Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications

Overview Basic information about the data and analyses Basic information about the data and analyses 2010 Survey Results 2010 Survey Results –Substance Use Prescription Drug Use Prescription Drug Use –Antisocial Behaviors –Risk Factors –Protective Factors Discussion: Where do we go from here? Discussion: Where do we go from here?

How should we be thinking about the data?

Administration and Validity of Survey Results Administration details Administration details Honesty Scale Honesty Scale –Response patterns –Survey question: “How honest were you in filling out this survey?” 5,873 out of 6,622 (~89%) students reported answering the survey honestly 5,873 out of 6,622 (~89%) students reported answering the survey honestly

Significance Analyses Normal fluctuation Normal fluctuation Significance analyses: Significance analyses: –Statistically significant –Non-significant –Conducted for both percentage change from 2002 to 2010 and 2008 to 2010 Significance analyses conducted for selected variables: Significance analyses conducted for selected variables: –Top 3 substances + chewing tobacco (for both lifetime and past 30-day use) –Prescription drug use –Highest and lowest 3 antisocial behaviors –Highest and lowest 3 risk and protective

Monitoring the Future (MTF) & Bach-Harrison (BH) Norms MTF MTF –Ongoing study of the behaviors, attitudes and values of American secondary & college students and young adults BH Norm BH Norm –Created by Bach-Harrison, L.L.C. –Provides states & communities with the ability to compare their results on risk, protection & antisocial measures with national measures –Updated approximately every two years

2010 PNA Survey Results: Substances Alcohol Alcohol Tobacco Tobacco –Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Marijuana Prescription Drugs Prescription Drugs –Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) –Stimulants –CNS Depressants NOTE: NOTE: * = indicates statistically significant increase/decrease; teal text indicates a positive change; orange text indicates a negative change

Lifetime Alcohol Use 2010: 46.8% (2748/5873) 57.0%* 2008: 57.0%* (3306/5800) 60.1%* 2002: 60.1%* (1311/2181) National comparison: Middle school: ~7% lower High school: ~1 – 2% lower

Past 30-Day Alcohol Use 2010: 26.2% (1539/5873) 34.9%* 2008: 34.9%* (2024/5800) 33.7%* 2002: 33.7%* (735/2181) National comparison: Middle school: ~2% higher High school: ~2 – 4% lower

Binge Drinking 2010: 14.3% (840/5873) 22.1%* 2008: 22.1%* (1282/5873) 16.3%* 2002: 16.3%* (356/2181) National comparison: Middle and high school: ~2% higher

Lifetime Tobacco (Cigarette) Use 2010: 23.3% (1368/5873) 26.4%* 2008: 26.4%* (1531/5800) 35.9%* 2002: 35.9%* (783/2181) National comparison: Middle and high school: ~5 – 8% lower

Past 30-Day Tobacco (Cigarette) Use 2010: 9.7% (570/5873) 11.6%* 2008: 11.6%* (673/5800) 13.4%* 2002: 13.4%* (292/2181) National comparison: Middle and high school: ~5% lower

Continuing Trend of Interest: Rise – and Fall - in Chewing Tobacco 2010: 14.0% (822/5873) 15.6%* 2008: 15.6%* (905/5800) 2002: 13.2% (288/2181) National comparison: Middle school: ~Equal High school: ~3% higher

Continuing Trend of Interest: Rise – and Fall - in Chewing Tobacco 2010: 6.6% (388/5873) 7.6%* 2008: 7.6%* (446/5800) 4.2%* 2002: 4.2%* (92/2181) National comparison: Middle school: ~Equal High school: ~2% higher

Lifetime Marijuana Use 2010: 21.7% (1274/5873) 2008: 23.1% (1340/5800) 28.0%* 2002: 28.0%* (611/2181) National comparison: Middle school: ~7% lower High school: ~3 – 5% lower

Past 30-Day Marijuana Use 2010: 12.7% (746/5873) 2008: 12.8% (742/5800) 15.2%* 2002: 15.2%* (332/2181) National comparison: Middle and high school: ~Equal

Lifetime Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) Use 2010: 6.4% (376/5873) 7.5%* 2008: 7.5%* (435/5800) 11.9%* 2004: 11.9%* (621/5219) National comparison: Middle school: ~3.0% lower High school: ~Equal

