Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey Liberty County Report

Transcription

1 Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey Sponsored by The Department of Children and Families Substance Abuse Program Office in conjunction with Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.

2 Table of Contents The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey...1 The Participating Youth...2 Survey Norms and Comparative Data...3 Confidence Intervals...4 The Validity of the Survey Data...4 Demographics...5 Use of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Inhalants...6 Analysis by Sex...9 Analysis by Race/Ethnicity...10 Use of Illicit Drugs...10 Prevalence of Antisocial Behavior...12 Analysis by Sex...12 Risk and Protective Factor Profile...13 Risk and Protective Factor Scale Scores...14 Understanding the Graphs...14 State of Florida Risk and Protective Factor Profile...15 Liberty County Risk and Protective Factor Profile...17 Implications...18 Appendix A: Florida Youth Survey 2000 Sampling Methodology...20 Appendix B: Risk and Protective Factors and Selected Associated Survey Items...22 Appendix C: Confidence Interval Calculation...25 Appendix D: References...27

3 List of Tables and Graphs Table 1. Major demographic characteristics of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth Table 2a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by grade cohorts...30 Table 2b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by age cohorts...31 Table 2c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by sex Table 3a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in the past 30-days, by grade cohorts Table 3b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in the past 30-days, by age cohorts...34 Table 3c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in the past 30-days, by sex Table 4a. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth, by grade cohorts...36 Table 4b. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth, by age cohorts...37 Table 4c. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth, by sex...38 Table 5a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months, by grade cohorts Table 5b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months, by age cohorts Table 5c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months, by sex Table 6a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being "cool," and harm, by grade cohorts...42 Table 6b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being "cool," and harm, by age cohorts...43 Table 6c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Liberty County (n=226) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being "cool," and harm, by sex Table 7. Protective factor information for Florida (N=62,146), Liberty County (n=226), and counties like Liberty County across the Community, Family, School and Individual-Peer Domains Table 8. Risk factor information for Florida (N=62,146), Liberty County (n=226), and counties like Liberty County across the Community, Family, School and Individual- Peer Domains...46

4 Table 9. Behavioral outcomes indices for Florida (N=62,146), Liberty County (n=226), and counties like Liberty County...47 Graph 1. Protective factor scores for Liberty County (n=226) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages Graph 2a. Risk factor scores for Liberty County (n=226) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages: Community, School and Family Domains...49 Graph 2b. Risk factors scores for Liberty County (n=226) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages in the Individual-Peer Domain, and, behavioral outcomes indices...50

5 1 Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey 2000 The Florida Youth Survey effort was a collaboration among Florida departments of Health, Education, Children and Families, and Juvenile Justice, and the Florida Office of Drug Control. The Department of Children and Families contracted with Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., to conduct the survey. This report is one in a series of reports that describes the administration, state-level findings, and county-level findings from the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey 2000 (FYSAS). As part of the Florida Youth Survey 2000 effort, the FYSAS was administered to select Florida youth jointly with the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey between December 1999 and February (Details of the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey can be obtained from the Florida Department of Health's Bureau of Epidemiology at (850) ) The Florida Youth Survey effort was a collaboration among Florida departments of Health, Education, Children and Families, and Juvenile Justice, and the Florida Office of Drug Control. The Department of Children and Families contracted with Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., to conduct the survey. A report on state-level findings has been produced and is available online at under "Publications & Reports." Findings specific to Liberty County are provided in this report following discussion of the survey administration and methodology. Every attempt was made to achieve a statistically valid sample of the 6th to 12th grade student population in Liberty County. The minimum criteria for a sample to be considered valid are: (1) at least 50 valid surveys returned from respondents in each grade 6 th to 12 th, and (2) participation rates of at least 50%. That is, there is a requirement for the minimum number of cases for an acceptable sample, and a minimum proportion of the selected sample must have participated in the data collection process. While Liberty County did meet both of these criteria, it should be noted that the confidence intervals are relatively larger than is normally tolerable. Consequently, the data reported here should be considered carefully in terms of its generalizability to Liberty County as a whole. The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey (FYSAS) was based on the Communities That Care (CTC) Youth Survey, developed by Developmental Research & Programs, Inc. The CTC

6 2 The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey (FYSAS) provides scientifically sound information to communities on the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and risk and protective factors among youth. Appendix B provides a complete list of the risk and protective factors, the corresponding risk-factor and protective-factor scales in the survey, and selected survey items associated with the factors. Five hundred eighty schools in 64 counties participated in the survey. A total of 65,246 surveys were processed. Youth Survey provides scientifically sound information to communities on the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and risk and protective factors among youth. This information is essential to support effective substance abuse needs-assessment and service planning, and to measure performance outcomes at local and state levels. Risk and protective factors are characteristics of the community, school, and family environments, and individual and peer characteristics of the youth themselves that are known to predict alcohol and other drug use, delinquency, and gang involvement among youth (Hawkins, Catalano and Miller, 1992). Besides measuring risk and protective factors, the CTC Youth Survey also assesses the current prevalence of these problem behaviors in the community. There are eighteen risk factors and ten protective factors measured by the CTC Youth Survey. Some of the risk factors are broad enough that they require two separate scales for adequate measurement. As a result, 24 separate risk-factor scales are used. Appendix B provides a complete list of the risk and protective factors, the corresponding riskfactor and protective-factor scales in the survey, and selected survey items associated with the factors. The CTC Youth Survey was developed from normative data collected between 1994 and 1997 from over 72,000 6 th through 12 th grade students participating in statewide surveys in Kansas, Maine, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington. An average of four survey items is used to measure each risk and protective factor scale. Reliability for the constructs was good. The average value for Cronbach's was alpha =.79. The survey, its uses, and its ongoing development, were described in two recently published articles that provide a complete report on the survey's development and its psychometric properties (Pollard, Catalano, Hawkins, & Arthur, 1998; Pollard & Lofquist, 1998). The Participating Youth The Florida Youth Survey 2000 used a two-stage cluster sample design to obtain a representative sample of youth in public middle and high schools. The sampling frame for this survey consisted of all public schools with grades 6 through 12 in any combination, and was built on the sampling frame used by the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey. The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey and the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey were simultaneously administered as part of the Florida Youth Survey 2000 effort. Because counties in Florida vary so widely in size, sample selection methodology varied. Five hundred

7 3 The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey State Report contains extensive details of both survey findings and administration. Find the report online at under Publications & Reports. Comparisons for prevalence information come directly from the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey State Report. Comparison data for risk and protective factors are drawn from the CTC Six-State Study. The Six-State Study was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, during the years eighty schools in 64 counties participated in the survey. A total of 65,246 surveys were processed. All data reported herein are based on analyses of a valid sub-set of these cases. The validation procedures are described below. For state-level estimates, cases were weighted by county and grade so as to reflect the population distribution in Florida. In the analyses, some cases were weighted more heavily, and some less heavily, so that overall statewide estimates were less biased by the response rate, and population size, within a given county. For county-level estimates, cases were weighted by grade, unless otherwise indicated. Three counties that did participate in the survey administration are excluded from all statewide estimates; however, all counties that participated in the survey will be provided with county-level reports. In Baker, Franklin, and Glade counties, an insufficient number of surveys were available to make accurate and stable weighted-estimates for inclusion in the state-level report. Thus, the total number of surveys from these counties did not reach the criteria for inclusion in the statewide sample. Consequently, 61 counties are represented in all of the statewide estimates presented herein. The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey State Report contains extensive details of both survey findings and administration. Find the report online at under "Publications & Reports." Survey Norms and Comparative Data Comparison data and survey norms for assessing the relative meaning of the youth survey at the county level came from the statelevel findings and an additional national survey of adolescent behavior. Comparisons for prevalence information came directly from the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey State Report. Comparison data for risk and protective factors were drawn from the CTC Six- State Study. The Six-State Study was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, during the years This project supported the development of a student survey instrument measuring substance abuse prevalence as well as risk and protective factors predictive of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, delinquency, gang involvement, and other problem behaviors in adolescents. School survey data were collected in five states: Kansas, Maine, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington. One other state, Utah, participated in the CTC project, but school survey data were not collected in Utah. Normative data on risk and protective factor prevalence are drawn from the CTC Six- State Study.

8 4 Confidence intervals provide a range of values within which the "true" population value can be found. A primer on confidence intervals, their calculation and interpretation, is presented in Appendix C. For Liberty County, the maximum 95% confidence interval estimate is ±9.7 for prevalence rates approximating 50% (such as alcohol or tobacco) while the maximum 95% confidence interval estimate is ±2.2 for prevalence rates less than 5% (such as cocaine or heroin). Confidence Intervals Confidence intervals provide a range of values within which the "true" population value can be found. A primer on confidence intervals, their calculation and interpretation, is presented in Appendix C. While confidence intervals are not provided for every estimate contained in this report, we do provide information that, along with the method described in Appendix C, would allow the reader to calculate an approximate confidence interval for each estimate. Note that the confidence intervals calculated for the sample estimates at the state level were less than 1.0, indicating that the sample estimates are very close to the "true" population values. The high precision of the sample estimates is due to the following methodological conditions: (a) the final sample size of the survey effort, (b) survey interleaving as described in Appendix A, (c) occurrence of censuses in selected counties, and (d) the required levels of estimates, i.e., confidence intervals of less than 1.0. Based on these conditions, the state-level sample estimates have enough precision for use in policy-level decision making. For Liberty County, the maximum 95% confidence interval estimate is ±9.7 for prevalence rates approximating 50% (such as alcohol or tobacco) while the maximum 95% confidence interval estimate is ±2.2 for prevalence rates less than 5% (such as cocaine or heroin). Note that in Liberty County, the confidence intervals are larger than is normally tolerable. Consequently, the data reported here should be considered carefully in terms of its generalizability to Liberty County as a whole The Validity of the Survey Data Three separate strategies were used to assess the validity of the youth self-report survey data. Two eliminated the data of surveyed youth who appeared to exaggerate their substance use. In the first strategy, surveyed youth who reported the extreme levels of use for every illicit drug (except marijuana) were eliminated from the survey data set. In the second strategy, surveyed youth were asked whether they ever used a fictitious drug, "Derbisol," in their lifetime and in the past 30 days, as well as how old the surveyed youth were when they first, if ever, used Derbisol. If the surveyed youth reported the use of Derbisol on two of these three questions, his or her survey was eliminated The third strategy identified surveyed youth who repeatedly reported logically inconsistent patterns of substance use. If, for example, a surveyed youth reported 10 uses of alcohol in the past 30

9 5 In the statewide analysis, good cooperation was obtained from Florida youth selected for participation. A total of 62,146 youth (95.2% of 65,246) completed valid survey forms. For Liberty County, average cooperation was obtained. A total of 17 (7.0%) of 243 completed surveys were rejected. Throughout this report, results are presented individually by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort. days, but no use in their lifetime, that logical inconsistency was noted and assessed for the following conditions: (a) they were inconsistent on two out of four of the following substances: alcohol, cigarettes, chewing tobacco and marijuana; or (b) they were inconsistent on five or more of the nine remaining illicit substances. This approach did not eliminate surveyed youth who make occasional clerical mistakes. These three strategies have been shown to consistently identify most surveys that were completed in a random fashion, those that were not taken seriously, and/or those that are not valid for other reasons. In the statewide analysis, good cooperation was obtained from Florida youth selected for participation. A total of 62,146 youth (95.2% of 65,246) completed valid survey forms. This level of cooperation is typical of most survey efforts based on the CTC Youth Survey. Over three thousand youth (3,100, or 4.8%) were identified by one or more of the three strategies described above as providing invalid survey results and were excluded from further analysis. Of the surveyed youth eliminated, 1,280 exaggerated illicit drug use (strategy 1), 2,229 reported the use of Derbisol (strategy 2), and 2,076 were identified because of logical inconsistencies in their answers (strategy 3). The three strategies' elimination totals sum to more than 3,100 because many of these youth were identified by more than one strategy. For Liberty County, average cooperation was obtained. A total of 17 (7.0%) 243 completed surveys were identified by one or more of the three strategies described above as not being valid. This level of cooperation is typical of most county-level survey efforts based on the CTC Youth Survey. Those responses identified as not valid were excluded from all further analysis. Of the eliminated surveys, 4 (1.6%) exaggerated illicit drug use (strategy 1), 12 (4.9%) reported the use of Derbisol (strategy 2), and 14 (5.8%) were excluded because of logical inconsistencies in their answers (strategy 3). Again, the three strategies sum to more than 17 because many surveys were identified by more than one strategy. Demographics The demographics of the state and county student populations, as estimated from the survey results, are presented in Table 1. Throughout this report, results are presented individually by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort. That is, grade-level results are aggregates for "Overall Middle School" and "Overall High School," and are sub-

