Oklahoma Digital Prairie: Documents, Images and Information
2010 Oklahoma prevention needs assessment survey. Results for state of Oklahoma
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
Results for
S tate of Oklahoma
2
Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total Students 42,768 100 60,720 100 72,199 100
6 12,140 28.4 18,969 31.2 23,561 32.6
8 11,739 27.4 16,682 27.5 21,220 29.4
10 11,042 25.8 14,435 23.8 15,984 22.1
12 7,847 18.3 10,634 17.5 11,434 15.8
Male 20,113 48.1 29,217 48.9 34,770 49.1
Female 21,685 51.9 30,567 51.1 36,017 50.9
American Indian or
Alaska Native 6,548 16.3 13,781 19.0 16,455 19.1
Asian 865 2.2 1,694 2.3 2,035 2.4
Black or
African American 3,499 8.7 7,582 10.4 9,120 10.6
Hawaiian or other
Pacific Islander 210 0.5 950 1.3 919 1.1
Hispanic or Latino 2,871 7.2 6,350 8.7 8,655 10.0
White 26,060 65.1 42,354 58.2 49,140 56.9
*
Students by Gender
Grade
Students by Race/Ethnicity*
Students can select one or more categories. The sum of Students by Race/Ethnicity may exceed Total Students.
Oklahoma who completed the survey.
A total of 686 schools across
Oklahoma participated in the survey.
Since students are able to select more
than one race or ethnicity, the sum of
students of individual categories may
exceed the total number of students
surveyed. Because not all students
answer all of the questions, the total
count of students by gender (and less
frequently, students by ethnicity) may
be less than the reported total
students.
When using the information in this
report, please pay attention to the
number of students who participated
from your community. If 60% or
more of the students participated, the
report is a good indicator of the levels
of substance use, risk, protection, and
antisocial behavior. If fewer than 60%
participated, consult with your local
prevention coordinator or a survey
professional before generalizing the
results to the entire community.
Coordination and administration of the
Oklahoma PNA Survey was a
collaborative effort of the State Office of
the Governor; Oklahoma Department of
Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Services; Area Prevention Resource
Centers; Oklahoma State Department of
Health; Oklahoma Department of
Education; Oklahoma Commission on
Children and Youth; and all of the
participating schools. If you have any
questions about the report or prevention
activities that are underway in the state,
please refer to the Contacts for
Prevention section.
Administration of the Oklahoma
Prevention Needs Assessment Survey
and the preparation of this report were
funded by a federal grant administered
by the Oklahoma Department of
Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Services from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA), Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP).
2010 State of Oklahoma
Prevention Needs
Assessment Survey Report
This report summarizes the findings
from the State of Oklahoma Prevention
Needs Assessment (OPNA) Survey that
was conducted during the spring of 2010
in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12. The results for
the State of Oklahoma are presented
along with comparisons to past years'
results for the State of Oklahoma. In
addition, the report contains important
information about the risk and
protective factor framework and
guidelines on how to interpret and
use the data.
The OPNA Survey is designed to
assess students involvement in a
specific set of problem behaviors, as well
as their exposure to a set of scientifically
validated risk and protective factors.
The risk and protective factors have
been shown to influence the
likelihood of academic success, school
dropout, substance abuse, violence,
and delinquency among youth.
Table 1 contains the characteristics of
the students from the State of
CONTENTS:
Introduction
How to Read the Charts
Charts and Tables in this Report
The OPNA and No Child Left
Behind
The Risk and Protective Factor
Model of Prevention
Building a Strategic Prevention
Framework
Tools for Assessment and
Planning
Data Charts:
• Substance Use and Antisocial
Behavior
• Sources of Alcohol and Places
of Alcohol Use
• Risk and Protective Factor
Profiles
Risk and Protective Factor Scale
Definitions
Data Tables
Contacts for Prevention
Introduction
3
There are five types of charts presented in this report:
1. Substance use charts
2. Antisocial behavior (ASB) charts
3. Sources of alcohol acquisition
4. Risk factor charts
5. Protective factor charts.
Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 3
through 10. Additional data found in Tables 11 and 12
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 2010 OPNA survey.
The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior
charts represent the percentage of students in that
grade who reported a given behavior. The bars on
the risk and protective factor charts represent the
percentage of students whose answers reflect
significant risk or protection in that category. zz
Each set of differently colored bars represents one of
the last three administrations of the OPNA: 2006,
2008, and 2010. By looking at the percentages over
time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use
and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage
of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is
possible to determine whether the percentage of
students at risk or with protection is increasing,
decreasing, or staying the same. This information is
important when deciding which risk and protective
factors warrant attention.
Dots and Diamonds provide points of comparison
to larger samples. The dots on the charts represent
the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across
Oklahoma who reported substance use, problem
behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. zz zz
For the 2010 OPNA Survey, there were 72,199
participants in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, out of 181,546
enrolled, a participation rate of 39.8%. Please note that
the state dot represents the aggregate results of all
participating students rather than a random sample
of students. The fact that over 72,000 students across
the state participated in the OPNA make the state
dot a good estimate of the rates of ATOD use and
levels of risk and protective factors of youth in
Oklahoma. The survey results provide considerable
information for communities to use in planning
prevention services. zz zz zz zz zz zz zzzz zz zz zz
How to Read the Charts in this Report
The diamonds represent national data from either
the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the
Bach Harrison Norm. 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. zz zz zz zz
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 your community
should consider addressing when planning
prevention programs.
Lifetime & 30 Day ATOD Use Charts
There are two types of use measured on the ATOD
charts.
Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of students
who tried the particular substance at least once in their
lifetime and is used to show the percentage of students
who have had experience with a particular substance.
30-day use is a measure of the percentage of students
who used the substance at least once in the 30 days
prior to taking the survey and is a more sensitive
indicator of the level of current use of the substance.
4
How Ctoh aRretsa da nthde T Cahbalersts i nin t hthisis R Reeppoortrt (cont d)
The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires
that schools and communities use guidelines in choosing
and implementing federally funded prevention and
intervention programs. The results of the OPNA Survey
presented in this report can help your schools and
community comply with the NCLB Act in three ways:
1. Programs must be chosen based on objective data
about problem behaviors in the communities served.
The OPNA reports these data in the substance use
and antisocial behavior charts and tables presented
on the following pages.
2. NCLB-approved prevention programs can address
not only substance use and antisocial behavior
(ASB) outcomes, but also behaviors and attitudes
demonstrated to be predictive of the youth problem
behaviors. Risk and protective factor data from this
report provide valuable information for choosing
prevention programs.
3. Periodic evaluations of outcome measures must be
conducted to evaluate the efficacy of ongoing
programs. This report provides schools and
communities the ability to compare past and present
substance use and ASB data.
The OPNA and No Child Left Behind
(Students reporting no alcohol use are not
represented.) It is important to note that the charts
represent a subgroup of users and not the entire survey
population. Additionally, the smaller the sample, the
more dramatic the influence of a student's responses.
For example, if only one student in a particular grade
reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category
would show up as either 0% or 100%. The chart legend
indicates the sample size for each grade surveyed to
help clarify the value of the data.
Risk and Protective Factor Charts
Risk and protective factor scales measure specific
aspects of a youth s life experience that predict
whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The
scales, defined in Table 2, 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.
Additional Tables in this Report
Table 11 contains information required by communities
with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the
perception of the risks of ATOD use, perception of
parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day
use, and average age of first use.
Table 12 contains additional data for prevention
planning on the subjects of safety, violence, and gangs.
Problem Substance Use & ASB Charts
Problem substance use is measured in several ways:
binge drinking (five or more drinks in a row over the
last two weeks), use of one-half a pack or more of
cigarettes per day and youth indicating drinking alcohol
and driving or riding with a drinking driver. zzzzzz
Treatment needs scales show the percentage of
students in need of treatment for alcohol, drugs, and the
total in need of any treatment (either alcohol or drug).
The need for treatment is defined as students who have
used alcohol or drugs on 10 or more occasions in their
lifetime and marked at least three of the following items
specific to their drug or alcohol use in the past year:
spent more time using than intended; neglected some
of your usual responsibilities because of use; wanted
to cut down on use; others objected to your use; and
frequently thought about using, used alcohol or drugs
to relieve feelings such as sadness, anger, or boredom.
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.
Sources of Alcohol
This chart presents the percentage of students who
obtained alcohol from 12 specific sources during the past
year. The data focus on a subgroup of students who
indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol.
5
Consistent recognition or reinforcement for
their efforts and accomplishments
Bonding confers a protective influence only when there
is a positive climate in the bonded community. Peers
and adults in these schools, families, and neighborhoods
must communicate healthy values and set clear
standards for behavior in order to ensure a protective
effect. For example, strong bonds to antisocial peers
would not be likely to reinforce positive behavior.
Research on risk and protective factors has
important implications for children s academic
success, positive youth development, and prevention
of health and behavior problems. In order to promote
academic success and positive youth development
and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to
address the factors that predict these outcomes.
By measuring risk and protective factors in a
population, specific risk factors that are elevated and
widespread can be identified and targeted by
policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce
those risk factors and to promote protective factors.
Each risk and protective factor can be linked to
specific types of interventions that have been
shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or
enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here
will help the State of Oklahoma make key decisions
regarding allocation of resources, how and when to
address specific needs, and which strategies are
most effective and known to produce results.
In addition to helping assess current conditions and
prioritize areas of greatest need, data from the
Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment Survey can
be a powerful tool in applying for and complying
with several federal programs outlined later in this
report, such as the Strategic Prevention Framework
process and the No Child Left Behind Act.
Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective
Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of
reducing substance abuse and its related
consequences. This model is based on the simple
premise that to prevent a problem from happening,
we need to identify the factors that increase the risk of
that problem developing and then find ways to reduce
the risks. Just as medical researchers have found risk
factors for heart disease such as diets high in fat, lack
of exercise, and smoking; a team of researchers at the
University of Washington have defined a set of risk
factors for youth problem behaviors.
Risk factors are characteristics of school, community
and family environments, and of students and their
peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of
drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent
behaviors among youth. For example, children who
live in disorganized, crime-ridden neighborhoods are
more likely to become involved in crime and drug use
than children who live in safe neighborhoods.
The chart below shows the links between the 19
risk factors and six problem behaviors. The check
marks indicate where at least two well designed,
published research studies have shown a link
between the risk factor and the problem behavior.
Protective factors exert a positive influence and
buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus
reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage
in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified
through research include strong bonding to family,
school, community, and peers; and healthy beliefs
and clear standards for behavior. Protective
bonding depends on three conditions:
Opportunities for young people to actively
contribute
Skills to be able to successfully contribute
SOURCE: COMMUNITIES THAT CARE (CTC) PREVENTION MODEL, CENTER FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION (CSAP), SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMSHA)
The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T T T T T T
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
Risk
Factors
Favorable Parent
Attitudes & Involvement
in the Problem Behavior
Community Family School Peer / Individual
Community Laws & Norms
Favorable Toward Drug
Use, Firearms & Crime
Constitutional Factors
Gang Involvement
Favorable Attitudes
Toward Drug Use & Other
Problem Behaviors
Friends Who Use
Drugs & Engage in
Problem Behaviors
Alienation &
Rebelliousness
Early & Persistent
Antisocial Behavior
Early Initiation of
Drug Use & Other
Problem Behaviors
Lack of Commitment to
School
Academic Failure
Community
Disorganization
Low Neighborhood
Attachment
Transitions & Mobility
Availability of Drugs &
Firearms
Family Management
Problems
Family Conflict
Family History of the
Problem Behavior
Extreme Economic &
Social Deprivation
School Drop-Out
Violence
Substance Abuse
Delinquency
Teen Pregnancy
6
Building a Strategic Prevention Framework
conducted during Step 1. The plan should address the priority needs, build on identified
resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored. Plans
should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities.
The OPNA is an important data source for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). CSAP created the
SPF model to guide states and communities in creating planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention
programs. Each part represents an interdependent element of the ongoing process of prevention coordination.
Assessment: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in
Service Delivery. The SPF begins with an assessment of the needs in the community that is based on data. The
Oklahoma State Epidemiological Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW) has compiled data from several sources to aid in
the needs assessment process. One of the primary sources of needs
assessment data is this Prevention Needs Assessment Survey
(PNA). While planning prevention services, communities are
urged to collect and use multiple data sources, including
archival and social indicators, assessment of existing
resources, key informant interviews, and community
readiness. The OPNA results presented in this
Profile Report will help you to identify
needs for prevention services.
OPNA data include adolescent
substance use, anti-social
behavior, and many of the risk
and protective factors that
predict adolescent problem
behaviors.
Capacity: Mobilize and/orzzzzz
Build Capacity to Addresszz
Needs. Engagement of key
stakeholders at the State and community
levels is critical to plan and implement
successful prevention activities that will
be sustained over time. Some of the key
tasks to mobilize the state and communities
are to work with leaders and stakeholders to
build coalitions, provide training, leverage
resources, and help sustain prevention
activities.
strategic plan that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for
organizing and implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on the assessments
Planning: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan. States and communities should develop a
7
Building a Strategic Prevention Framework (cont d)
Implementation: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development
Activities. By measuring and identifying the risk factors and other causal factors that contribute to the
targeted problems specified in your strategic plan, programs can be implemented that will reduce the
prioritized substance abuse problems. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose
prevention strategies that have been shown to be effective, are appropriate for the population served, can be
implemented with fidelity, are culturally appropriate, and can be sustained over time. The Western Center for
the Application of Prevention Technology has developed an internet tool located at
http://casat.unr.edu/bestpractices/search.php for identifying Best Practice Programs. Another resource for
evidence-based prevention practices is SAMHSA s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and
Practices www.nrepp.samhsa.gov.
Evaluation: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and
Improve or Replace Those That Fail. Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine
if the desired outcomes are achieved, assess service delivery quality, identify successes, encourage needed
improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies, programs, and practices. The OPNA allows
communities to monitor levels of ATOD use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection.
Sustainability and Cultural Competence: Incorporate principles of cultural competence and sustainability
in each of the five elements. At the center of the SPF model, sustainability and cultural competence play a
key role in assessment, capacity appraisal, planning, implementation and evaluation, ensuring successful,
long lasting prevention programs.
Sustainability is accomplished by utilizing a comprehensive approach. States and communities
should plan adaptive, flexible programs around a variety of resources, funding, and organizations. An
inclusive design helps build sustainable programs and achieve sustainable outcomes. A strategic plan
that dynamically responds to changing issues, data, priorities, and resources is more likely to achieve
long term results.
Sharing information gathered during the evaluation stage with key stakeholders, forging partnerships
and encouraging creative collaboration all enhance sustainability.
Cultural competence recognizes unique needs, styles, values and beliefs of the recipients of
prevention efforts. Culturally competent prevention strategies use interventions, evaluations and
communication strategies appropriate to their intended community. Cultural issues reflect a range of
influences and are not just a matter of ethnic or racial identity. Learning to communicate with
audiences from diverse geographic, cultural, economic, social, and linguistic backgrounds can increase
program efficacy and ensure sustainable results.
Whether enlisting extended family networks as a prevention resource for single parent households, or
ensuring there are resources available to bridge language gaps, cultural competency will help you
recognize differences in prevention needs and tailor prevention approaches accordingly.
A one-size-fits-all program is less effective than a program that draws on community-based values,
traditions, and customs and works with knowledgeable people from the community to develop focused
interventions, communication, and support.
8
Prioritize problems for your area according to
the issues you ve identified. Which can be
realistically addressed with the funding available
to your community? Which problems 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.
Once priorities are established, use data to guide
your prevention efforts.
Substance use and antisocial behavior data are
excellent tools to raise awareness about the
problems and promote dialogue.
Risk and protective factor data can be used to
identify exactly where the community needs to
take action.
Promising approaches for any prevention goal
are available for through resources listed on the
last page of this report. These contacts are a
great resource for information 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.
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 Bach
Harrison Norm?
Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower
than you would want when compared to 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 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
Once you have familiarized yourself with the data,
you can begin to identify priorities.
Look across the charts for items that 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.
Tools for Assessment and Planning
6th grd Fav. Attitude to
Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale)
@ 15% (8% > 8-state av.)
10th grd - Rewards for
prosocial involvm. (School Domain)
40% (down 5% from 2 yrs
ago & 16% below state av.)
8th grd Binge Drinking@13%
(5% above state av.)
12th grd - Drunk/High at School
@ 21%
( about same as state,
but remains a priority.)
30-day
Substance
Abuse
Risk
Factors
Protective
Factors
Antisocial
Behavior
Sample Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3
9
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA.
* MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugs or Over-the-Counter Drugs.
MTF does not survey 6th graders.
Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Other Stimulants
Heroin or Other
Opiates
Sedatives
Ecstasy
** Prescription
Drugs
** Over-the-Counter
Drugs
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Other Stimulants
Heroin or Other
Opiates
Sedatives
Ecstasy
** Prescription
Drugs
** Over-the-Counter
Drugs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF
LIFETIME & 30 DAY ATOD USE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6
Ever Used 30-Day Use
10
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA.
* MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugs or Over-the-Counter Drugs.
Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Other Stimulants
Heroin or Other
Opiates
Sedatives
Ecstasy
** Prescription
Drugs
** Over-the-Counter
Drugs
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Other Stimulants
Heroin or Other
Opiates
Sedatives
Ecstasy
** Prescription
Drugs
** Over-the-Counter
Drugs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF
LIFETIME & 30 DAY ATOD USE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8
Ever Used 30-Day Use
11
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA.
* MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugs or Over-the-Counter Drugs.
Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Other Stimulants
Heroin or Other
Opiates
Sedatives
Ecstasy
** Prescription
Drugs
** Over-the-Counter
Drugs
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Other Stimulants
Heroin or Other
Opiates
Sedatives
Ecstasy
** Prescription
Drugs
** Over-the-Counter
Drugs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF
LIFETIME & 30 DAY ATOD USE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10
Ever Used 30-Day Use
12
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA.
* MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugs or Over-the-Counter Drugs.
Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Other Stimulants
Heroin or Other
Opiates
Sedatives
Ecstasy
** Prescription
Drugs
** Over-the-Counter
Drugs
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Chewing Tobacco
Marijuana
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cocaine
Methamphetamines
Other Stimulants
Heroin or Other
Opiates
Sedatives
Ecstasy
** Prescription
Drugs
** Over-the-Counter
Drugs
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF
LIFETIME & 30 DAY ATOD USE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12
Ever Used 30-Day Use
13
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** National Comparison data for Problem Use ct* National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values.
aegory are Monitoring the Future values.
MTF does not survey 6th graders.
Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior
Binge Drinking in
the Past 2 weeks
1/2 Pack of
Cigarettes/Day
Needs Alcohol
Treatment
Needs Drug
Treatment
Needs Alc and/or
Drug Treatment
DRIVE a car when
you had been
drinking alcohol?
RIDE in a car
driven by someone
drinking alcohol?
Suspended
from School
Drunk or High
at School
Sold Illegal Drugs
Stolen a Vehicle
Been Arrested
Attacked Someone
w/ Idea of Seriously
Hurting Them
Carried a Handgun
Handgun to School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF**/BH Norm
PROBLEM SUBSTANCE USE & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6
Problem Use** Antisocial Behavior Past Year
Driving & Alcohol
Treatment Needs Past Year Past 30 Days
14
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** National Comparison data for Problem Use category are Monitoring the Future values.
* National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values.
Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior
Binge Drinking in
the Past 2 weeks
1/2 Pack of
Cigarettes/Day
Needs Alcohol
Treatment
Needs Drug
Treatment
Needs Alc and/or
Drug Treatment
DRIVE a car when
you had been
drinking alcohol?
RIDE in a car
driven by someone
drinking alcohol?
Suspended
from School
Drunk or High
at School
Sold Illegal Drugs
Stolen a Vehicle
Been Arrested
Attacked Someone
w/ Idea of Seriously
Hurting Them
Carried a Handgun
Handgun to School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF**/BH Norm
PROBLEM SUBSTANCE USE & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8
Problem Use** Antisocial Behavior Past Year
Driving & Alcohol
Treatment Needs Past Year Past 30 Days
15
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample
** National Comparison data for Problem se category are Monitoring the Future values. MTF does not survey 6th graders.
* National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values.
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** National Comparison data for Problem Use category are Monitoring the Future values.
* National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values.
Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior
Binge Drinking in
the Past 2 weeks
1/2 Pack of
Cigarettes/Day
Needs Alcohol
Treatment
Needs Drug
Treatment
Needs Alc and/or
Drug Treatment
DRIVE a car when
you had been
drinking alcohol?
RIDE in a car
driven by someone
drinking alcohol?
Suspended
from School
Drunk or High
at School
Sold Illegal Drugs
Stolen a Vehicle
Been Arrested
Attacked Someone
w/ Idea of Seriously
Hurting Them
Carried a Handgun
Handgun to School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF**/BH Norm
PROBLEM SUBSTANCE USE & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10
Problem Use** Antisocial Behavior Past Year
Driving & Alcohol
Treatment Needs Past Year Past 30 Days
16
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** National Comparison data for Problem Use category are Monitoring the Future values.
* National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values.
Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior
Binge Drinking in
the Past 2 weeks
1/2 Pack of
Cigarettes/Day
Needs Alcohol
Treatment
Needs Drug
Treatment
Needs Alc and/or
Drug Treatment
DRIVE a car when
you had been
drinking alcohol?
RIDE in a car
driven by someone
drinking alcohol?
Suspended
from School
Drunk or High
at School
Sold Illegal Drugs
Stolen a Vehicle
Been Arrested
Attacked Someone
w/ Idea of Seriously
Hurting Them
Carried a Handgun
Handgun to School
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF**/BH Norm
PROBLEM SUBSTANCE USE & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12
Problem Use** Antisocial Behavior Past Year
Driving & Alcohol
Treatment Needs Past Year Past 30 Days
17
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample.
** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. *
* I got it from a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA.
Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use
I bought it myself
with a fake ID
I bought it myself
without a fake ID
I got it from someone
I know age 21 or older
I got it from someone
I know under age 21
I got it from my
brother or sister
I got it from home with
my parents' permission
I got it from home
without my parents'
permission
I got it from
another relative
A stranger bought
it for me
I took it from
a store or shop
I got it at a bar
or restaurant
Other
At your home.
At friends houses
At a school dance,
game, or event
At school
during the day
Near school
In a car
At a party
At a park or beach
At a bar or restaurant
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006
Sources sample: 1,309
Places sample: 1,248
State 2008
Sources sample: 1,997
Places sample: 1,881
State 2010
Sources sample: 2,620
Places sample: 3,061
STUDENT ALCOHOL USE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6
If you drank ALCOHOL in the last year, how did
you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.)
During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have
you used ALCOHOL in each of the following places?
18
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample.
** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. *
* I got it from a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA.
Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use
I bought it myself
with a fake ID
I bought it myself
without a fake ID
I got it from someone
I know age 21 or older
I got it from someone
I know under age 21
I got it from my
brother or sister
I got it from home with
my parents' permission
I got it from home
without my parents'
permission
I got it from
another relative
A stranger bought
it for me
I took it from
a store or shop
I got it at a bar
or restaurant
Other
At your home.
At friends houses
At a school dance,
game, or event
At school
during the day
Near school
In a car
At a party
At a park or beach
At a bar or restaurant
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006
Sources sample: 2,998
Places sample: 3,026
State 2008
Sources sample: 4,658
Places sample: 4,679
State 2010
Sources sample: 5,962
Places sample: 6,635
STUDENT ALCOHOL USE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8
If you drank ALCOHOL in the last year, how did
you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.)
During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have
you used ALCOHOL in each of the following places?
19
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample.
** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. *
* I got it from a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA.
Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use
I bought it myself
with a fake ID
I bought it myself
without a fake ID
I got it from someone
I know age 21 or older
I got it from someone
I know under age 21
I got it from my
brother or sister
I got it from home with
my parents' permission
I got it from home
without my parents'
permission
I got it from
another relative
A stranger bought
it for me
I took it from
a store or shop
I got it at a bar
or restaurant
Other
At your home.
At friends houses
At a school dance,
game, or event
At school
during the day
Near school
In a car
At a party
At a park or beach
At a bar or restaurant
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006
Sources sample: 4,627
Places sample: 4,622
State 2008
Sources sample: 6,370
Places sample: 6,178
State 2010
Sources sample: 7,197
Places sample: 7,368
STUDENT ALCOHOL USE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10
If you drank ALCOHOL in the last year, how did
you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.)
During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have
you used ALCOHOL in each of the following places?
20
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample.
** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. *
* I got it from a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA.
Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use
I bought it myself
with a fake ID
I bought it myself
without a fake ID
I got it from someone
I know age 21 or older
I got it from someone
I know under age 21
I got it from my
brother or sister
I got it from home with
my parents' permission
I got it from home
without my parents'
permission
I got it from
another relative
A stranger bought
it for me
I took it from
a store or shop
I got it at a bar
or restaurant
Other
At your home.
At friends houses
At a school dance,
game, or event
At school
during the day
Near school
In a car
At a party
At a park or beach
At a bar or restaurant
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%)
State 2006
Sources sample: 4,226
Places sample: 4,081
State 2008
Sources sample: 5,768
Places sample: 5,537
State 2010
Sources sample: 6,322
Places sample: 6,411
STUDENT ALCOHOL USE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12
If you drank ALCOHOL in the last year, how did
you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.)
During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have
you used ALCOHOL in each of the following places?
21
* I got it from a partyor froma kegis new for 2010 OPNA.
** Sources of alcohol were not measured priorto 2008.
** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcool from atleast one source. Studentsindicting they did ot drink acohol
in the past year are not included in the sample.
* In the case of smallr sample sizes, cautionshould bexercised beforegeneralizing rults to the entire community.
Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
tate represents the aggregate resultsof all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
High Risk youth are defined as the percentage ofstudentswh have more thana specified numbr of risk factors operating in their lives. * (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 r more risk factors, 10th and 12th grades: 9 or mor risk factors.)
* Since not all states use the same cales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk.
Low Neighborhood
Attachment
Community
Disorganization
Laws & Norms
Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Poor Family
Management
Family Conflict
Family History
of Antisocial Behavior
Parental Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Parental Attitudes
Favorable to 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
Intention to Use Drugs
**Students at High Risk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%) of youth at risk
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm
RISK PROFILE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6
Community Family School Peer/Individual Total
22
Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives.
* *(6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors)
* Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection.
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Family Attachment
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Religiosity
Belief in the
Moral Order
Interaction with
Prosocial Peers
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
**Students with
High Protection
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%) of youth with protection
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm
PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6
Community Family School Peer/Individual Total
23
Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives.
* (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th and 12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.)
* Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk.
Low Neighborhood
Attachment
Community
Disorganization
Laws & Norms
Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Poor Family
Management
Family Conflict
Family History
of Antisocial Behavior
Parental Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Parental Attitudes
Favorable to 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
Intention to Use Drugs
**Students at High Risk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%) of youth at risk
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm
RISK PROFILE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8
Community Family School Peer/Individual Total
24
Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives.
* *(6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors)
* Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection.
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Family Attachment
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Religiosity
Belief in the
Moral Order
Interaction with
Prosocial Peers
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
**Students with
High Protection
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%) of youth with protection
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm
PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8
Community Family School Peer/Individual Total
25
Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives.
* (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th and 12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.)
* Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk.
Low Neighborhood
Attachment
Community
Disorganization
Laws & Norms
Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Poor Family
Management
Family Conflict
Family History
of Antisocial Behavior
Parental Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Parental Attitudes
Favorable to 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
Intention to Use Drugs
**Students at High Risk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%) of youth at risk
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm
RISK PROFILE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10
Community Family School Peer/Individual Total
26
Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives.
* *(6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors)
* Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection.
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Family Attachment
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Religiosity
Belief in the
Moral Order
Interaction with
Prosocial Peers
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
**Students with
High Protection
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%) of youth with protection
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm
PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10
Community Family School Peer/Individual Total
27
Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives.
* (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th and 12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.)
* Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk.
Low Neighborhood
Attachment
Community
Disorganization
Laws & Norms
Favorable to Drug Use
Perceived Availability
of Drugs
Perceived Availability
of Handguns
Poor Family
Management
Family Conflict
Family History
of Antisocial Behavior
Parental Attitudes
Favorable to ASB
Parental Attitudes
Favorable to 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
Intention to Use Drugs
**Students at High Risk
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%) of youth at risk
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm
RISK PROFILE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12
Community Family School Peer/Individual Total
28
Risk and Protective Factor Profiles
** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
** High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives.
* *(6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors)
* Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection.
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Family Attachment
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Opportunities
for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
Religiosity
Belief in the
Moral Order
Interaction with
Prosocial Peers
Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards
for Prosocial
Involvement
**Students with
High Protection
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentage (%) of youth with protection
State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm
PROTECTIVE PROFILE
2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12
Community Family School Peer/Individual Total
29
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
1 Community Disorganization Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of public places,
physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile crime and drug selling.
1
1 Laws and Norms Favorable
Toward Drug Use
Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking age, restricting
smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in consumption. Moreover, national
surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in
prevalence of use.
1
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.
1 Opportunities for Prosocial
Involvement
When opportunities are available in a community for positive participation, children are less likely to engage in
substance use and other problem behaviors.
1 Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement
Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for
substance use.
1 Poor Family Management Parents use of inconsistent and/or unusually harsh or severe punishment with their children places them at higher risk
for substance use and other problem behaviors. Also, parents failure to provide clear expectations and to monitor their
children s behavior makes it more likely that they will engage in drug abuse whether or not there are family drug
problems.
1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk
for both delinquency and drug use.
1 Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are
more likely to engage in these behaviors.
1 Parental Attitudes Favorable
Toward Antisocial Behavior &
Drugs
In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children s use, children are
more likely to become drug abusers during adolescence. The risk is further increased if parents involve children in
their own drug (or alcohol) using behavior, for example, asking the child to light the parent s cigarette or get the parent
a beer from the refrigerator.