Past 30-Day Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) Use 2010: 2.8% (164/5873) 3.5%* 2008: 3.5%* (203/5800) 5.0%* 2004: 5.0%* (261/5219) National comparison: Middle school: ~1.0% lower High school: ~Equal

Lifetime Stimulant (Amphetamine) Use 2010: 5.9% (347/5873) 2008: 5.5% (319/5800) 2004: 5.3% (277/5219) National comparison: Middle school & younger high school: ~3.0% lower High school seniors: ~1.0% higher

Past 30-Day Stimulant (Amphetamine) Use 2010: 2.7% (159/5873) 2008: 2.6% (151/5800) 1.9%* 2004: 1.9%* (99/5219) National comparison: Middle school and younger high school: ~Equal High school: ~2.0% higher

Lifetime CNS Depressant (Sedative) Use 2010: 5.4% (317/5873) 7.2%* 2008: 7.2%* (417/5800) 7.5%* 2006: 7.5%* (371/4953) National comparison: Across all students: ~5% lower

Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Sedative) Use 2010: 2.3% (135/5873) 2.9%* 2008: 2.9%* (168/5800) 2006: 2.8% (138/4953) National comparison: Across all students: ~1% lower

Lifetime CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) Use 2010: 2.6% (153/5873) 3.6%* 2008: 3.6%* (209/5800) 2004: 2.7% (141/5219) National comparison: Across all students: ~3-4% lower

Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) Use 2010: 1.1% (65/5873) 2008: 1.4% (81/5800) 2004: 1.3% (68/5219) National comparison: Across all students: ~0.5% lower

ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIORS (ASB) Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked to Harm Carried a Handgun Handgun to School

Antisocial Behaviors: Highest Drunk or High at School Drunk or High at School –11.5% of students: 2010 (675/5873) –13.8%* of students: 2008 (800/5800) –13.1% of students: 2002 (286/2181) –MS students below BH norm; HS students approximately equal to BH norm Attacked to Harm Attacked to Harm –10.0% of students: 2010 (587/5873) –12.4%* of students: 2008 (719/5873) –14.6%* of students: 2002 (318/2181) –All grades below BH norm Suspended from School Suspended from School –8.7% of students: 2010 (511/5873) –9.0% of students: 2008 (522/5800) –7.3%* of students: 2002 (159/2181) –All grades below BH norm

Antisocial Behaviors: Lowest Carried a Handgun Carried a Handgun –3.8% of students: 2010 (223/5873) –3.3% of students: 2008 (191/5800) –2.7%* of students: 2002 (59/2181) –All grades below BH norm Stolen a Vehicle Stolen a Vehicle –2.1% of students: 2010 (123/5873) –1.8% of students: 2008 (104/5800) –1.9% of students: 2002 (41/2181) –All grades below BH norm Handgun to School Handgun to School –1.1% of students: 2010 (65/5873) –0.5%* of students: 2008 (35/5800) –0.7%* of students: 2002 (9/2181) –All grades below BH norm

RISK FACTORS Low Neighborhood Attachment Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Poor Family Management Family Conflict Sibling Drug Use Exposure to Adult ASB Parent Attitudes Favor ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Rebelliousness Early Initiation of ASB Early Initiation of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to ASB Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Perceived Risk of Drug Use Interaction with Antisocial Peers Friend’s Use of Drugs Rewards for ASB Depressive Symptoms Gang Involvement

Risk Factors: Highest Rewards for ASB Rewards for ASB –48.1% of students: 2010 (2824/5873) –48.0% of students: 2008 (2784/5800) –48.2% of students: 2002 (1051/2181) –MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm Perceived Minimal Risk of Drug Use Perceived Minimal Risk of Drug Use –45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873) –41.5%* of students: 2008 (2407/5800) –40.3%* of students: 2002 (879/2181) –MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB –45.3% of students: 2010 (2660/5873) –53.6%* of students: 2008 (3265/5800) –56.9%* of students: 2002 (1241/2181) –MS students ~5% higher than BH norm; HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm

Risk Factors: Lowest Early Initiation of ASB Early Initiation of ASB –25.2% of students: 2010 (1480/5873) –24.6% of students: 2008 (1427/5800) –26.9%* of students: 2002 (587/2181) –All students ~10% lower than BH norm Interaction with Antisocial Peers Interaction with Antisocial Peers –25.1% of students: 2010 (1474/5873) –29.1%* of students: 2008 (1688/5800) –24.8% of students: 2002 (541/2181) –All students ~ 5-10% lower than BH norm Gang Involvement Gang Involvement –6.3% of students: 2010 (370/5873) –7.6%* of students: 2008 (441/5800) –6.2% of students: 2002 (135/2181) –MS students ~5% lower than BH norm; HS students ~ equal to BH norm

Where are the high risk kids? Note: High risk = 8(M.S.)/9(H.S.) or more risk factors

PROTECTIVE FACTORS Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Family Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Religiosity Belief in the Moral Order Interaction with Prosocial Peers Peer-Individual Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

Protective Factors: Highest School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement –67.2% of students: 2010 (3947/5873) –70.6%* of students: 2008 (4095/5800) –61.5%* of students: 2002 (1341/2181) –MS students ~10% higher than BH norm; HS students ~ equal to BH norm Peer-Individual Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Prosocial Involvement –66.5% of students: 2010 (3906/5873) –64.2%* of students: 2008 (3724/5800) –63.8%* of students: 2006* (3160/4953) –All students ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement –66.1% of students: 2010 (3882/5873) –67.5% of students: 2008 (3915/5800) –69.3%* of students: 2002 (1511/2181) –MS students ~10% higher than BH norm; HS students ~ equal to BH norm *NOTE: 2002 and 2004 survey did not measure this component

Protective Factors: Lowest Peer-Individual Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Rewards for Prosocial Involvement –45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873) –47.3% of students: 2008 (2743/5800) –52.7%* of students: 2006* (2610/4953) –MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement –43.3% of students: 2010 (2543/5873) –41.9% of students: 2008 (2430/5800) –40.7%* of students: 2002 (888/2181) –MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm Religiosity Religiosity –38.6% of students : 2010 (2267/5873) –39.8%* of students: 2008 (2308/5800) –45.7%* of students: 2002 (997/2181) –MS students ~5% higher than BH norm; HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm *NOTE: 2002 and 2004 survey did not measure this component

How many kids are endorsing high protection? Note: High protection = 5 or more protective factors

NEW AREAS OF INTEREST

Obtaining Alcohol

Consuming Alcohol

Driving and Alcohol

Bullying: Prevalence

Bullying: Relative Frequencies

Bullying & Perceived Safety

Bullying & Perceived Safety: Relative Frequencies

PARENT SURVEY 2010: HIGHLIGHTS

KYDS Coalition Parent Survey 2010: Overview 27 questions 27 questions Variety of issues and attitudes relating to youth substance use, antisocial behavior, and family management Variety of issues and attitudes relating to youth substance use, antisocial behavior, and family management Mailed to the homes of parents of middle and high school students in the Chenango Forks, Johnson City, Maine-Endwell, Susquehanna Valley, Whitney Point, & Windsor school districts Mailed to the homes of parents of middle and high school students in the Chenango Forks, Johnson City, Maine-Endwell, Susquehanna Valley, Whitney Point, & Windsor school districts Total of 606 (~10%) surveys were completed and analyzed by the KYDS Coalition Information Specialist Total of 606 (~10%) surveys were completed and analyzed by the KYDS Coalition Information Specialist Notable findings, when examined in parallel with PNA, reported here in brief Notable findings, when examined in parallel with PNA, reported here in brief

Perceived Risk of Harm

Perceived vs. Reported Approval of Substance Use

Conversations: Alcohol/Drug Use and Risks

Frequency of Talks: Alcohol

Frequency of Talks: Drugs

Frequency of Talks: Rx Drugs

Concluding Remarks Value of the data Value of the data –Importance of recognizing the local risk and protective factors –Note substances increasing in popularity Positive trends of decrease: how do we interpret? Positive trends of decrease: how do we interpret? –Programs; opportunities; other? Broader framework for change Broader framework for change

Acknowledgements Katie Cusano, MA, CASAC Katie Cusano, MA, CASAC Melinda Kmetz, BA Melinda Kmetz, BA Stephen Lisman, PhD Stephen Lisman, PhD Melissa O’Connor, Intern Melissa O’Connor, Intern Bach-Harrison, L.L.C. Bach-Harrison, L.L.C. Schools, Teachers, Administrators, Students Schools, Teachers, Administrators, Students For more information, visit us online: