/a 0.9 1.0 n/a n/a 1.9 0.9 n/a n/a 0.0 0.6 8-9 times n/a n/a 0.4 0.7 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 n/a n/a 0.0 0.4 10-11 times n/a n/a 0.1 0.3 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 n/a n/a 0.0 0.2 12 or more times n/a n/a 2.4 2.5 n/a n/a 0.0 2.4 n/a n/a 1.5 2.2 89.9 92.3 92.5 90.1 92.8 95.3 92.5 93.9 95.7 95.5 95.6 95.7 1 day 5.9 3.9 4.4 4.7 3.9 0.0 3.8 2.8 2.9 2.3 4.4 1.8 2-3 days 2.8 2.4 1.9 3.3 2.1 4.7 3.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 4-5 days 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 days 6 or more days 0.9 0.9 0.4 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.8 95.9 96.5 95.9 95.8 93.7 100.0 94.5 94.4 93.6 90.5 98.6 94.5 1 day 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.3 0.0 3.6 1.5 0.7 4.8 0.0 2-3 days 1.0 0.4 0.9 0.8 1.4 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 4-5 days 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 or more days 0.4 0.8 0.4 1.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 5.7 0.0 1.4 2.8 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 73.5 9.2 7.0 3.6 1.6 1.0 0.6 3.6 75.1 7.0 9.4 2.5 1.0 0.9 0.1 3.9 69.7 8.7 9.0 3.8 1.8 1.4 0.6 5.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 79.5 13.6 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 85.2 0.0 7.4 3.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 74.6 6.6 8.0 3.3 1.5 1.3 0.5 4.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 76.6 10.6 2.1 2.1 4.3 0.0 2.1 2.1 89.7 2.9 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 81.3 4.7 6.1 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.3 3.4 0 days ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not ask respondents if they had picked on or bullied other students. ***Prior to 2012, the AYS did not ask respondents about online and electronic harassment. 42 Grade 12 County 2010 1.1 1.1 0.5 Data Tables Table 11. Percentage of Students Gambling in the Past Year How often have you done the following for money, possessions, or anything of value: (At least once in the past 12 months) County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 10 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Grade 12 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 BH Norm 2014 61.7 59.9 52.5 54.6 45.5 63.0 69.6 47.1 52.6 43.8 50.7 58.0 43.3 46.8 43.8 Played at a slot machine, poker machine, or other gambling machine? 5.2 5.1 3.8 3.7 4.2 6.7 4.3 0.0 4.2 4.0 6.5 6.0 4.5 4.6 4.5 Played the lottery or scratch-off tickets? 21.7 21.3 20.3 20.7 19.1 24.4 36.4 19.6 21.1 18.3 19.4 18.0 11.9 19.4 20.8 Bet on sports? 27.6 29.2 24.0 25.1 23.4 31.0 42.2 21.6 23.8 23.0 28.1 30.0 21.5 20.3 21.6 Bet on cards? 33.5 32.7 25.7 29.1 25.0 38.8 37.8 23.5 28.9 24.7 33.8 34.0 29.9 26.6 24.7 Played bingo? 22.0 22.8 18.0 23.6 20.8 21.6 25.0 17.6 18.3 15.9 15.0 10.2 14.9 12.1 11.8 Played a dice game? 23.0 25.3 22.4 23.8 14.3 23.7 22.2 15.7 19.7 12.5 16.5 22.0 16.9 15.2 11.1 Bet on a game of personal skill such as pool or a video game? 27.6 27.0 25.8 26.2 19.6 33.7 26.1 27.5 25.7 18.4 22.1 22.0 25.4 21.5 16.9 3.3 5.4 3.1 5.0 5.8 5.3 6.7 5.9 4.6 5.5 4.3 2.0 1.5 4.1 5.2 Any Gambling Past Year Bet on a horse or other animal race? *Blah 43 Grade 8 Data Tables Table 12. Where Youth Obtained Alcohol If during the past 30 days you drank alcohol, how did you get it? (Mark all that apply) Sample size* Grade 8 Grade 10 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Grade 12 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 145 93 74 2,574 132 18 7 3,493 48 16 20 4,131 I bought it in a store such as a liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, discount store, or gas station. 4.8 8.6 5.4 7.4 9.1 5.6 14.3 7.6 16.7 25.0 35.0 10.5 I bought it at a restaurant, bar, or club. 4.1 3.2 1.4 4.7 2.3 0.0 28.6 3.5 6.3 18.8 20.0 5.4 I bought it at a public event such as a concert or sporting event. 4.1 3.2 0.0 4.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 8.3 6.3 5.0 3.7 I gave someone else money to buy it for me. 22.1 9.7 13.5 14.5 30.3 44.4 57.1 25.3 47.9 37.5 25.0 35.7 My parent or guardian gave it to me. 13.8 16.1 12.2 19.8 15.2 5.6 0.0 16.7 12.5 6.3 10.0 17.1 Another family member w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 17.9 26.9 33.8 20.5 20.5 16.7 0.0 16.2 14.6 12.5 15.0 15.8 Someone not related to me w ho is 21 or older gave it to me. 13.8 10.8 5.4 15.4 24.2 27.8 42.9 21.5 25.0 25.0 20.0 27.2 Someone under the age of 21 gave it to me. 21.4 14.0 16.2 19.8 17.4 5.6 14.3 26.3 14.6 18.8 10.0 21.6 I got it at a party. 46.2 39.8 36.5 33.8 43.9 61.1 57.1 45.6 39.6 62.5 45.0 50.9 I took it from home. 19.3 23.7 23.0 25.2 15.2 16.7 0.0 21.8 14.6 12.5 10.0 15.2 4.8 6.5 5.4 7.5 3.8 5.6 14.3 9.2 8.3 18.8 10.0 5.7 18.6 22.6 21.6 26.3 18.2 22.2 28.6 17.8 14.6 18.8 25.0 13.7 I took it from a store or someone else's home. I got it some other w ay. ***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. 44 Data Tables Table 13. 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 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 60 55 2,261 7 12 2,880 11 19 3,013 I got it from someone w ith a medical marijuana card 15.0 5.5 10.9 14.3 0.0 13.4 0.0 21.1 17.7 Friends 56.7 63.6 69.5 42.9 75.0 77.8 54.5 36.8 78.2 6.7 16.4 16.8 14.3 8.3 14.7 18.2 26.3 11.9 Parties 13.3 38.2 25.0 28.6 25.0 28.4 54.5 10.5 27.5 Home 3.3 5.5 6.3 14.3 8.3 5.3 0.0 10.5 5.5 School 13.3 18.2 14.8 0.0 16.7 12.3 0.0 0.0 7.6 Other 21.7 36.4 28.1 57.1 33.3 21.4 0.0 57.9 21.0 Family/relatives Table 14. 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 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 10 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 Grade 12 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 72 42 40 1,130 68 13 8 1,428 21 8 15 1,596 Friends 52.8 40.5 55.0 47.1 57.4 30.8 87.5 56.3 61.9 62.5 46.7 59.4 Family/relatives 15.3 11.9 17.5 14.8 16.2 15.4 25.0 17.3 14.3 12.5 6.7 16.7 Parties 23.6 19.0 17.5 20.4 30.9 0.0 25.0 21.6 33.3 25.0 40.0 20.5 Home (e.g., medicine cabinet) 25.0 19.0 37.5 26.1 32.4 30.8 25.0 25.9 23.8 50.0 6.7 22.2 Doctor/pharmacy 12.5 19.0 12.5 12.9 22.1 15.4 0.0 16.2 9.5 25.0 13.3 17.7 School 12.5 21.4 12.5 11.9 16.2 7.7 25.0 12.4 9.5 37.5 20.0 11.7 Other 18.1 26.2 22.5 17.9 13.2 23.1 12.5 14.2 14.3 12.5 26.7 13.8 Over the Internet 0.0 2.4 7.5 2.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 1.9 Outside the U.S. (e.g., Mexico, Canada) 6.9 11.9 10.0 8.6 10.3 7.7 12.5 5.0 19.0 0.0 6.7 5.7 ***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/prescription drugs. Students indicating they did not use marijuana in the past 30 days or that they have never used prescription drugs to get high are not are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. 45 State 2014 Data Tables Table 15. Drug Free Communities Report - National Outcome Measures (NOMs) Grade 8 Outcom e Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parental Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Perception of Peer Disapproval* (Friends feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to...) Past 30-Day Use* (at least one use in the past 30 days) Definition Substance Percent Grade 10 Sample Percent Grade 12 Sample Percent Male** Sample Percent Female** Sample Percent Sample take five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, w ine, liquor) once or tw ice a w eek? Binge drinking 79.8 608 76.0 50 75.0 64 78.8 377 79.1 340 smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day? Tobacco 82.2 613 77.6 49 87.5 64 81.5 379 83.0 342 smoke marijuana once or tw ice a w eek? Marijuana 64.1 604 40.8 49 37.7 61 55.8 373 65.2 336 use prescription drugs that are not prescribed to them? Prescription drugs 80.8 610 65.3 49 78.1 64 79.6 377 79.5 341 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 94.6 483 97.7 43 79.3 58 94.1 306 92.3 273 smoke cigarettes? Tobacco 97.3 482 93.0 43 89.5 57 95.1 306 97.4 271 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 96.4 476 95.3 43 87.5 56 95.0 302 95.9 268 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 96.9 481 95.3 43 94.6 56 96.1 305 97.0 270 have one or tw o drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day? Alcohol 79.8 529 73.9 46 53.2 62 76.2 332 77.0 300 smoke tobacco? Tobacco 89.1 530 78.3 46 56.7 60 83.9 330 86.7 301 smoke marijuana? Marijuana 77.0 531 65.2 46 46.8 62 71.7 332 74.6 303 use prescription drugs not prescribed to you? Prescription drugs 88.4 528 82.6 46 72.6 62 85.8 332 87.3 299 had beer, w ine, or hard liquor Alcohol 13.0 653 19.2 52 29.9 67 13.1 406 16.9 360 smoked cigarettes Tobacco 6.3 665 20.0 50 25.4 67 8.8 410 9.0 366 used marijuana Marijuana 6.2 659 13.5 52 27.9 68 8.8 407 8.5 366 used prescription pain relievers (such as Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet, or Tylox) w ithout a doctor's orders? Prescription drugs 5.0 645 9.6 52 4.5 67 3.7 402 6.7 357 ***For Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, and Past 30-Day Use, 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 the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. ***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. 46 Data Tables Table 16. Additional Data for Prevention Planning In the last 30 days, about how many times were you offered: alcohol? cigarettes? marijuana? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Never 66.2 73.8 77.7 78.5 49.5 47.7 58.0 58.3 Once 17.2 11.6 11.7 10.3 16.9 15.9 12.0 13.1 41.3 34.1 45.5 47.1 13.8 22.7 13.6 2-3 times 9.8 9.5 6.8 6.7 16.4 18.2 14.0 13.2 15.2 21.7 15.9 21.2 4-6 times 3.1 2.5 2.1 2.1 8.3 6.8 19.4 4.0 6.7 9.4 9.1 10.6 7-10 times 1.2 0.6 0.8 0.7 2.8 9.4 6.8 2.0 2.3 5.8 6.8 3.0 More than 10 times 2.6 2.1 0.9 1.7 3.4 6.0 4.5 10.0 4.4 8.0 11.4 6.1 Never 82.2 83.9 86.5 86.5 7.5 70.8 65.9 66.0 79.6 55.1 59.1 53.8 73.9 Once 8.3 8.2 7.2 6.8 11.0 2-3 times 4.3 4.8 3.9 3.7 8.2 17.1 8.0 8.4 12.3 9.1 16.9 9.2 7.3 12.0 5.3 11.6 6.8 13.8 4-6 times 1.8 1.7 1.2 1.2 6.8 3.5 2.4 4.0 2.5 7.2 9.1 9.2 7-10 times 1.2 0.4 0.6 3.1 0.5 1.6 2.4 2.0 1.2 3.6 2.3 0.0 More than 10 times 2.3 1.0 1.6 0.6 1.3 4.9 4.9 8.0 3.1 10.1 13.6 6.2 5.4 Never 76.0 Once 10.6 81.9 77.3 75.5 60.7 62.9 56.0 57.5 59.9 40.5 49.2 54.1 6.3 7.7 8.3 9.3 8.6 12.0 11.4 12.4 19.0 6.2 2-3 times 10.5 6.3 5.0 6.6 6.6 8.9 8.6 14.0 10.8 9.5 11.9 10.8 12.0 4-6 times 2.3 2.3 3.8 3.3 8.9 8.6 2.0 6.7 2.2 9.5 9.2 6.8 7-10 times 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.9 4.0 3.8 2.9 2.4 1.5 3.8 Give an explanation or excuse to turn dow n the offer. 3.5 2.9 3.5 4.6 10.3 8.6 12.0 9.8 13.1 16.7 23.1 12.7 90.0 90.1 90.5 88.4 83.7 82.9 74.0 82.6 83.1 76.2 75.4 82.1 Once 4.8 4.1 4.4 5.5 6.1 7.3 10.0 7.6 6.6 7.1 10.8 6.7 2-3 times 2.2 2.0 2.6 2.7 3.7 4.9 4.0 4.3 2.9 2.4 9.2 5.0 4-6 times 1.6 1.2 1.9 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.4 1.5 2.1 7-10 times 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 2.4 0.0 1.0 More than 10 times 0.9 1.7 1.7 3.7 4.9 10.0 2.6 3.7 9.5 3.1 3.0 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 State 2014 Never 31.1 31.8 33.6 30.5 67.8 22.7 38.0 35.2 60.8 32.7 30.2 39.2 Once 17.3 12.2 14.2 11.6 32.2 25.0 18.0 14.4 39.2 16.3 19.0 15.6 Twice 8.1 4.9 4.9 4.6 0.0 9.1 8.0 6.9 0.0 6.1 14.3 7.6 Three times 2.0 2.9 2.1 2.3 0.0 6.8 2.0 3.5 0.0 10.2 6.3 3.8 Four or more times 5.0 4.7 2.3 4.6 0.0 9.1 10.0 6.3 0.0 16.3 9.5 6.7 I never get offers 36.5 43.5 42.8 46.4 0.0 27.3 24.0 33.6 0.0 18.4 20.6 27.1 Never 37.9 36.6 37.4 33.6 2.8 34.9 48.0 37.1 6.4 37.5 49.2 41.5 Once 14.0 9.7 9.2 9.4 97.2 25.6 6.0 13.2 93.6 20.8 14.3 14.2 Twice 5.6 4.2 5.9 4.3 0.0 2.3 10.0 7.0 0.0 4.2 7.9 8.1 Three times 3.3 1.9 2.3 2.2 0.0 7.0 2.0 3.6 0.0 4.2 3.2 4.0 Four or more times Decide to leave the situation w ithout accepting the offer. Use some other w ay to not accept the alcohol or drugs. 1.1 0.5 1.1 1.1 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 3.4 3.0 2.0 3.7 0.0 4.7 10.0 5.4 0.0 12.5 7.9 5.2 I never get offers 35.9 44.6 43.2 46.7 0.0 25.6 24.0 33.7 0.0 20.8 17.5 26.9 Never 36.4 37.2 40.6 35.4 0.7 44.2 40.0 46.0 2.4 38.8 43.8 53.3 Once 14.1 7.8 7.8 8.5 99.3 9.3 14.0 9.7 97.6 8.2 18.8 9.2 Twice 5.3 3.9 3.9 3.2 0.0 4.7 10.0 3.9 0.0 8.2 7.8 3.9 Three times 2.6 2.0 2.2 1.9 0.0 9.3 4.0 2.3 0.0 8.2 4.7 2.3 Four or more times 4.2 4.3 2.0 3.7 0.0 4.7 4.0 4.0 0.0 16.3 6.3 3.7 I never get offers 37.4 44.7 43.5 47.3 0.0 27.9 28.0 34.2 0.0 20.4 18.8 27.6 Never 42.2 40.8 41.4 38.2 0.5 42.9 48.0 49.7 3.2 46.9 51.6 57.0 Once 9.9 6.1 8.6 6.8 99.5 7.1 2.0 7.8 96.8 12.2 15.6 7.6 Twice 5.0 2.6 2.0 2.4 0.0 4.8 14.0 2.9 0.0 6.1 6.3 3.0 Three times 2.5 1.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 9.5 4.0 1.7 0.0 4.1 1.6 1.8 Four or more times 2.9 4.0 2.3 3.3 0.0 7.1 6.0 3.3 0.0 14.3 7.8 2.7 37.5 44.7 44.5 47.8 0.0 28.6 26.0 34.6 0.0 16.3 17.2 27.9 I never get offers 47 State 2014 Never 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? Say "No" w ithout giving a reason w hy. Grade 12 Grade 10 County 2012 More than 10 times other drugs? Grade 8 County 2010 Data Tables Table 17. Additional Data for Prevention Planning (Cont'd) Grade 8 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: Never been hit, slapped, pushed, shoved, kicked, or any other w ay physically assaulted by your boyfriend or girlfriend? seen someone punched w ith a fist, kicked, choked or beaten up? County 2014 State 2014 County 2010 County 2012 County 2014 Compared to using illegal drugs (e.g. cocaine, meth, heroin), how harmful do you think it is for people to take prescription drugs (e.g. OxyContin, Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderal, sleeping pills) w ithout a doctor telling them to take them?* County 2014 State 2014 89.3 87.7 81.0 71.7 88.9 89.1 82.1 79.2 82.6 89.6 7.2 5.7 6.4 6.9 15.2 3.7 5.0 10.0 6.3 8.7 4.7 3 to 5 times 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.5 3.9 4.3 3.7 2.6 2.9 8.3 4.3 2.0 6 to 9 times 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.2 2.1 6.5 0.0 0.7 6.3 0.0 1.2 10 to 19 times 2.6 1.1 0.3 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.8 20 to 29 times 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 40+ times 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.0 2.8 2.2 3.7 1.1 3.6 0.0 1.4 1.3 Never 26.0 42.9 46.9 48.7 31.9 56.5 66.7 54.3 41.4 50.0 65.2 65.8 1 or 2 times 29.8 27.6 30.9 3 to 5 times 21.8 14.7 6 to 9 times 10.8 10 to 19 times 20 to 29 times 1.1 26.4 24.8 21.7 20.4 22.6 21.4 19.6 23.2 17.9 11.4 12.8 20.1 6.5 7.4 12.7 21.4 13.0 2.9 9.4 6.1 4.4 5.4 10.0 10.9 0.0 5.2 7.9 10.9 5.8 3.1 5.9 4.0 2.8 2.8 5.1 2.2 0.0 2.3 1.4 2.2 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 0.7 1.2 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.4 4.3 0.0 0.7 30 to 39 times 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 40+ times 3.6 2.7 2.3 2.3 4.6 2.2 5.6 1.5 5.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 78.7 89.0 88.2 89.8 82.2 86.7 90.7 92.4 82.3 88.9 85.5 94.5 1 or 2 times 12.1 6.6 7.3 6.0 8.3 8.9 3.7 4.2 10.6 4.4 10.1 3.0 3 to 5 times 5.0 2.0 2.3 1.9 3.9 2.2 3.7 1.4 2.1 4.4 1.4 0.9 6 to 9 times 1.2 0.7 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.2 1.4 0.5 10 to 19 times 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.8 0.0 1.4 0.3 20 to 29 times 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 30 to 39 times 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 40+ times 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.9 2.2 0.0 0.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.1 88.6 87.9 93.1 92.7 91.5 83.5 1 or 2 times 8.3 4.6 4.5 5.4 10.0 3 to 5 times 1.3 0.9 1.6 1.2 6 to 9 times 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.3 30 to 39 times 40+ times 10 to 19 times 96.3 93.7 88.5 85.5 94.6 11.4 0.0 3.8 6.5 8.9 8.7 3.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.9 0.0 2.9 0.9 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.7 1.1 Grade 8 County Grade 8 County Grade 8 State Grade 10 County 69.0 Grade 10 County Never 67.1 63.0 73.4 63.3 Once 13.9 14.5 12.2 11.2 13.5 2-3 times 9.1 10.4 7.6 9.6 4-6 times 4.0 4.8 2.7 7-10 times 1.2 1.3 1.0 More than 10 times 4.7 6.0 Never n/a Once 2-3 times Grade 10 County 58.5 Grade 10 State Grade 12 County 54.9 70.4 17.1 15.7 10.5 12.8 12.2 21.6 3.4 3.2 7.3 0.9 2.3 0.0 3.2 5.9 4.9 n/a 50.5 48.0 n/a n/a 15.4 n/a n/a 18.1 4-6 times n/a n/a 7-10 times n/a More than 10 times 91.1 Grade 12 County Grade 12 State 66.2 11.0 19.0 6.2 7.8 10.4 11.8 7.1 15.4 10.3 2.0 3.5 6.6 9.5 6.2 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.2 0.0 1.5 0.8 4.9 5.9 4.1 3.7 11.9 4.6 2.6 n/a n/a 46.9 57.8 n/a n/a 66.7 68.2 17.8 n/a n/a 14.3 15.7 n/a n/a 10.6 12.9 17.2 n/a n/a 26.5 14.9 n/a n/a 15.2 11.4 6.0 6.8 n/a n/a 2.0 4.7 n/a n/a 3.0 3.4 n/a 3.0 2.8 n/a n/a 2.0 2.1 n/a n/a 0.0 1.2 n/a n/a 6.9 7.5 n/a n/a 8.2 4.8 n/a n/a 4.5 2.9 A lot less harmful n/a n/a 6.2 7.6 n/a n/a 19.6 6.0 n/a n/a 9.8 6.2 Less harmful n/a n/a 12.5 12.4 n/a n/a 17.4 14.8 n/a n/a 19.7 16.6 No difference n/a n/a 24.6 27.6 n/a n/a 19.6 34.3 n/a n/a 14.8 35.5 More harmful n/a n/a 22.4 21.5 n/a n/a 26.1 n/a n/a 21.3 19.8 A lot more harmful n/a n/a 34.3 30.9 n/a n/a 17.4 n/a n/a 34.4 21.9 21.1 23.8 64.7 Grade 12 County 52.4 ***Prior to 2014, the AYS did not survey these questions. 48 County 2012 85.5 Grade 8 County During the past 12 months, how many times have you talked w ith your parents about strategies to avoid or resist people or places w here you might be offered alcohol, prescription drugs, or other drugs?* County 2010 8.6 20 to 29 times In the last 30 days, how often have you avoided people or places because you might be offered alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, or other drugs? State 2014 81.5 Never seen someone shot or shot at? Grade 12 County 2012 1 or 2 times Never seen someone attacked w ith a w eapon other than a gun, such as a knife, bat, bottle, or chain? Grade 10 County 2010 75.5 Appendix Appendix - Comparability of survey administrations and additional notes Issue Drug Category Prior administration(s) On how many occasions (if any) have you: Current administration Notes regarding changes On how many occasions (if any) have you: Heroin used heroin or other opiates? (2010) used heroin? (2012/2014) Cautiously comparable across years. Ecstasy used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', or MDMA)? (2010/2012) used Ecstasy ('X', 'E', MDMA, or 'Molly')? (2014) Added popular identifier "Molly" for clarification in 2014. n/a (2010) used synthetic drugs (such as Bath Salts like Ivory Wave or White Lighting or herbal incense products like K2, Spice, or Gold)? (2012/2014) Added in 2012 to track potential emerging usage trends. Synthetic Drugs Combined results of On how many occasions have you: Prescription drugs used prescription pain relievers (Vicodin, OxyContin, Percocet or Codeine) without a doctor telling you to take them? used prescription sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbiturates, or sleeping pills)? used prescription stimulants (such as Ritalin, Adderall, or Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to take them? *Blah 49 Prescription Drugs is the the measure of any student report use of prescription sedatives, prescription stimulants or prescription pain relievers, (three separate questions) combined to create a single measure. 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 Maricopa County Heather L. Brown Mercy Maricopa Integrated Care 602-453-8415 Pima County Michael Pensak Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8813 Gila River Indian Community Jamie Arthur Gila River Regional Behavioral Health Authority 520-562-3321 ext. 3936 Pascua Yaqui Tribe Centered Spirit Program Ralph Cota 480-768-2063 Vanessa M. Bustos 480-768-2064 Other State and National Contacts: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Megan Armstrong/Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1172/602-364-1157 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 Kathy Donner 602-255-3889 www.problemgambling.az.gov 50 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Kelly Charbonneau 602-364-1356 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 Partnership for a Drug Free America, Arizona Affiliate Thalia Williams 602-264-5700 ext. 13 www.drugfreeaz.org Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development) www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ 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 Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 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 Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) casat.unr.edu/westcapt.html Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com