1 Family Attachment Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance use and other
problem behaviors.
1 Opportunities for Prosocial
Involvement
Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities and activities
of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.
1 Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement
When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by their child,
children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors.
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.
Community Domain Protective Factors
Family Domain Risk Factors
Family Domain Protective Factors
School Domain Risk Factors
Table 2. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles
Community Domain Risk Factors
Risk and Protective Scale Definitions
30
Risk and Protective Scale Definitions
1 Opportunities for Prosocial
Involvement
When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at school, they are
less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.
1
1 Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement
When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to be involved in
substance use and other problem behaviors.
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
1 Early Initiation of Antisocial
Behavior and Drug Use
Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the involvement in
other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15 is a consistent predictor of
drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict lower drug involvement and a greater
probability of discontinuation of use.
1 Attitudes Favorable Toward
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 Intention to Use ATODs Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life. Reduction of
intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions.
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
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 Depressive Symptoms Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely to use drugs.
Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and youth problem behaviors.
1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use.
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 Religiosity Young people who regularly attend religious services are less likely to engage in problem behaviors.
1 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in
antisocial behavior and substance use.
1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth.
1 Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement
Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem
behavior.
Peer-Individual Protective Factors
Peer-Individual Risk Factors
Table 2. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles
School Domain Protective Factors
31
Data Tables
Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* MTF
12,140 18,969 23,561 n/a 11,739 16,682 21,220 n/a 11,042 14,435 15,984 n/a 7,847 10,634 11,434 n/a
Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* MTF
Alcohol
had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine
or hard liquor) to drink - more than
just a few sips?
27.7 28.1 27.9 n/a 51.2 50.8 48.0 36.6 66.9 67.1 63.6 59.1 76.3 75.5 74.0 72.3
Cigarettes smoked cigarettes? 16.8 14.7 14.3 n/a 33.9 31.4 28.9 20.1 45.2 44.4 40.8 32.7 52.7 52.7 51.1 43.6
Chewing Tobacco
used smokeless tobacco (chew,
snuff, plug, dipping tobacco,
chewing tobacco)?
7.9 7.3 7.9 n/a 16.1 15.9 15.0 9.6 21.8 23.2 23.6 15.2 26.1 26.8 28.8 16.3
Marijuana used marijuana (grass, pot) or
hashish (hash, hash oil)? 3.0 3.0 3.6 n/a 13.7 13.5 14.5 15.7 26.6 25.6 27.4 32.3 35.3 32.8 35.4 42.0
Inhalants
sniffed glue, breathed the contents of
an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other
gases or sprays, in order to get high?
10.3 11.7 11.4 n/a 12.8 15.1 14.2 14.9 10.6 12.3 11.4 12.8 8.4 9.4 9.2 9.5
Hallucinogens used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.4 0.6 0.7 n/a 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.7 3.7 4.1 4.2 3.0 5.1 5.2 6.1 3.1
Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.8 0.9 0.9 n/a 1.7 2.3 1.9 2.6 4.3 4.1 3.0 4.6 6.8 6.1 5.0 6.0
Methamphetamines used methamphetamines (meth,
speed, crank, crystal meth)? 0.4 0.6 0.6 n/a 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.6 3.5 2.7 2.5 2.8 4.8 4.0 3.2 2.4
Other Stimulants
used stimulants, other than
methamphetamines (such as
amphetamines, Ritalin, Dexedrine)
without a doctor telling you to?
1.1 1.2 1.1 n/a 3.4 3.4 3.2 n/a 7.6 6.9 6.5 n/a 8.9 8.0 8.6 n/a
Heroin or Other
Opiates used heroin or other opiates? 0.3 0.5 0.4 n/a 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.3 1.2
Sedatives
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such
as Valium or Xanax, barbituates or
sleeping pills) without a doctor telling
you to take them?
5.0 5.3 4.6 n/a 9.5 11.2 9.8 9.5 16.5 17.1 14.3 13.0 19.5 18.4 16.6 12.7
Ecstasy used MDMA ( X , E , or ecstasy)? 0.3 0.4 0.5 n/a 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.2 4.1 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.7 5.8 7.3 6.5
Prescription
Drugs**
used prescription drugs (such as
Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderall,
OxyContin, or sleeping pills) without
a doctor telling you to take them?
n/a 5.5 4.3 n/a n/a 13.1 10.8 n/a n/a 20.6 18.0 n/a n/a 22.7 21.9 n/a
Over-the-Counter
Drugs**
used a non-prescription cough or
cold medicine (robos, DXM, etc.) to
get high and not for medical reasons?
n/a 2.8 2.2 n/a n/a 6.3 5.6 n/a n/a 8.5 8.4 n/a n/a 8.4 9.0 n/a
*
**
MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugsor Over-the-Counter Drugs. MTF does not survey 6th graders.
Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA.
State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
Grade 10
Grade 10
Number of Youth
In your lifetime, on how many occasions
(if any) have you
(One or more occasions)
Grade 12
Grade 12
Grade 6
Grade 6
Grade 8
Grade 8
32
Data Tables
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
MTF State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
MTF
Alcohol
had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine
or hard liquor) to drink - more than
just a few sips?
6.0 8.4 8.8 n/a 19.4 23.4 21.2 14.9 34.4 35.6 32.4 30.4 45.7 45.9 42.9 43.5
Cigarettes smoked cigarettes? 3.4 3.0 3.0 n/a 10.6 10.3 9.6 6.5 18.4 18.5 17.1 13.1 24.6 25.0 23.4 20.1
Chewing Tobacco
used smokeless tobacco (chew,
snuff, plug, dipping tobacco,
chewing tobacco)?
2.4 2.2 2.6 n/a 6.7 6.8 6.8 3.7 9.9 12.0 11.7 6.5 12.0 13.7 14.2 8.4
Marijuana used marijuana (grass, pot) or
hashish (hash, hash oil)? 1.0 1.1 1.5 n/a 5.6 6.2 7.0 6.5 12.2 11.6 13.3 15.9 14.8 13.8 16.3 20.6
Inhalants
sniffed glue, breathed the contents of
an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other
gases or sprays, in order to get high?
3.7 4.9 4.7 n/a 4.5 5.8 5.3 3.8 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.2 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.2
Hallucinogens used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.1 0.1 0.2 n/a 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.5 0.5
Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.3 0.4 0.4 n/a 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.3
Methamphetamines used methamphetamines (meth,
speed, crank, crystal meth)? 0.1 0.2 0.2 n/a 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.5
Other Stimulants
used stimulants, other than
methamphetamines (such as
amphetamines, Ritalin, Dexedrine)
without a doctor telling you to?
0.4 0.4 0.4 n/a 1.3 1.5 1.4 n/a 3.0 2.9 2.8 n/a 3.0 2.8 3.0 n/a
Heroin or Other
Opiates used heroin or other opiates? 0.1 0.2 0.2 n/a 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.4
Sedatives
used sedatives (tranquilizers, such
as Valium or Xanax, barbituates or
sleeping pills) without a doctor telling
you to take them?
1.7 2.3 1.8 n/a 4.4 5.5 4.6 2.5 7.9 8.2 6.3 3.9 8.6 8.2 6.9 4.2
Ecstasy used MDMA ( X , E , or ecstasy)? 0.1 0.2 0.3 n/a 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.8
Prescription
Drugs**
used prescription drugs (such as
Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderall,
OxyContin, or sleeping pills) without
a doctor telling you to take them?
n/a 2.5 1.8 n/a n/a 6.6 5.2 n/a n/a 10.0 8.1 n/a n/a 10.5 9.6 n/a
Over-the-Counter
Drugs**
used a non-prescription cough or
cold medicine (robos, DXM, etc.) to
get high and not for medical reasons?
n/a 1.3 1.0 n/a n/a 3.1 2.6 n/a n/a 3.6 3.3 n/a n/a 2.8 2.4 n/a
*
**
Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days
Grade 6 Grade 8 In the past 30 days, on how many occasions
(if any) have you
(One or more occasions)
Grade 12
MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugsor Over-the-Counter Drugs . MTF does not survey 6th graders.
Grade 10
Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA.
State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
33
Data Tables
Table 6. Percentage of Students With Problem ATOD Use
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm
Binge Drinking 5.0 4.9 5.4 n/a 13.0 13.3 12.5 7.8 22.8 21.8 20.1 17.5 31.8 29.6 28.0 25.2
1/2 Pack of
Cigarettes/Day 0.2 0.2 0.3 n/a 0.8 0.9 1.6 1.0 1.7 2.1 3.8 2.4 3.0 3.5 6.7 5.0
Drinking and
Driving n/a 1.9 1.8 3.9 n/a 4.2 4.0 4.2 n/a 8.8 7.4 7.4 n/a 19.8 16.7 16.6
Riding with a
Drinking Driver n/a 20.5 19.8 20.7 n/a 25.5 24.0 24.9 n/a 27.3 24.8 26.3 n/a 29.4 27.0 27.5
Needs Alcohol
Treatment 1.1 0.9 0.7 n/a 5.6 4.6 3.2 n/a 12.1 9.8 5.4 n/a 15.2 13.2 5.3 n/a
Needs Drug
Treatment 0.5 0.4 0.4 n/a 3.3 2.6 2.9 n/a 6.9 5.4 5.9 n/a 7.5 6.6 7.1 n/a
Needs Alcohol
and/or Drug
Treatment
1.5 1.1 1.0 n/a 7.8 5.7 5.1 n/a 16.0 12.0 9.4 n/a 19.1 15.5 10.4 n/a
Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm
10.8 10.8 11.6 13.0 13.1 15.0 14.1 15.1 10.2 11.7 10.8 12.6 6.2 7.2 7.2 9.2
3.0 3.2 4.2 3.9 8.6 9.6 10.0 7.5 15.2 15.6 15.9 15.0 17.5 17.8 17.8 17.7
0.7 0.7 1.4 2.1 3.0 3.5 3.9 2.5 6.0 7.1 7.3 6.5 6.6 7.8 8.7 7.8
1.9 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.3 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.6 1.5 2.3 2.3 1.9
3.0 2.5 3.6 3.7 6.0 6.6 5.9 5.2 7.0 7.6 6.7 6.7 5.4 6.5 7.0 6.1
14.8 15.3 16.0 12.7 17.3 18.0 16.6 16.0 15.1 16.8 14.0 15.1 11.1 13.4 12.3 11.9
5.2 4.9 5.1 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.5 4.8 4.8 6.3 5.7 5.2 4.2 6.4 6.2 5.2
0.5 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.0
*
Grade 8 Grade 12
Sold Illegal Drugs
Carried a Handgun
Grade 6 Grade 10
Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12
Problem Use
Treatment Needs
State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
Carried a Handgun to School
Been Drunk or High at School
How many times in the past year
(12 months) have you:
(One or more times)
Been Suspended from School
Attacked Someone with the Idea
of Seriously Hurting Them
Been Arrested
Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle
1) Spent more time using than intended
2) Neglected some of your usual
responsibilities because of use
3) Wanted to cut down on use
4) Others objected to your use
5) Frequently thought about using
6) Used alcohol or drugs to relieve feelings
How many times have you had 5 or more
alcoholic drinks in a row in the past
2 weeks? (One or more times)
During the past 30 days, how many
cigarettes did you smoke per day?
(11 to 20 cigarettes, More than 20 cigarettes)
Students who have used alcohol or drugs
on 10 or more occasions in their lifetime
and marked 3 or more of the following 6 items
related to their past year drug or alcohol use:
Alcohol and Driving
During the past 30 days, how many times
did you DRIVE a car or other vehicle when
you had been drinking alcohol?
During the past 30 days, how many times
did you RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven
by someone who had been drinking alcohol?
34
Data Tables
Table 8. Student Alcohol Use
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
1,309 1,997 2,620 2,998 4,658 5,962 4,627 6,370 7,197 4,226 5,768 6,322
1.5 3.2 4.5 1.2 2.1 2.7 1.1 1.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.5
1.4 3.6 4.4 1.9 2.7 3.4 4.6 5.6 6.6 8.1 8.4 10.6
23.0 30.1 31.9 36.2 39.9 41.5 49.7 55.7 54.8 62.5 66.3 68.5
12.1 16.2 16.8 23.2 28.6 26.4 30.9 31.5 31.5 24.6 24.8 27.2
7.5 10.5 11.0 9.9 11.6 12.0 10.5 12.2 12.2 9.8 10.7 12.0
25.4 26.1 29.2 20.5 23.3 23.1 15.6 17.6 19.4 12.6 15.1 17.4
14.6 19.6 22.3 18.2 23.6 28.5 13.1 18.4 21.1 7.2 9.9 13.2
12.8 15.1 16.6 13.6 16.4 16.9 9.8 13.2 14.2 7.7 10.3 11.6
2.5 4.1 3.9 2.7 4.2 4.1 5.9 6.1 6.9 6.7 6.9 8.3
2.1 3.8 2.8 2.0 2.6 2.4 1.3 2.0 2.5 1.3 1.9 2.4
n/a n/a 4.4 n/a n/a 3.3 n/a n/a 3.8 n/a n/a 7.4
36.7 34.3 32.2 25.9 27.0 29.0 21.5 23.7 25.8 17.3 21.0 20.5
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
1,248 1,881 3,061 3,026 4,679 6,635 4,622 6,178 7,368 4,081 5,537 6,411
68.0 67.7 63.0 62.2 64.1 63.3 56.2 58.8 57.7 57.3 58.2 57.3
41.2 45.1 44.6 62.0 67.1 64.5 74.8 80.0 77.6 81.7 85.2 83.7
10.3 13.3 15.7 13.8 16.7 18.8 20.9 20.0 20.7 21.3 22.1 20.8
3.1 6.4 6.5 7.2 9.3 10.7 10.2 13.0 13.8 11.2 13.5 11.5
7.7 12.1 12.6 11.6 15.3 17.1 15.8 19.2 19.0 17.1 19.7 17.9
14.3 19.7 19.0 25.5 29.7 29.9 37.0 40.6 42.0 41.3 45.2 46.1
30.1 39.9 45.4 46.8 54.4 54.6 61.3 69.3 68.8 71.5 78.8 76.9
9.3 13.7 20.5 13.9 16.7 24.6 16.7 18.3 26.8 16.5 19.4 26.7
n/a n/a 17.7 n/a n/a 16.3 n/a n/a 15.4 n/a n/a 21.7
*
**
At friends houses.
At your home.
If you drank ALCOHOL (beer, wine, or hard liquor) Grade 8 Grade 12
and not just a sip or taste in the last year, how did
you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.)
Grade 6 Grade 10
Sample size**
I got it from someone I know under age 21
I got it from my brother or sister
At a party.
At a school dance, a game, or other event.
At school during the day.
Near school.
I got it from home with my parents' permission
I bought it myself with a fake ID
I bought it myself without a fake ID
I got it from someone I know age 21 or older
I got it from home without my parents' permission
I got it from another relative
A stranger bought it for me
I took it from a store or shop
Other
During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have
you used ALCOHOL (beer, wine, or hard liquor) in
each of the following places?
Grade 6
I got it at a bar or restaurant
I got it at a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA.
Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes,
caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community.
Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12
At a park or beach.
State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
At a bar or restaurant.
Sample size**
In a car.
35
Data Tables
Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm
49.4 48.6 47.8 47.0 39.2 38.8 38.3 36.6 42.4 43.5 42.6 42.8 44.6 46.3 44.5 47.0
43.6 42.7 44.2 39.0 44.3 47.7 49.9 45.1 42.7 48.7 49.6 49.8 40.8 48.0 48.0 53.9
48.5 48.1 46.1 42.4 44.8 46.7 45.8 39.8 41.6 44.1 43.1 39.7 48.0 49.6 50.5 47.4
49.4 50.9 48.7 45.1 41.6 43.6 41.8 35.5 46.8 47.1 43.3 40.5 49.2 47.1 44.0 42.7
30.9 30.5 28.2 25.4 43.3 44.4 40.9 39.8 30.3 34.5 31.1 29.9 37.7 40.0 37.4 34.8
50.7 51.9 53.7 49.8 43.3 44.5 45.4 42.7 39.3 40.5 40.2 40.3 42.7 41.1 41.2 45.4
43.9 44.7 45.6 43.2 38.8 38.6 38.7 36.8 41.7 42.7 41.1 41.6 37.2 38.1 38.1 38.8
47.0 46.7 49.6 45.9 40.8 43.3 42.1 36.4 41.8 45.2 44.3 41.9 42.2 45.2 46.1 43.9
40.0 40.4 42.7 36.3 50.2 51.5 51.6 46.9 51.1 53.6 52.8 52.3 47.7 51.5 51.5 50.3
16.5 16.6 17.5 15.8 30.8 31.6 30.9 26.0 42.0 44.1 43.3 40.8 44.9 45.0 44.7 38.6
37.6 37.0 36.6 41.3 41.5 43.1 40.7 42.8 41.1 43.4 41.2 45.1 34.9 37.9 37.0 41.8
48.7 51.0 51.1 48.5 47.0 49.5 49.4 44.8 43.0 44.9 44.0 42.4 46.6 47.0 45.5 42.9
41.3 41.5 38.1 38.4 41.3 42.8 39.3 39.0 45.6 46.3 42.6 45.5 43.2 43.8 39.7 43.6
28.7 29.2 31.0 28.1 36.2 37.8 36.3 33.7 37.0 40.4 38.4 37.0 32.5 37.0 38.2 35.4
35.4 35.1 33.8 31.0 43.7 42.9 40.1 34.4 41.7 41.0 38.4 35.9 44.3 43.9 41.7 41.4
45.9 47.8 50.8 43.5 37.0 39.0 41.5 36.2 43.2 45.2 44.2 44.6 38.3 41.0 40.0 41.9
25.0 23.4 24.2 23.1 38.6 38.2 38.8 32.1 45.2 44.8 45.5 43.5 44.1 43.5 44.7 43.1
47.9 48.4 51.5 49.1 40.5 40.7 44.4 37.1 49.1 49.5 52.9 47.8 37.9 40.4 44.5 40.3
41.8 42.4 47.4 45.7 34.6 37.7 36.8 34.5 36.1 37.9 35.7 36.8 30.1 34.9 34.2 33.9
27.4 28.3 29.4 27.4 47.3 47.3 46.9 38.7 44.9 43.9 42.7 41.8 38.1 37.9 37.9 38.1
29.7 29.1 32.2 30.5 35.6 35.8 37.5 32.6 43.5 42.5 43.7 42.7 45.6 43.5 46.4 45.8
42.3 39.9 40.1 37.6 44.0 44.2 42.7 40.4 44.9 44.6 43.0 41.6 37.2 37.3 35.1 37.7
10.0 8.0 7.4 7.8 10.7 10.8 8.7 8.9 7.3 8.7 7.3 7.4 5.2 6.6 6.4 5.5
48.1 49.3 48.6 40.5 31.6 31.3 32.4 26.7 40.6 41.5 41.4 36.2 44.8 45.1 46.6 39.0
50.1 51.3 52.6 n/a 45.9 49.4 49.3 n/a 44.1 49.1 47.7 n/a 43.9 47.9 47.4 n/a
*
**
Grade 8
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Family Domain
Poor Family Management
Family Conflict
Perceived Risk of Drug Use
Grade 12
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Community Domain
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use
Community Disorganization
Grade 10
Risk Factor
Grade 6
Rewards for ASB
Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
School Domain
Interaction with Antisocial Peers
Rebelliousness
Early Initiation of ASB
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Academic Failure
Low Commitment to School
Peer-Individual Domain
State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
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. (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk
factors.)
Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk .
Attitudes Favorable to ASB
Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
Intention to Use Drugs
Total Risk
Gang Involvement
Friend's Use of Drugs
Depressive Symptoms
36
Data Tables
Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm State
2006
State
2008
State
2010* BH Norm
47.0 46.5 42.9 50.2 56.5 54.5 53.4 60.3 57.8 54.9 56.5 60.6 61.9 58.9 59.2 62.1
44.7 44.4 43.3 46.2 46.6 47.9 45.5 49.2 43.3 44.2 43.3 44.2 44.4 45.4 43.6 44.1
52.2 51.1 50.0 53.0 49.4 48.9 47.7 51.9 53.8 53.1 53.6 54.3 58.7 56.9 56.5 55.4
55.3 55.4 53.2 58.6 58.8 58.4 56.5 60.7 53.0 52.8 53.5 53.1 57.4 55.4 54.1 53.8
51.3 49.7 47.4 52.9 45.4 45.3 43.1 47.7 53.4 51.4 51.1 53.0 57.0 54.7 52.9 52.4
45.3 43.1 44.7 48.5 58.9 57.0 58.7 62.1 60.8 58.4 60.1 64.1 64.2 62.7 64.3 66.1
48.6 47.4 44.6 50.7 49.6 48.1 48.7 57.5 62.6 60.1 61.0 58.9 49.3 47.5 48.7 51.6
54.3 51.8 47.8 50.9 68.3 65.0 63.4 53.5 64.4 59.0 59.9 48.9 57.3 52.3 52.3 44.3
52.5 51.2 48.9 57.9 57.8 56.4 55.6 64.6 49.1 45.9 48.3 52.9 52.2 49.7 50.9 53.8
53.6 51.5 49.8 51.0 59.5 58.4 58.0 59.3 59.0 57.5 58.4 60.4 58.3 55.8 55.3 58.5
56.9 53.6 51.4 52.2 56.8 56.1 54.7 50.7 55.4 54.1 55.7 53.7 58.2 55.3 55.5 54.3
46.4 44.9 43.6 45.7 52.4 52.3 52.2 51.7 59.3 58.0 60.1 59.7 61.1 60.2 62.4 63.4
52.6 51.7 49.8 n/a 46.2 48.5 48.1 n/a 49.4 50.4 52.2 n/a 53.6 53.1 53.2 n/a
*
**
Grade 6 Grade 12
Peer-Individual Domain
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Protective Factor
Grade 8
Community Domain
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Grade 10
Family Attachment
Family Domain
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Belief in the Moral Order
School Domain
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Interaction with Prosocial Peers
Prosocial Involvement
Religiosity
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives. (6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective
factors)
Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection.
Total Protection
Students with High Protection**
37
Data Tables
Table 11. Drug Free Communities Report
Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample
drink 1 or two drinks
nearly every day
Alcohol 63.3 22,205 60.1 20,364 60.3 15,493 60.2 11,016 56.1 32,938 66.1 34,864
smoke 1 or more packs of
cigarettes per day Cigarettes 81.4 22,330 84.9 20,457 87.8 15,535 88.5 11,052 83.6 33,075 86.5 35,014
smoke marijuana regularly Marijuana 85.4 21,789 82.3 19,906 75.7 15,245 72.0 10,844 76.8 32,308 83.5 34,232
drink beer, wine, or
hard liquor regularly Alcohol 95.0 19,827 88.8 19,197 83.0 14,864 74.6 10,612 86.5 30,448 87.5 32,890
smoke cigarettes Cigarettes 97.5 19,793 94.5 19,177 90.2 14,845 80.6 10,601 92.0 30,411 92.3 32,849
smoke marijuana Marijuana 98.7 19,636 95.9 19,080 92.9 14,805 90.7 10,575 95.0 30,244 95.5 32,693
drink beer, wine, or
hard liquor regularly Alcohol 92.7 23,142 77.4 20,850 64.2 15,723 57.2 11,224 75.2 34,024 77.5 35,571
smoke cigarettes Cigarettes 94.5 23,134 83.5 20,845 72.2 15,713 60.1 11,229 80.5 34,009 81.3 35,567
smoke marijuana Marijuana 96.6 23,135 86.1 20,858 76.4 15,731 73.0 11,232 84.0 34,030 86.7 35,581
Alcohol 8.8 22,198 21.2 20,379 32.4 15,484 42.9 11,010 24.2 32,945 22.2 34,849
Cigarettes 3.0 21,284 9.6 20,009 17.1 15,287 23.4 10,863 11.8 32,015 11.0 34,186
Marijuana 1.5 22,161 7.0 20,334 13.3 15,448 16.3 10,981 9.1 32,865 7.1 34,789
Average Age of Onset**
Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample
Alcohol 30.0 23,134 50.1 20,849 65.4 15,714 76.0 11,229 51.7 34,044 50.3 35,540
Average age:
Cigarettes 15.4 23,182 30.8 20,885 44.1 15,722 55.2 11,237 33.3 34,074 31.6 35,605
Average age:
Marijuana 3.2 23,237 14.6 20,902 28.8 15,741 37.9 11,248 19.0 34,125 16.3 35,655
Average age:
*
**
11.9 years
Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12
10.7 years
(How old were you
when you first
)
11.2 years
10.7 years
12.4 years
11.6 years
smoked a cigarette,
even just a puff?
had more than a sip or two of
beer, wine or hard liquor?
smoked marijuana?
at least one use in the
past 30 days Past 30-Day Use*
Outcome
Perception of
Peer Disapproval* (I think
it is Wrong or Very Wrong
for someone my age to...)
Perception of Risk*
(People are at Moderate
or Great Risk of harming
themselves if they...)
Perception of Parent
Disapproval*
(Parents feel it would be
Wrong or Very Wrong to... )
Grade 6
13.5 years
Definition Substance
14.3 years 12.4 years
13.8 years 14.8 years
13.3 years
12.8 years
Male Female
13.8 years 12.3 years
12.9 years
12.5 years
13.8 years
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. Male
and female data are only displayed if the number participating meets the cutoff.
For Average Age of Onset, the Sample column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol,
tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use.
For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the Sample column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents
the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition.
38
Data Tables
Table 12. Additional Data for Prevention Planning - Safety, Violence, and Gangs
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
State
2006
State
2008
State
2010*
I feel safe at my school YES! or yes 81.9 81.3 81.2 77.6 75.6 78.2 79.2 75.6 79.5 85.1 80.7 85.0
I feel safe in my neighborhood YES! or yes 75.3 76.9 78.4 79.5 77.9 78.7 82.7 81.3 81.6 86.6 83.4 84.1
What are the chances you
would be seen as cool if you
defended someone who was
being verbally abused at school?
No or very little
chance 17.1 17.6 17.5 15.8 15.7 15.6 13.3 14.8 14.3 13.2 14.2 13.6
How wrong do you think it is
for someone your age to pick
a fight with someone?
Not wrong at al 5.1 5.1 5.8 8.8 8.7 9.5 7.6 7.7 7.7 5.2 5.7 5.7
How wrong do you think it is
for someone your age to
attack someone with the idea
of seriously hurting them?
Not wrong at al 3.0 2.6 3.0 4.3 4.5 4.9 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.5 3.7 3.5
How many times in the past
year (12 months) have you
attacked someone with the
idea of seriously hurting them?
At least one time
in the past year 14.8 15.3 16.0 17.3 18.0 16.6 15.1 16.8 14.0 11.1 13.4 12.3
It is all right to beat up people
if they start the fight. YES! or yes 40.6 41.2 43.7 54.2 56.4 57.2 55.0 60.6 59.4 51.4 55.3 55.4
How wrong do your parents
feel it would be for you to pick
a fight with someone?
Not wrong at al 3.9 3.6 4.1 5.2 5.3 5.1 3.6 4.6 4.8 2.9 3.8 4.0
No 88.2 90.4 91.0 87.1 87.1 89.4 90.7 89.4 90.9 93.1 91.7 91.8
No, but would like to 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8
Yes, in the past 6.7 5.1 4.6 6.6 6.0 5.1 4.4 4.9 4.3 3.1 3.6 3.6
Yes, belong now 2.9 2.4 2.3 3.7 4.2 3.2 2.6 3.5 2.6 1.8 2.7 2.6
Yes, but would like
to get out
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
* State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students.
Verbal and Physical Violence
Have you ever
belonged to
a gang?
Grade 6 Grade 12
Gang Involvement
Grade 8
Safety
Grade 10
39
Regional Prevention Contacts
PreventionWorkz APRC
580-234-1046
Serves Alfalfa, Garfield, Grant, Kingfisher, Logan, and
Major Counties
Red Rock West APRC
580-323-6021
Serves Beckham, Blaine, Caddo, Custer, Dewey, Greer,
Kiowa, Roger Mills, and Washita Counties
Red Rock West APRC - Satellite Office
405-354-1928
Serves Canadian and Grady Counties
ROCMND Area Youth Services APRC
918-256-7518
Serves Craig, Delaware, Mayes, Nowata, Ottawa,
Rogers, and Washington Counties
ROCMND Area Youth Services APRC -
Satellite Office
918-493-6322
Serves Tulsa County
Southern Oklahoma Interlocal Cooperative APRC
580-286-3344
Serves Choctaw, Leflore, McCurtain, and Pushmataha
Counties
Wichita Mountains Prevention Network -
Ardmore APRC
580-490-9021
Serves Bryan, Carter, Garvin, Johnston, Love,
Marshall, Murray, and Pontotoc Counties
Wichita Mountains Prevention Network -
Lawton APRC
580-355-5246
Serves Comanche, Cotton, Harmon, Jackson, Jefferson,
Stephens, and Tillman Counties
Regional Prevention Contacts
Deep Fork Community Action Foundation
918-689-3132
Serves Hughes, McIntosh, and Muskogee Counties
Eagle Ridge Institute APRC
405-840-1359
Serves Oklahoma County
Gateway to Prevention and Recovery APRC
405-275-3391
Serves Lincoln, Okfuskee, Pottawatomie, and Seminole
Counties
NAIC Center for Alcohol & Drug Services APRC
405-321-0022
Serves Cleveland and McClain Counties
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services
405-522-6791
Serves Adair, Cherokee, Sequoyah, and Wagoner
Counties
Northwest Center for Behavioral Health APRC
580-571-3240
Serves Beaver, Cimarron, Ellis, Harper, Texas, Woods,
and Woodward Counties
Kibois / The Oaks Rehabilitative Services APRC
918-421-3500
Serves Atoka, Coal, Haskell, Latimer, and Pittsburg
Counties
OSU Seretean Wellness Center, PaNOK APRC
405-624-2220
Serves Kay, Noble, Osage, Payne, and Pawnee
Counties
OSU Seretean Wellness Center, Tri-County APRC
918-756-1248
Serves Creek and Okmulgee Counties
Contacts for Prevention
40
National Contacts and Resources
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)
www.prevention.samhsa.gov
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org
Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities
U.S. Department of Education
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA)
Prevention Platform
www.preventionplatform.samhsa.gov
Social Development Research Group
University of Washington
www.sdrg.org
National Clearinghouse for Alcohol & Drug
Information
www.ncadi.samhsa.gov
This Report was Prepared for the State of
Oklahoma by Bach Harrison, L.L.C.
116 South 500 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
801-359-2064
www.bach-harrison.com
For more information about this report or the
information it contains, please contact the
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health &
Substance Abuse Services:
405-522-3619
This publication was produced by the Oklahoma
Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Services and intended for electronic distribution only.
There are no associated printing costs. Electronic
copies are available upon request through the
ODMHSAS Prevention Resource Center. The
Resource Center is accessible through the ODMHSAS
web site at www.odmhsas.org. An electronic copy has
also been provided to the Oklahoma Department of
Libraries, Publication s Clearinghouse. 1/2011.
State Contacts
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services
405-522-3619
www.odmhsas.org
Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services
2Much2Lose (2M2L)/Students Against Destructive
Decisions (SADD)
405-522-2700
Oklahoma Prevention Resource Center
405-522-3810
www.odmhsas.org/resourcecenter
Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth
405-606-4900
Oklahoma Department of Education
405-521-2107
Oklahoma Department of Health, Tobacco Use
Prevention
405-271-3619
Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy
405-236-5437
Oklahoma Turning Point Initiative
405-271-6127
Students Working Against Tobacco (SWAT)
405-271-3619
Contacts for Prevention
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Okla State Agency |
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Oklahoma Department of |
| Okla Agency Code | '452' |
| Title | 2010 Oklahoma prevention needs assessment survey. Results for state of Oklahoma |
| Authors |
Oklahoma. Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. Bach Harrison, L.L.C. |
| Publisher | Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. |
| Publication Date | 2010 |
| Publication type |
Statistics Research Report/Study |
| Subject |
School children--Substance use--Oklahoma--Statistics. Youth--Substance use--Oklahoma--Statistics. Juvenile delinquency--Oklahoma--Statistics. |
| Purpose | This report summarizes the findings from the State of Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment (OPNA) Survey that was conducted during the spring of 2010 in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12. The results for the State of Oklahoma are presented along with comparisons to past years’ results for the State of Oklahoma. In addition, the report contains important information about the risk and protective factor framework and guidelines on how to interpret and use the data.; The OPNA Survey is designed to assess students' involvement in a specific set of problem behaviors, as well as their exposure to a set of scientifically validated risk and protective factors. The risk and protective factors have been shown to influence the likelihood of academic success, school dropout, substance abuse, violence, and delinquency among youth. |
| Contents | Introduction; How to Read the Charts; Charts and Tables in this Report; The OPNA and No Child Left Behind; The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention; Building a Strategic Prevention Framework; Tools for Assessment and Planning; Data Charts: • Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior • Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use • Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions; Data Tables; Contacts for Prevention |
| OkDocs Class# | M1400.3 P944n 2010 |
| Digital Format | PDF, Adobe Reader required |
| ODL electronic copy | Downloaded from agency website: http://www.ok.gov/odmhsas/documents/2010%20Oklahoma%20Prevention%20Needs%20Assessment%20Survey.pdf |
| Rights and Permissions | This Oklahoma state government publication is provided for educational purposes under U.S. copyright law. Other usage requires permission of copyright holders. |
| Language | English |
| Full text | Results for S tate of Oklahoma 2 Table 1. Characteristics of Participants State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total Students 42,768 100 60,720 100 72,199 100 6 12,140 28.4 18,969 31.2 23,561 32.6 8 11,739 27.4 16,682 27.5 21,220 29.4 10 11,042 25.8 14,435 23.8 15,984 22.1 12 7,847 18.3 10,634 17.5 11,434 15.8 Male 20,113 48.1 29,217 48.9 34,770 49.1 Female 21,685 51.9 30,567 51.1 36,017 50.9 American Indian or Alaska Native 6,548 16.3 13,781 19.0 16,455 19.1 Asian 865 2.2 1,694 2.3 2,035 2.4 Black or African American 3,499 8.7 7,582 10.4 9,120 10.6 Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 210 0.5 950 1.3 919 1.1 Hispanic or Latino 2,871 7.2 6,350 8.7 8,655 10.0 White 26,060 65.1 42,354 58.2 49,140 56.9 * Students by Gender Grade Students by Race/Ethnicity* Students can select one or more categories. The sum of Students by Race/Ethnicity may exceed Total Students. Oklahoma who completed the survey. A total of 686 schools across Oklahoma participated in the survey. Since students are able to select more than one race or ethnicity, the sum of students of individual categories may exceed the total number of students surveyed. Because not all students answer all of the questions, the total count of students by gender (and less frequently, students by ethnicity) may be less than the reported total students. When using the information in this report, please pay attention to the number of students who participated from your community. If 60% or more of the students participated, the report is a good indicator of the levels of substance use, risk, protection, and antisocial behavior. If fewer than 60% participated, consult with your local prevention coordinator or a survey professional before generalizing the results to the entire community. Coordination and administration of the Oklahoma PNA Survey was a collaborative effort of the State Office of the Governor; Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services; Area Prevention Resource Centers; Oklahoma State Department of Health; Oklahoma Department of Education; Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth; and all of the participating schools. If you have any questions about the report or prevention activities that are underway in the state, please refer to the Contacts for Prevention section. Administration of the Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment Survey and the preparation of this report were funded by a federal grant administered by the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). 2010 State of Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment Survey Report This report summarizes the findings from the State of Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment (OPNA) Survey that was conducted during the spring of 2010 in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12. The results for the State of Oklahoma are presented along with comparisons to past years' results for the State of Oklahoma. In addition, the report contains important information about the risk and protective factor framework and guidelines on how to interpret and use the data. The OPNA Survey is designed to assess students involvement in a specific set of problem behaviors, as well as their exposure to a set of scientifically validated risk and protective factors. The risk and protective factors have been shown to influence the likelihood of academic success, school dropout, substance abuse, violence, and delinquency among youth. Table 1 contains the characteristics of the students from the State of CONTENTS: Introduction How to Read the Charts Charts and Tables in this Report The OPNA and No Child Left Behind The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention Building a Strategic Prevention Framework Tools for Assessment and Planning Data Charts: • Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior • Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use • Risk and Protective Factor Profiles Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions Data Tables Contacts for Prevention Introduction 3 There are five types of charts presented in this report: 1. Substance use charts 2. Antisocial behavior (ASB) charts 3. Sources of alcohol acquisition 4. Risk factor charts 5. Protective factor charts. Data from the charts are also presented in Tables 3 through 10. Additional data found in Tables 11 and 12 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 2010 OPNA survey. The Bars on substance use and antisocial behavior charts represent the percentage of students in that grade who reported a given behavior. The bars on the risk and protective factor charts represent the percentage of students whose answers reflect significant risk or protection in that category. zz Each set of differently colored bars represents one of the last three administrations of the OPNA: 2006, 2008, and 2010. By looking at the percentages over time, it is possible to identify trends in substance use and antisocial behavior. By studying the percentage of youth at risk and with protection over time, it is possible to determine whether the percentage of students at risk or with protection is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. This information is important when deciding which risk and protective factors warrant attention. Dots and Diamonds provide points of comparison to larger samples. The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed across Oklahoma who reported substance use, problem behavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. zz zz For the 2010 OPNA Survey, there were 72,199 participants in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, out of 181,546 enrolled, a participation rate of 39.8%. Please note that the state dot represents the aggregate results of all participating students rather than a random sample of students. The fact that over 72,000 students across the state participated in the OPNA make the state dot a good estimate of the rates of ATOD use and levels of risk and protective factors of youth in Oklahoma. The survey results provide considerable information for communities to use in planning prevention services. zz zz zz zz zz zz zzzz zz zz zz How to Read the Charts in this Report The diamonds represent national data from either the Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey or the Bach Harrison Norm. 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. zz zz zz zz 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 your community should consider addressing when planning prevention programs. Lifetime & 30 Day ATOD Use Charts There are two types of use measured on the ATOD charts. Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of students who tried the particular substance at least once in their lifetime and is used to show the percentage of students who have had experience with a particular substance. 30-day use is a measure of the percentage of students who used the substance at least once in the 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a more sensitive indicator of the level of current use of the substance. 4 How Ctoh aRretsa da nthde T Cahbalersts i nin t hthisis R Reeppoortrt (cont d) The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that schools and communities use guidelines in choosing and implementing federally funded prevention and intervention programs. The results of the OPNA Survey presented in this report can help your schools and community comply with the NCLB Act in three ways: 1. Programs must be chosen based on objective data about problem behaviors in the communities served. The OPNA reports these data in the substance use and antisocial behavior charts and tables presented on the following pages. 2. NCLB-approved prevention programs can address not only substance use and antisocial behavior (ASB) outcomes, but also behaviors and attitudes demonstrated to be predictive of the youth problem behaviors. Risk and protective factor data from this report provide valuable information for choosing prevention programs. 3. Periodic evaluations of outcome measures must be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of ongoing programs. This report provides schools and communities the ability to compare past and present substance use and ASB data. The OPNA and No Child Left Behind (Students reporting no alcohol use are not represented.) It is important to note that the charts represent a subgroup of users and not the entire survey population. Additionally, the smaller the sample, the more dramatic the influence of a student's responses. For example, if only one student in a particular grade reported where he/she obtained alcohol, each category would show up as either 0% or 100%. The chart legend indicates the sample size for each grade surveyed to help clarify the value of the data. Risk and Protective Factor Charts Risk and protective factor scales measure specific aspects of a youth s life experience that predict whether he/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales, defined in Table 2, 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. Additional Tables in this Report Table 11 contains information required by communities with Drug Free Communities Grants, such as the perception of the risks of ATOD use, perception of parent and peer disapproval of ATOD use, past 30-day use, and average age of first use. Table 12 contains additional data for prevention planning on the subjects of safety, violence, and gangs. Problem Substance Use & ASB Charts Problem substance use is measured in several ways: binge drinking (five or more drinks in a row over the last two weeks), use of one-half a pack or more of cigarettes per day and youth indicating drinking alcohol and driving or riding with a drinking driver. zzzzzz Treatment needs scales show the percentage of students in need of treatment for alcohol, drugs, and the total in need of any treatment (either alcohol or drug). The need for treatment is defined as students who have used alcohol or drugs on 10 or more occasions in their lifetime and marked at least three of the following items specific to their drug or alcohol use in the past year: spent more time using than intended; neglected some of your usual responsibilities because of use; wanted to cut down on use; others objected to your use; and frequently thought about using, used alcohol or drugs to relieve feelings such as sadness, anger, or boredom. 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. Sources of Alcohol This chart presents the percentage of students who obtained alcohol from 12 specific sources during the past year. The data focus on a subgroup of students who indicated at least one means of obtaining alcohol. 5 Consistent recognition or reinforcement for their efforts and accomplishments Bonding confers a protective influence only when there is a positive climate in the bonded community. Peers and adults in these schools, families, and neighborhoods must communicate healthy values and set clear standards for behavior in order to ensure a protective effect. For example, strong bonds to antisocial peers would not be likely to reinforce positive behavior. Research on risk and protective factors has important implications for children s academic success, positive youth development, and prevention of health and behavior problems. In order to promote academic success and positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by policies, programs, and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to promote protective factors. Each risk and protective factor can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help the State of Oklahoma make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results. In addition to helping assess current conditions and prioritize areas of greatest need, data from the Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment Survey can be a powerful tool in applying for and complying with several federal programs outlined later in this report, such as the Strategic Prevention Framework process and the No Child Left Behind Act. Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is a proven way of reducing substance abuse and its related consequences. This model is based on the simple premise that to prevent a problem from happening, we need to identify the factors that increase the risk of that problem developing and then find ways to reduce the risks. Just as medical researchers have found risk factors for heart disease such as diets high in fat, lack of exercise, and smoking; a team of researchers at the University of Washington have defined a set of risk factors for youth problem behaviors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community and family environments, and of students and their peer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violent behaviors among youth. For example, children who live in disorganized, crime-ridden neighborhoods are more likely to become involved in crime and drug use than children who live in safe neighborhoods. The chart below shows the links between the 19 risk factors and six problem behaviors. The check marks indicate where at least two well designed, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior. Protective factors exert a positive influence and buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community, and peers; and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior. Protective bonding depends on three conditions: Opportunities for young people to actively contribute Skills to be able to successfully contribute SOURCE: COMMUNITIES THAT CARE (CTC) PREVENTION MODEL, CENTER FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION (CSAP), SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMSHA) The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T Risk Factors Favorable Parent Attitudes & Involvement in the Problem Behavior Community Family School Peer / Individual Community Laws & Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms & Crime Constitutional Factors Gang Involvement Favorable Attitudes Toward Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors Friends Who Use Drugs & Engage in Problem Behaviors Alienation & Rebelliousness Early & Persistent Antisocial Behavior Early Initiation of Drug Use & Other Problem Behaviors Lack of Commitment to School Academic Failure Community Disorganization Low Neighborhood Attachment Transitions & Mobility Availability of Drugs & Firearms Family Management Problems Family Conflict Family History of the Problem Behavior Extreme Economic & Social Deprivation School Drop-Out Violence Substance Abuse Delinquency Teen Pregnancy 6 Building a Strategic Prevention Framework conducted during Step 1. The plan should address the priority needs, build on identified resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored. Plans should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities. The OPNA is an important data source for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). CSAP created the SPF model to guide states and communities in creating planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention programs. Each part represents an interdependent element of the ongoing process of prevention coordination. Assessment: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in Service Delivery. The SPF begins with an assessment of the needs in the community that is based on data. The Oklahoma State Epidemiological Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW) has compiled data from several sources to aid in the needs assessment process. One of the primary sources of needs assessment data is this Prevention Needs Assessment Survey (PNA). While planning prevention services, communities are urged to collect and use multiple data sources, including archival and social indicators, assessment of existing resources, key informant interviews, and community readiness. The OPNA results presented in this Profile Report will help you to identify needs for prevention services. OPNA data include adolescent substance use, anti-social behavior, and many of the risk and protective factors that predict adolescent problem behaviors. Capacity: Mobilize and/orzzzzz Build Capacity to Addresszz Needs. Engagement of key stakeholders at the State and community levels is critical to plan and implement successful prevention activities that will be sustained over time. Some of the key tasks to mobilize the state and communities are to work with leaders and stakeholders to build coalitions, provide training, leverage resources, and help sustain prevention activities. strategic plan that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on the assessments Planning: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan. States and communities should develop a 7 Building a Strategic Prevention Framework (cont d) Implementation: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development Activities. By measuring and identifying the risk factors and other causal factors that contribute to the targeted problems specified in your strategic plan, programs can be implemented that will reduce the prioritized substance abuse problems. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose prevention strategies that have been shown to be effective, are appropriate for the population served, can be implemented with fidelity, are culturally appropriate, and can be sustained over time. The Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology has developed an internet tool located at http://casat.unr.edu/bestpractices/search.php for identifying Best Practice Programs. Another resource for evidence-based prevention practices is SAMHSA s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices www.nrepp.samhsa.gov. Evaluation: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and Improve or Replace Those That Fail. Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine if the desired outcomes are achieved, assess service delivery quality, identify successes, encourage needed improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies, programs, and practices. The OPNA allows communities to monitor levels of ATOD use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Sustainability and Cultural Competence: Incorporate principles of cultural competence and sustainability in each of the five elements. At the center of the SPF model, sustainability and cultural competence play a key role in assessment, capacity appraisal, planning, implementation and evaluation, ensuring successful, long lasting prevention programs. Sustainability is accomplished by utilizing a comprehensive approach. States and communities should plan adaptive, flexible programs around a variety of resources, funding, and organizations. An inclusive design helps build sustainable programs and achieve sustainable outcomes. A strategic plan that dynamically responds to changing issues, data, priorities, and resources is more likely to achieve long term results. Sharing information gathered during the evaluation stage with key stakeholders, forging partnerships and encouraging creative collaboration all enhance sustainability. Cultural competence recognizes unique needs, styles, values and beliefs of the recipients of prevention efforts. Culturally competent prevention strategies use interventions, evaluations and communication strategies appropriate to their intended community. Cultural issues reflect a range of influences and are not just a matter of ethnic or racial identity. Learning to communicate with audiences from diverse geographic, cultural, economic, social, and linguistic backgrounds can increase program efficacy and ensure sustainable results. Whether enlisting extended family networks as a prevention resource for single parent households, or ensuring there are resources available to bridge language gaps, cultural competency will help you recognize differences in prevention needs and tailor prevention approaches accordingly. A one-size-fits-all program is less effective than a program that draws on community-based values, traditions, and customs and works with knowledgeable people from the community to develop focused interventions, communication, and support. 8 Prioritize problems for your area according to the issues you ve identified. Which can be realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problems 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. Once priorities are established, use data to guide your prevention efforts. Substance use and antisocial behavior data are excellent tools to raise awareness about the problems and promote dialogue. Risk and protective factor data can be used to identify exactly where the community needs to take action. Promising approaches for any prevention goal are available for through resources listed on the last page of this report. These contacts are a great resource for information 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. 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 Bach Harrison Norm? Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to 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 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 Once you have familiarized yourself with the data, you can begin to identify priorities. Look across the charts for items that 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. Tools for Assessment and Planning 6th grd Fav. Attitude to Drugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale) @ 15% (8% > 8-state av.) 10th grd - Rewards for prosocial involvm. (School Domain) 40% (down 5% from 2 yrs ago & 16% below state av.) 8th grd Binge Drinking@13% (5% above state av.) 12th grd - Drunk/High at School @ 21% ( about same as state, but remains a priority.) 30-day Substance Abuse Risk Factors Protective Factors Antisocial Behavior Sample Priority Rate 1 Priority Rate 2 Priority Rate 3 9 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA. * MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugs or Over-the-Counter Drugs. MTF does not survey 6th graders. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Other Stimulants Heroin or Other Opiates Sedatives Ecstasy ** Prescription Drugs ** Over-the-Counter Drugs Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Other Stimulants Heroin or Other Opiates Sedatives Ecstasy ** Prescription Drugs ** Over-the-Counter Drugs 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF LIFETIME & 30 DAY ATOD USE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6 Ever Used 30-Day Use 10 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA. * MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugs or Over-the-Counter Drugs. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Other Stimulants Heroin or Other Opiates Sedatives Ecstasy ** Prescription Drugs ** Over-the-Counter Drugs Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Other Stimulants Heroin or Other Opiates Sedatives Ecstasy ** Prescription Drugs ** Over-the-Counter Drugs 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF LIFETIME & 30 DAY ATOD USE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8 Ever Used 30-Day Use 11 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA. * MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugs or Over-the-Counter Drugs. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Other Stimulants Heroin or Other Opiates Sedatives Ecstasy ** Prescription Drugs ** Over-the-Counter Drugs Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Other Stimulants Heroin or Other Opiates Sedatives Ecstasy ** Prescription Drugs ** Over-the-Counter Drugs 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF LIFETIME & 30 DAY ATOD USE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10 Ever Used 30-Day Use 12 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA. * MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugs or Over-the-Counter Drugs. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Other Stimulants Heroin or Other Opiates Sedatives Ecstasy ** Prescription Drugs ** Over-the-Counter Drugs Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Other Stimulants Heroin or Other Opiates Sedatives Ecstasy ** Prescription Drugs ** Over-the-Counter Drugs 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF LIFETIME & 30 DAY ATOD USE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12 Ever Used 30-Day Use 13 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** National Comparison data for Problem Use ct* National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. aegory are Monitoring the Future values. MTF does not survey 6th graders. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Binge Drinking in the Past 2 weeks 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Needs Alcohol Treatment Needs Drug Treatment Needs Alc and/or Drug Treatment DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Carried a Handgun Handgun to School 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF**/BH Norm PROBLEM SUBSTANCE USE & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6 Problem Use** Antisocial Behavior Past Year Driving & Alcohol Treatment Needs Past Year Past 30 Days 14 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** National Comparison data for Problem Use category are Monitoring the Future values. * National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Binge Drinking in the Past 2 weeks 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Needs Alcohol Treatment Needs Drug Treatment Needs Alc and/or Drug Treatment DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Carried a Handgun Handgun to School 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF**/BH Norm PROBLEM SUBSTANCE USE & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8 Problem Use** Antisocial Behavior Past Year Driving & Alcohol Treatment Needs Past Year Past 30 Days 15 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample ** National Comparison data for Problem se category are Monitoring the Future values. MTF does not survey 6th graders. * National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** National Comparison data for Problem Use category are Monitoring the Future values. * National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Binge Drinking in the Past 2 weeks 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Needs Alcohol Treatment Needs Drug Treatment Needs Alc and/or Drug Treatment DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Carried a Handgun Handgun to School 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF**/BH Norm PROBLEM SUBSTANCE USE & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10 Problem Use** Antisocial Behavior Past Year Driving & Alcohol Treatment Needs Past Year Past 30 Days 16 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** National Comparison data for Problem Use category are Monitoring the Future values. * National Comparison data for Antisocial Behavior category are Bach Harrison Norm values. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Binge Drinking in the Past 2 weeks 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Needs Alcohol Treatment Needs Drug Treatment Needs Alc and/or Drug Treatment DRIVE a car when you had been drinking alcohol? RIDE in a car driven by someone drinking alcohol? Suspended from School Drunk or High at School Sold Illegal Drugs Stolen a Vehicle Been Arrested Attacked Someone w/ Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Carried a Handgun Handgun to School 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 MTF**/BH Norm PROBLEM SUBSTANCE USE & ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12 Problem Use** Antisocial Behavior Past Year Driving & Alcohol Treatment Needs Past Year Past 30 Days 17 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample. ** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. * * I got it from a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA. Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use I bought it myself with a fake ID I bought it myself without a fake ID I got it from someone I know age 21 or older I got it from someone I know under age 21 I got it from my brother or sister I got it from home with my parents' permission I got it from home without my parents' permission I got it from another relative A stranger bought it for me I took it from a store or shop I got it at a bar or restaurant Other At your home. At friends houses At a school dance, game, or event At school during the day Near school In a car At a party At a park or beach At a bar or restaurant 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 Sources sample: 1,309 Places sample: 1,248 State 2008 Sources sample: 1,997 Places sample: 1,881 State 2010 Sources sample: 2,620 Places sample: 3,061 STUDENT ALCOHOL USE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6 If you drank ALCOHOL in the last year, how did you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.) During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have you used ALCOHOL in each of the following places? 18 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample. ** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. * * I got it from a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA. Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use I bought it myself with a fake ID I bought it myself without a fake ID I got it from someone I know age 21 or older I got it from someone I know under age 21 I got it from my brother or sister I got it from home with my parents' permission I got it from home without my parents' permission I got it from another relative A stranger bought it for me I took it from a store or shop I got it at a bar or restaurant Other At your home. At friends houses At a school dance, game, or event At school during the day Near school In a car At a party At a park or beach At a bar or restaurant 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 Sources sample: 2,998 Places sample: 3,026 State 2008 Sources sample: 4,658 Places sample: 4,679 State 2010 Sources sample: 5,962 Places sample: 6,635 STUDENT ALCOHOL USE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8 If you drank ALCOHOL in the last year, how did you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.) During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have you used ALCOHOL in each of the following places? 19 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample. ** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. * * I got it from a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA. Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use I bought it myself with a fake ID I bought it myself without a fake ID I got it from someone I know age 21 or older I got it from someone I know under age 21 I got it from my brother or sister I got it from home with my parents' permission I got it from home without my parents' permission I got it from another relative A stranger bought it for me I took it from a store or shop I got it at a bar or restaurant Other At your home. At friends houses At a school dance, game, or event At school during the day Near school In a car At a party At a park or beach At a bar or restaurant 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 Sources sample: 4,627 Places sample: 4,622 State 2008 Sources sample: 6,370 Places sample: 6,178 State 2010 Sources sample: 7,197 Places sample: 7,368 STUDENT ALCOHOL USE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10 If you drank ALCOHOL in the last year, how did you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.) During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have you used ALCOHOL in each of the following places? 20 ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample. ** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. * * I got it from a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA. Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use I bought it myself with a fake ID I bought it myself without a fake ID I got it from someone I know age 21 or older I got it from someone I know under age 21 I got it from my brother or sister I got it from home with my parents' permission I got it from home without my parents' permission I got it from another relative A stranger bought it for me I took it from a store or shop I got it at a bar or restaurant Other At your home. At friends houses At a school dance, game, or event At school during the day Near school In a car At a party At a park or beach At a bar or restaurant 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) State 2006 Sources sample: 4,226 Places sample: 4,081 State 2008 Sources sample: 5,768 Places sample: 5,537 State 2010 Sources sample: 6,322 Places sample: 6,411 STUDENT ALCOHOL USE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12 If you drank ALCOHOL in the last year, how did you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.) During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have you used ALCOHOL in each of the following places? 21 * I got it from a partyor froma kegis new for 2010 OPNA. ** Sources of alcohol were not measured priorto 2008. ** Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcool from atleast one source. Studentsindicting they did ot drink acohol in the past year are not included in the sample. * In the case of smallr sample sizes, cautionshould bexercised beforegeneralizing rults to the entire community. Risk and Protective Factor Profiles tate represents the aggregate resultsof all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. High Risk youth are defined as the percentage ofstudentswh have more thana specified numbr of risk factors operating in their lives. * (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 r more risk factors, 10th and 12th grades: 9 or mor risk factors.) * Since not all states use the same cales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk. Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to 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 Intention to Use Drugs **Students at High Risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) of youth at risk State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm RISK PROFILE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6 Community Family School Peer/Individual Total 22 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives. * *(6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors) * Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection. Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Religiosity Belief in the Moral Order Interaction with Prosocial Peers Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement **Students with High Protection 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) of youth with protection State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 6 Community Family School Peer/Individual Total 23 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. * (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th and 12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) * Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk. Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to 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 Intention to Use Drugs **Students at High Risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) of youth at risk State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm RISK PROFILE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8 Community Family School Peer/Individual Total 24 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives. * *(6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors) * Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection. Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Religiosity Belief in the Moral Order Interaction with Prosocial Peers Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement **Students with High Protection 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) of youth with protection State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 8 Community Family School Peer/Individual Total 25 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. * (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th and 12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) * Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk. Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to 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 Intention to Use Drugs **Students at High Risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) of youth at risk State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm RISK PROFILE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10 Community Family School Peer/Individual Total 26 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives. * *(6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors) * Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection. Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Religiosity Belief in the Moral Order Interaction with Prosocial Peers Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement **Students with High Protection 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) of youth with protection State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 10 Community Family School Peer/Individual Total 27 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** High Risk youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of risk factors operating in their lives. * (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th and 12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) * Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk. Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to 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 Intention to Use Drugs **Students at High Risk 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) of youth at risk State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm RISK PROFILE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12 Community Family School Peer/Individual Total 28 Risk and Protective Factor Profiles ** State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. ** High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives. * *(6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors) * Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection. Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Attachment Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Religiosity Belief in the Moral Order Interaction with Prosocial Peers Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement **Students with High Protection 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage (%) of youth with protection State 2006 State 2008 State 2010 BH Norm PROTECTIVE PROFILE 2010 State of Oklahoma Student Survey, Grade 12 Community Family School Peer/Individual Total 29 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 1 Community Disorganization Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of public places, physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile crime and drug selling. 1 1 Laws and Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking age, restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in consumption. Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in prevalence of use. 1 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. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement When opportunities are available in a community for positive participation, children are less likely to engage in substance use and other problem behaviors. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. 1 Poor Family Management Parents use of inconsistent and/or unusually harsh or severe punishment with their children places them at higher risk for substance use and other problem behaviors. Also, parents failure to provide clear expectations and to monitor their children s behavior makes it more likely that they will engage in drug abuse whether or not there are family drug problems. 1 Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use. 1 Family History of Antisocial Behavior When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. 1 Parental Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior & Drugs In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children s use, children are more likely to become drug abusers during adolescence. The risk is further increased if parents involve children in their own drug (or alcohol) using behavior, for example, asking the child to light the parent s cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. 1 Family Attachment Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance use and other problem behaviors. 1 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities and activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by their child, children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors. 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. Community Domain Protective Factors Family Domain Risk Factors Family Domain Protective Factors School Domain Risk Factors Table 2. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles Community Domain Risk Factors Risk and Protective Scale Definitions 30 Risk and Protective Scale Definitions 1 Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at school, they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors. 1 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to be involved in substance use and other problem behaviors. 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 1 Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the involvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15 is a consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict lower drug involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use. 1 Attitudes Favorable Toward 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 Intention to Use ATODs Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life. Reduction of intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions. 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 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 Depressive Symptoms Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely to use drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and youth problem behaviors. 1 Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. 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 Religiosity Young people who regularly attend religious services are less likely to engage in problem behaviors. 1 Interaction with Prosocial Peers Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use. 1 Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. 1 Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Peer-Individual Protective Factors Peer-Individual Risk Factors Table 2. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles School Domain Protective Factors 31 Data Tables Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF 12,140 18,969 23,561 n/a 11,739 16,682 21,220 n/a 11,042 14,435 15,984 n/a 7,847 10,634 11,434 n/a Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 27.7 28.1 27.9 n/a 51.2 50.8 48.0 36.6 66.9 67.1 63.6 59.1 76.3 75.5 74.0 72.3 Cigarettes smoked cigarettes? 16.8 14.7 14.3 n/a 33.9 31.4 28.9 20.1 45.2 44.4 40.8 32.7 52.7 52.7 51.1 43.6 Chewing Tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 7.9 7.3 7.9 n/a 16.1 15.9 15.0 9.6 21.8 23.2 23.6 15.2 26.1 26.8 28.8 16.3 Marijuana used marijuana (grass, pot) or hashish (hash, hash oil)? 3.0 3.0 3.6 n/a 13.7 13.5 14.5 15.7 26.6 25.6 27.4 32.3 35.3 32.8 35.4 42.0 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 10.3 11.7 11.4 n/a 12.8 15.1 14.2 14.9 10.6 12.3 11.4 12.8 8.4 9.4 9.2 9.5 Hallucinogens used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.4 0.6 0.7 n/a 1.5 1.8 2.0 1.7 3.7 4.1 4.2 3.0 5.1 5.2 6.1 3.1 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.8 0.9 0.9 n/a 1.7 2.3 1.9 2.6 4.3 4.1 3.0 4.6 6.8 6.1 5.0 6.0 Methamphetamines used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, crystal meth)? 0.4 0.6 0.6 n/a 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.6 3.5 2.7 2.5 2.8 4.8 4.0 3.2 2.4 Other Stimulants used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin, Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to? 1.1 1.2 1.1 n/a 3.4 3.4 3.2 n/a 7.6 6.9 6.5 n/a 8.9 8.0 8.6 n/a Heroin or Other Opiates used heroin or other opiates? 0.3 0.5 0.4 n/a 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.3 1.2 Sedatives used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbituates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? 5.0 5.3 4.6 n/a 9.5 11.2 9.8 9.5 16.5 17.1 14.3 13.0 19.5 18.4 16.6 12.7 Ecstasy used MDMA ( X , E , or ecstasy)? 0.3 0.4 0.5 n/a 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.2 4.1 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.7 5.8 7.3 6.5 Prescription Drugs** used prescription drugs (such as Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderall, OxyContin, or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? n/a 5.5 4.3 n/a n/a 13.1 10.8 n/a n/a 20.6 18.0 n/a n/a 22.7 21.9 n/a Over-the-Counter Drugs** used a non-prescription cough or cold medicine (robos, DXM, etc.) to get high and not for medical reasons? n/a 2.8 2.2 n/a n/a 6.3 5.6 n/a n/a 8.5 8.4 n/a n/a 8.4 9.0 n/a * ** MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugsor Over-the-Counter Drugs. MTF does not survey 6th graders. Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA. State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. Grade 10 Grade 10 Number of Youth In your lifetime, on how many occasions (if any) have you (One or more occasions) Grade 12 Grade 12 Grade 6 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 8 32 Data Tables State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* MTF Alcohol had alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or hard liquor) to drink - more than just a few sips? 6.0 8.4 8.8 n/a 19.4 23.4 21.2 14.9 34.4 35.6 32.4 30.4 45.7 45.9 42.9 43.5 Cigarettes smoked cigarettes? 3.4 3.0 3.0 n/a 10.6 10.3 9.6 6.5 18.4 18.5 17.1 13.1 24.6 25.0 23.4 20.1 Chewing Tobacco used smokeless tobacco (chew, snuff, plug, dipping tobacco, chewing tobacco)? 2.4 2.2 2.6 n/a 6.7 6.8 6.8 3.7 9.9 12.0 11.7 6.5 12.0 13.7 14.2 8.4 Marijuana used marijuana (grass, pot) or hashish (hash, hash oil)? 1.0 1.1 1.5 n/a 5.6 6.2 7.0 6.5 12.2 11.6 13.3 15.9 14.8 13.8 16.3 20.6 Inhalants sniffed glue, breathed the contents of an aerosol spray can, or inhaled other gases or sprays, in order to get high? 3.7 4.9 4.7 n/a 4.5 5.8 5.3 3.8 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.2 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.2 Hallucinogens used LSD or other hallucinogens? 0.1 0.1 0.2 n/a 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.5 0.5 Cocaine used cocaine or crack? 0.3 0.4 0.4 n/a 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.3 Methamphetamines used methamphetamines (meth, speed, crank, crystal meth)? 0.1 0.2 0.2 n/a 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.5 Other Stimulants used stimulants, other than methamphetamines (such as amphetamines, Ritalin, Dexedrine) without a doctor telling you to? 0.4 0.4 0.4 n/a 1.3 1.5 1.4 n/a 3.0 2.9 2.8 n/a 3.0 2.8 3.0 n/a Heroin or Other Opiates used heroin or other opiates? 0.1 0.2 0.2 n/a 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.4 Sedatives used sedatives (tranquilizers, such as Valium or Xanax, barbituates or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? 1.7 2.3 1.8 n/a 4.4 5.5 4.6 2.5 7.9 8.2 6.3 3.9 8.6 8.2 6.9 4.2 Ecstasy used MDMA ( X , E , or ecstasy)? 0.1 0.2 0.3 n/a 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.8 Prescription Drugs** used prescription drugs (such as Valium, Xanax, Ritalin, Adderall, OxyContin, or sleeping pills) without a doctor telling you to take them? n/a 2.5 1.8 n/a n/a 6.6 5.2 n/a n/a 10.0 8.1 n/a n/a 10.5 9.6 n/a Over-the-Counter Drugs** used a non-prescription cough or cold medicine (robos, DXM, etc.) to get high and not for medical reasons? n/a 1.3 1.0 n/a n/a 3.1 2.6 n/a n/a 3.6 3.3 n/a n/a 2.8 2.4 n/a * ** Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Grade 6 Grade 8 In the past 30 days, on how many occasions (if any) have you (One or more occasions) Grade 12 MTF has no equivalent for Other Stimulants, Prescription Drugsor Over-the-Counter Drugs . MTF does not survey 6th graders. Grade 10 Questions asking about Prescription Drugs and Over-the-Counter Drugs were not on the 2006 OPNA. State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. 33 Data Tables Table 6. Percentage of Students With Problem ATOD Use State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm Binge Drinking 5.0 4.9 5.4 n/a 13.0 13.3 12.5 7.8 22.8 21.8 20.1 17.5 31.8 29.6 28.0 25.2 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 0.2 0.2 0.3 n/a 0.8 0.9 1.6 1.0 1.7 2.1 3.8 2.4 3.0 3.5 6.7 5.0 Drinking and Driving n/a 1.9 1.8 3.9 n/a 4.2 4.0 4.2 n/a 8.8 7.4 7.4 n/a 19.8 16.7 16.6 Riding with a Drinking Driver n/a 20.5 19.8 20.7 n/a 25.5 24.0 24.9 n/a 27.3 24.8 26.3 n/a 29.4 27.0 27.5 Needs Alcohol Treatment 1.1 0.9 0.7 n/a 5.6 4.6 3.2 n/a 12.1 9.8 5.4 n/a 15.2 13.2 5.3 n/a Needs Drug Treatment 0.5 0.4 0.4 n/a 3.3 2.6 2.9 n/a 6.9 5.4 5.9 n/a 7.5 6.6 7.1 n/a Needs Alcohol and/or Drug Treatment 1.5 1.1 1.0 n/a 7.8 5.7 5.1 n/a 16.0 12.0 9.4 n/a 19.1 15.5 10.4 n/a Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm 10.8 10.8 11.6 13.0 13.1 15.0 14.1 15.1 10.2 11.7 10.8 12.6 6.2 7.2 7.2 9.2 3.0 3.2 4.2 3.9 8.6 9.6 10.0 7.5 15.2 15.6 15.9 15.0 17.5 17.8 17.8 17.7 0.7 0.7 1.4 2.1 3.0 3.5 3.9 2.5 6.0 7.1 7.3 6.5 6.6 7.8 8.7 7.8 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.3 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.6 1.5 2.3 2.3 1.9 3.0 2.5 3.6 3.7 6.0 6.6 5.9 5.2 7.0 7.6 6.7 6.7 5.4 6.5 7.0 6.1 14.8 15.3 16.0 12.7 17.3 18.0 16.6 16.0 15.1 16.8 14.0 15.1 11.1 13.4 12.3 11.9 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.5 4.8 4.8 6.3 5.7 5.2 4.2 6.4 6.2 5.2 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.0 * Grade 8 Grade 12 Sold Illegal Drugs Carried a Handgun Grade 6 Grade 10 Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Problem Use Treatment Needs State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. Carried a Handgun to School Been Drunk or High at School How many times in the past year (12 months) have you: (One or more times) Been Suspended from School Attacked Someone with the Idea of Seriously Hurting Them Been Arrested Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle 1) Spent more time using than intended 2) Neglected some of your usual responsibilities because of use 3) Wanted to cut down on use 4) Others objected to your use 5) Frequently thought about using 6) Used alcohol or drugs to relieve feelings How many times have you had 5 or more alcoholic drinks in a row in the past 2 weeks? (One or more times) During the past 30 days, how many cigarettes did you smoke per day? (11 to 20 cigarettes, More than 20 cigarettes) Students who have used alcohol or drugs on 10 or more occasions in their lifetime and marked 3 or more of the following 6 items related to their past year drug or alcohol use: Alcohol and Driving During the past 30 days, how many times did you DRIVE a car or other vehicle when you had been drinking alcohol? During the past 30 days, how many times did you RIDE in a car or other vehicle driven by someone who had been drinking alcohol? 34 Data Tables Table 8. Student Alcohol Use State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* 1,309 1,997 2,620 2,998 4,658 5,962 4,627 6,370 7,197 4,226 5,768 6,322 1.5 3.2 4.5 1.2 2.1 2.7 1.1 1.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.5 1.4 3.6 4.4 1.9 2.7 3.4 4.6 5.6 6.6 8.1 8.4 10.6 23.0 30.1 31.9 36.2 39.9 41.5 49.7 55.7 54.8 62.5 66.3 68.5 12.1 16.2 16.8 23.2 28.6 26.4 30.9 31.5 31.5 24.6 24.8 27.2 7.5 10.5 11.0 9.9 11.6 12.0 10.5 12.2 12.2 9.8 10.7 12.0 25.4 26.1 29.2 20.5 23.3 23.1 15.6 17.6 19.4 12.6 15.1 17.4 14.6 19.6 22.3 18.2 23.6 28.5 13.1 18.4 21.1 7.2 9.9 13.2 12.8 15.1 16.6 13.6 16.4 16.9 9.8 13.2 14.2 7.7 10.3 11.6 2.5 4.1 3.9 2.7 4.2 4.1 5.9 6.1 6.9 6.7 6.9 8.3 2.1 3.8 2.8 2.0 2.6 2.4 1.3 2.0 2.5 1.3 1.9 2.4 n/a n/a 4.4 n/a n/a 3.3 n/a n/a 3.8 n/a n/a 7.4 36.7 34.3 32.2 25.9 27.0 29.0 21.5 23.7 25.8 17.3 21.0 20.5 State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* 1,248 1,881 3,061 3,026 4,679 6,635 4,622 6,178 7,368 4,081 5,537 6,411 68.0 67.7 63.0 62.2 64.1 63.3 56.2 58.8 57.7 57.3 58.2 57.3 41.2 45.1 44.6 62.0 67.1 64.5 74.8 80.0 77.6 81.7 85.2 83.7 10.3 13.3 15.7 13.8 16.7 18.8 20.9 20.0 20.7 21.3 22.1 20.8 3.1 6.4 6.5 7.2 9.3 10.7 10.2 13.0 13.8 11.2 13.5 11.5 7.7 12.1 12.6 11.6 15.3 17.1 15.8 19.2 19.0 17.1 19.7 17.9 14.3 19.7 19.0 25.5 29.7 29.9 37.0 40.6 42.0 41.3 45.2 46.1 30.1 39.9 45.4 46.8 54.4 54.6 61.3 69.3 68.8 71.5 78.8 76.9 9.3 13.7 20.5 13.9 16.7 24.6 16.7 18.3 26.8 16.5 19.4 26.7 n/a n/a 17.7 n/a n/a 16.3 n/a n/a 15.4 n/a n/a 21.7 * ** At friends houses. At your home. If you drank ALCOHOL (beer, wine, or hard liquor) Grade 8 Grade 12 and not just a sip or taste in the last year, how did you USUALLY get it? (Choose all that apply.) Grade 6 Grade 10 Sample size** I got it from someone I know under age 21 I got it from my brother or sister At a party. At a school dance, a game, or other event. At school during the day. Near school. I got it from home with my parents' permission I bought it myself with a fake ID I bought it myself without a fake ID I got it from someone I know age 21 or older I got it from home without my parents' permission I got it from another relative A stranger bought it for me I took it from a store or shop Other During the last 12 months, how often (if ever) have you used ALCOHOL (beer, wine, or hard liquor) in each of the following places? Grade 6 I got it at a bar or restaurant I got it at a bar or restaurant and At a bar or restaurant are new for 2010 OPNA. Sample size represents the number of youth who obtained alcohol from at least one source. Students indicating they did not drink alcohol in the past year are not included in the sample. In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community. Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 At a park or beach. State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. At a bar or restaurant. Sample size** In a car. 35 Data Tables Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm 49.4 48.6 47.8 47.0 39.2 38.8 38.3 36.6 42.4 43.5 42.6 42.8 44.6 46.3 44.5 47.0 43.6 42.7 44.2 39.0 44.3 47.7 49.9 45.1 42.7 48.7 49.6 49.8 40.8 48.0 48.0 53.9 48.5 48.1 46.1 42.4 44.8 46.7 45.8 39.8 41.6 44.1 43.1 39.7 48.0 49.6 50.5 47.4 49.4 50.9 48.7 45.1 41.6 43.6 41.8 35.5 46.8 47.1 43.3 40.5 49.2 47.1 44.0 42.7 30.9 30.5 28.2 25.4 43.3 44.4 40.9 39.8 30.3 34.5 31.1 29.9 37.7 40.0 37.4 34.8 50.7 51.9 53.7 49.8 43.3 44.5 45.4 42.7 39.3 40.5 40.2 40.3 42.7 41.1 41.2 45.4 43.9 44.7 45.6 43.2 38.8 38.6 38.7 36.8 41.7 42.7 41.1 41.6 37.2 38.1 38.1 38.8 47.0 46.7 49.6 45.9 40.8 43.3 42.1 36.4 41.8 45.2 44.3 41.9 42.2 45.2 46.1 43.9 40.0 40.4 42.7 36.3 50.2 51.5 51.6 46.9 51.1 53.6 52.8 52.3 47.7 51.5 51.5 50.3 16.5 16.6 17.5 15.8 30.8 31.6 30.9 26.0 42.0 44.1 43.3 40.8 44.9 45.0 44.7 38.6 37.6 37.0 36.6 41.3 41.5 43.1 40.7 42.8 41.1 43.4 41.2 45.1 34.9 37.9 37.0 41.8 48.7 51.0 51.1 48.5 47.0 49.5 49.4 44.8 43.0 44.9 44.0 42.4 46.6 47.0 45.5 42.9 41.3 41.5 38.1 38.4 41.3 42.8 39.3 39.0 45.6 46.3 42.6 45.5 43.2 43.8 39.7 43.6 28.7 29.2 31.0 28.1 36.2 37.8 36.3 33.7 37.0 40.4 38.4 37.0 32.5 37.0 38.2 35.4 35.4 35.1 33.8 31.0 43.7 42.9 40.1 34.4 41.7 41.0 38.4 35.9 44.3 43.9 41.7 41.4 45.9 47.8 50.8 43.5 37.0 39.0 41.5 36.2 43.2 45.2 44.2 44.6 38.3 41.0 40.0 41.9 25.0 23.4 24.2 23.1 38.6 38.2 38.8 32.1 45.2 44.8 45.5 43.5 44.1 43.5 44.7 43.1 47.9 48.4 51.5 49.1 40.5 40.7 44.4 37.1 49.1 49.5 52.9 47.8 37.9 40.4 44.5 40.3 41.8 42.4 47.4 45.7 34.6 37.7 36.8 34.5 36.1 37.9 35.7 36.8 30.1 34.9 34.2 33.9 27.4 28.3 29.4 27.4 47.3 47.3 46.9 38.7 44.9 43.9 42.7 41.8 38.1 37.9 37.9 38.1 29.7 29.1 32.2 30.5 35.6 35.8 37.5 32.6 43.5 42.5 43.7 42.7 45.6 43.5 46.4 45.8 42.3 39.9 40.1 37.6 44.0 44.2 42.7 40.4 44.9 44.6 43.0 41.6 37.2 37.3 35.1 37.7 10.0 8.0 7.4 7.8 10.7 10.8 8.7 8.9 7.3 8.7 7.3 7.4 5.2 6.6 6.4 5.5 48.1 49.3 48.6 40.5 31.6 31.3 32.4 26.7 40.6 41.5 41.4 36.2 44.8 45.1 46.6 39.0 50.1 51.3 52.6 n/a 45.9 49.4 49.3 n/a 44.1 49.1 47.7 n/a 43.9 47.9 47.4 n/a * ** Grade 8 Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASB Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain Poor Family Management Family Conflict Perceived Risk of Drug Use Grade 12 Perceived Availability of Drugs Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Laws & Norms Favorable to Drug Use Community Disorganization Grade 10 Risk Factor Grade 6 Rewards for ASB Parental Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use School Domain Interaction with Antisocial Peers Rebelliousness Early Initiation of ASB Early Initiation of Drug Use Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. 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. (6th grade: 7 or more risk factors, 8th grade: 8 or more risk factors, 10th &12th grades: 9 or more risk factors.) Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students at High Risk . Attitudes Favorable to ASB Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Intention to Use Drugs Total Risk Gang Involvement Friend's Use of Drugs Depressive Symptoms 36 Data Tables Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* BH Norm 47.0 46.5 42.9 50.2 56.5 54.5 53.4 60.3 57.8 54.9 56.5 60.6 61.9 58.9 59.2 62.1 44.7 44.4 43.3 46.2 46.6 47.9 45.5 49.2 43.3 44.2 43.3 44.2 44.4 45.4 43.6 44.1 52.2 51.1 50.0 53.0 49.4 48.9 47.7 51.9 53.8 53.1 53.6 54.3 58.7 56.9 56.5 55.4 55.3 55.4 53.2 58.6 58.8 58.4 56.5 60.7 53.0 52.8 53.5 53.1 57.4 55.4 54.1 53.8 51.3 49.7 47.4 52.9 45.4 45.3 43.1 47.7 53.4 51.4 51.1 53.0 57.0 54.7 52.9 52.4 45.3 43.1 44.7 48.5 58.9 57.0 58.7 62.1 60.8 58.4 60.1 64.1 64.2 62.7 64.3 66.1 48.6 47.4 44.6 50.7 49.6 48.1 48.7 57.5 62.6 60.1 61.0 58.9 49.3 47.5 48.7 51.6 54.3 51.8 47.8 50.9 68.3 65.0 63.4 53.5 64.4 59.0 59.9 48.9 57.3 52.3 52.3 44.3 52.5 51.2 48.9 57.9 57.8 56.4 55.6 64.6 49.1 45.9 48.3 52.9 52.2 49.7 50.9 53.8 53.6 51.5 49.8 51.0 59.5 58.4 58.0 59.3 59.0 57.5 58.4 60.4 58.3 55.8 55.3 58.5 56.9 53.6 51.4 52.2 56.8 56.1 54.7 50.7 55.4 54.1 55.7 53.7 58.2 55.3 55.5 54.3 46.4 44.9 43.6 45.7 52.4 52.3 52.2 51.7 59.3 58.0 60.1 59.7 61.1 60.2 62.4 63.4 52.6 51.7 49.8 n/a 46.2 48.5 48.1 n/a 49.4 50.4 52.2 n/a 53.6 53.1 53.2 n/a * ** Grade 6 Grade 12 Peer-Individual Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Protective Factor Grade 8 Community Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Grade 10 Family Attachment Family Domain Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Belief in the Moral Order School Domain Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Interaction with Prosocial Peers Prosocial Involvement Religiosity Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. High Protection youth are defined as the percentage of students who have more than a specified number of protective factors operating in their lives. (6th grade: 4 or more protective factors; 8th, 10th, and 12th grade: 5 or more protective factors) Since not all states use the same scales, the Bach Harrison Norm cannot be calculated for Students with High Protection. Total Protection Students with High Protection** 37 Data Tables Table 11. Drug Free Communities Report Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample drink 1 or two drinks nearly every day Alcohol 63.3 22,205 60.1 20,364 60.3 15,493 60.2 11,016 56.1 32,938 66.1 34,864 smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day Cigarettes 81.4 22,330 84.9 20,457 87.8 15,535 88.5 11,052 83.6 33,075 86.5 35,014 smoke marijuana regularly Marijuana 85.4 21,789 82.3 19,906 75.7 15,245 72.0 10,844 76.8 32,308 83.5 34,232 drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly Alcohol 95.0 19,827 88.8 19,197 83.0 14,864 74.6 10,612 86.5 30,448 87.5 32,890 smoke cigarettes Cigarettes 97.5 19,793 94.5 19,177 90.2 14,845 80.6 10,601 92.0 30,411 92.3 32,849 smoke marijuana Marijuana 98.7 19,636 95.9 19,080 92.9 14,805 90.7 10,575 95.0 30,244 95.5 32,693 drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly Alcohol 92.7 23,142 77.4 20,850 64.2 15,723 57.2 11,224 75.2 34,024 77.5 35,571 smoke cigarettes Cigarettes 94.5 23,134 83.5 20,845 72.2 15,713 60.1 11,229 80.5 34,009 81.3 35,567 smoke marijuana Marijuana 96.6 23,135 86.1 20,858 76.4 15,731 73.0 11,232 84.0 34,030 86.7 35,581 Alcohol 8.8 22,198 21.2 20,379 32.4 15,484 42.9 11,010 24.2 32,945 22.2 34,849 Cigarettes 3.0 21,284 9.6 20,009 17.1 15,287 23.4 10,863 11.8 32,015 11.0 34,186 Marijuana 1.5 22,161 7.0 20,334 13.3 15,448 16.3 10,981 9.1 32,865 7.1 34,789 Average Age of Onset** Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Percent Sample Alcohol 30.0 23,134 50.1 20,849 65.4 15,714 76.0 11,229 51.7 34,044 50.3 35,540 Average age: Cigarettes 15.4 23,182 30.8 20,885 44.1 15,722 55.2 11,237 33.3 34,074 31.6 35,605 Average age: Marijuana 3.2 23,237 14.6 20,902 28.8 15,741 37.9 11,248 19.0 34,125 16.3 35,655 Average age: * ** 11.9 years Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 10.7 years (How old were you when you first ) 11.2 years 10.7 years 12.4 years 11.6 years smoked a cigarette, even just a puff? had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or hard liquor? smoked marijuana? at least one use in the past 30 days Past 30-Day Use* Outcome Perception of Peer Disapproval* (I think it is Wrong or Very Wrong for someone my age to...) Perception of Risk* (People are at Moderate or Great Risk of harming themselves if they...) Perception of Parent Disapproval* (Parents feel it would be Wrong or Very Wrong to... ) Grade 6 13.5 years Definition Substance 14.3 years 12.4 years 13.8 years 14.8 years 13.3 years 12.8 years Male Female 13.8 years 12.3 years 12.9 years 12.5 years 13.8 years 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. Male and female data are only displayed if the number participating meets the cutoff. For Average Age of Onset, the Sample column represents the overall sample size: the total number of people that responded to the questions about Age of Onset. This includes responses that are not used to calculate the average age of onset (i.e., youth that have never used alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana). The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample reporting any age of first use for the specified substance. "Average age" is calculated by averaging the ages of first use of students reporting any use. For Past 30-Day Use, Perception of Risk, and Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval, the Sample column represents the sample size - the number of people who answered the question and whose responses were used to determine the percentage. The "Percent" column represents the percentage of youth in the sample answering the question as specified in the definition. 38 Data Tables Table 12. Additional Data for Prevention Planning - Safety, Violence, and Gangs State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* State 2006 State 2008 State 2010* I feel safe at my school YES! or yes 81.9 81.3 81.2 77.6 75.6 78.2 79.2 75.6 79.5 85.1 80.7 85.0 I feel safe in my neighborhood YES! or yes 75.3 76.9 78.4 79.5 77.9 78.7 82.7 81.3 81.6 86.6 83.4 84.1 What are the chances you would be seen as cool if you defended someone who was being verbally abused at school? No or very little chance 17.1 17.6 17.5 15.8 15.7 15.6 13.3 14.8 14.3 13.2 14.2 13.6 How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to pick a fight with someone? Not wrong at al 5.1 5.1 5.8 8.8 8.7 9.5 7.6 7.7 7.7 5.2 5.7 5.7 How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to attack someone with the idea of seriously hurting them? Not wrong at al 3.0 2.6 3.0 4.3 4.5 4.9 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.5 3.7 3.5 How many times in the past year (12 months) have you attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them? At least one time in the past year 14.8 15.3 16.0 17.3 18.0 16.6 15.1 16.8 14.0 11.1 13.4 12.3 It is all right to beat up people if they start the fight. YES! or yes 40.6 41.2 43.7 54.2 56.4 57.2 55.0 60.6 59.4 51.4 55.3 55.4 How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to pick a fight with someone? Not wrong at al 3.9 3.6 4.1 5.2 5.3 5.1 3.6 4.6 4.8 2.9 3.8 4.0 No 88.2 90.4 91.0 87.1 87.1 89.4 90.7 89.4 90.9 93.1 91.7 91.8 No, but would like to 1.7 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 Yes, in the past 6.7 5.1 4.6 6.6 6.0 5.1 4.4 4.9 4.3 3.1 3.6 3.6 Yes, belong now 2.9 2.4 2.3 3.7 4.2 3.2 2.6 3.5 2.6 1.8 2.7 2.6 Yes, but would like to get out 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 * State represents the aggregate results of all OPNA participants rather than a random sample of students. Verbal and Physical Violence Have you ever belonged to a gang? Grade 6 Grade 12 Gang Involvement Grade 8 Safety Grade 10 39 Regional Prevention Contacts PreventionWorkz APRC 580-234-1046 Serves Alfalfa, Garfield, Grant, Kingfisher, Logan, and Major Counties Red Rock West APRC 580-323-6021 Serves Beckham, Blaine, Caddo, Custer, Dewey, Greer, Kiowa, Roger Mills, and Washita Counties Red Rock West APRC - Satellite Office 405-354-1928 Serves Canadian and Grady Counties ROCMND Area Youth Services APRC 918-256-7518 Serves Craig, Delaware, Mayes, Nowata, Ottawa, Rogers, and Washington Counties ROCMND Area Youth Services APRC - Satellite Office 918-493-6322 Serves Tulsa County Southern Oklahoma Interlocal Cooperative APRC 580-286-3344 Serves Choctaw, Leflore, McCurtain, and Pushmataha Counties Wichita Mountains Prevention Network - Ardmore APRC 580-490-9021 Serves Bryan, Carter, Garvin, Johnston, Love, Marshall, Murray, and Pontotoc Counties Wichita Mountains Prevention Network - Lawton APRC 580-355-5246 Serves Comanche, Cotton, Harmon, Jackson, Jefferson, Stephens, and Tillman Counties Regional Prevention Contacts Deep Fork Community Action Foundation 918-689-3132 Serves Hughes, McIntosh, and Muskogee Counties Eagle Ridge Institute APRC 405-840-1359 Serves Oklahoma County Gateway to Prevention and Recovery APRC 405-275-3391 Serves Lincoln, Okfuskee, Pottawatomie, and Seminole Counties NAIC Center for Alcohol & Drug Services APRC 405-321-0022 Serves Cleveland and McClain Counties Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 405-522-6791 Serves Adair, Cherokee, Sequoyah, and Wagoner Counties Northwest Center for Behavioral Health APRC 580-571-3240 Serves Beaver, Cimarron, Ellis, Harper, Texas, Woods, and Woodward Counties Kibois / The Oaks Rehabilitative Services APRC 918-421-3500 Serves Atoka, Coal, Haskell, Latimer, and Pittsburg Counties OSU Seretean Wellness Center, PaNOK APRC 405-624-2220 Serves Kay, Noble, Osage, Payne, and Pawnee Counties OSU Seretean Wellness Center, Tri-County APRC 918-756-1248 Serves Creek and Okmulgee Counties Contacts for Prevention 40 National Contacts and Resources Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) www.prevention.samhsa.gov Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Prevention Platform www.preventionplatform.samhsa.gov Social Development Research Group University of Washington www.sdrg.org National Clearinghouse for Alcohol & Drug Information www.ncadi.samhsa.gov This Report was Prepared for the State of Oklahoma by Bach Harrison, L.L.C. 116 South 500 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com For more information about this report or the information it contains, please contact the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Services: 405-522-3619 This publication was produced by the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services and intended for electronic distribution only. There are no associated printing costs. Electronic copies are available upon request through the ODMHSAS Prevention Resource Center. The Resource Center is accessible through the ODMHSAS web site at www.odmhsas.org. An electronic copy has also been provided to the Oklahoma Department of Libraries, Publication s Clearinghouse. 1/2011. State Contacts Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 405-522-3619 www.odmhsas.org Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 2Much2Lose (2M2L)/Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) 405-522-2700 Oklahoma Prevention Resource Center 405-522-3810 www.odmhsas.org/resourcecenter Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth 405-606-4900 Oklahoma Department of Education 405-521-2107 Oklahoma Department of Health, Tobacco Use Prevention 405-271-3619 Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy 405-236-5437 Oklahoma Turning Point Initiative 405-271-6127 Students Working Against Tobacco (SWAT) 405-271-3619 Contacts for Prevention |
| Date created | 2011-07-27 |
| Date modified | 2013-01-11 |
| OCLC number | 815521178 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| A |
|
| C |
|
| D |
|
| F |
|
| I |
|
| L |
|
| O |
|
| R |
|
| S |
|
| T |
|
|
|