10 6 For the state-level findings, the highest proportion of students were self-identified as White, non-hispanic (49.5%), or African-American (19.2%). Almost 17% identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino. As shown on Table 1, 80.5% of youth surveyed in Liberty County are White non- Hispanic, 14.1% are African American, and 0.5% are Hispanic/Latino. Lifetime prevalence is defined as any occurrence of use throughout the life of the respondent. Thirty-day prevalence is defined as any occurrence of use in the past 30 days. totals for grades 6-8 and 9-12, respectively. Similarly, age cohort are aggregated: ages and form the two groups. For both the state-level survey and Liberty County's survey, a higher proportion of respondents were female. In Liberty County the proportion of female respondents was higher than the state. The distribution of age and grade are consistent, with an increasingly smaller percentage of older students and students in later grades. This can be attributed to dropout rates as well as to the larger percentage of students in later grades with irregular attendance (e.g., split work/school schedule). Note that although some surveyed youth report their age as 10 or 19, proportions of these youth are markedly smaller relative to the other age groups. That is, at the state level, only 0.2% (n=108) of surveyed youth reported being 10 years old. Accurate and stable estimates are not possible with such relatively small numbers of surveyed youth. Consequently, the reported age cohorts are not truly representative of their intended cohort. There are too few 10 year olds in the 10 to 14 year-old category. This cohort was defined this way in an effort to correspond to other data collected by the State of Florida. Table 1 also shows the percentage estimates of the ethnic breakdown of Florida and Liberty County's surveyed population. For the state-level findings, the highest proportion of students were selfidentified as White, non-hispanic (49.5%), or African American (19.2%). Almost 17% identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino. Note that approximately 11% of surveyed youth were classified as "Other." This may include youth of Hispanic/Latino descent who identify as Latino/White or Latino/Black, or it may include other ethnic groups such as Haitians. The findings for Liberty County show an ethnic distribution that is slightly different from the state. For Liberty County, White non- Hispanic students represent a large majority, 80.5%, of the surveyed population, followed by 14.1% African Americans. In Liberty County no other ethnic group makes up more than 10% of the surveyed population. Use of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Inhalants Results for drug usage rates are presented for two prevalence periods: lifetime and past 30 days. Lifetime prevalence is defined as any occurrence of use throughout the life of the respondent. Thirty-day prevalence is defined as any occurrence of use in the past 30 days. For any drug, the lifetime prevalence rate is the best measure of

11 7 Almost one-third (31.0%) of Florida's youth have used alcohol in the past 30 days while, in Liberty County, a lower rate (22.3%) was found. experimentation while 30-day prevalence rate is a good measure of current use. As is typical for almost all adolescent populations, alcohol is the most widely used substance (see Tables 2a-2c and 3a-3c). Just over half (52.6%) of Florida's youth have used alcohol in their lifetimes. For Florida, the lifetime prevalence rate for alcohol ranges from 38.6% in middle school to 68.9% in high school. Overall, the lifetime prevalence rates of alcohol use in Liberty County appear lower than the state rates. In Liberty County, 34.7% of middle school students and 53.4% of high school students reported having used alcohol in their lifetimes. Overall, 43.7% of students in Liberty County reported alcohol use in their lifetimes. Current alcohol use was also assessed (Tables 3a to 3c). Almost one-third (31.0%) of Florida's youth have used alcohol in the past 30 days while, in Liberty County, a lower rate (22.3%) was found. This difference was consistent for both middle school and high school students. Compared to the state, fewer students in Liberty County have used alcohol in the past 30-days. Finally, results from survey questions related to binge drinking (defined as consumption of five or more drinks in one sitting within the past two weeks) show that in Florida, 8.8% of middle school students and 23.3% of high school students have binged in the last two weeks. Again, in Liberty County, these rates were similar to, or lower than state rates (see Table 3a). Regardless of the comparison to the state, the finding that 21.2% of Liberty County high school students have consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, in the last two weeks, should be given due attention. Tobacco (cigarettes and chewing tobacco) is usually the next most commonly used substance among adolescents on the national level; this is true in Florida and Liberty County as well (see Tables 2a-2c and 3a-3c). Overall, 39.7% of the Florida youth have used cigarettes sometime in their lifetimes and 15.3% reported using cigarettes in the past 30 days; these state figures are slightly lower than Liberty County's, where the lifetime prevalence of cigarette use is 42.5% and 30-day use is 16.5%. Note that both lifetime and 30-day cigarette use among Florida's surveyed youth is lower than the national rates reported by Monitoring the Future (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 2000). When examined by grade cohort the Florida, lifetime prevalence of cigarette use for surveyed youth ranges from 28.9% in middle school to 52.3% in high school. For middle school students, Liberty County's cigarette use rates are higher than the rates for

12 8 While the Florida rates for 30- day use of cigarettes range from 9.8% in middle school to 21.7% in high school, Liberty County's rate for middle school students was higher (12.6%). For Florida, thirty-day use of marijuana is 11.2% across all grades with 5.1% of middle school students and 18.3% of high school students indicating past 30-day use. In Liberty County rates are similar to the state s (6.4% and 12.7% for middle school and high school students, respectively). Florida; 36.2% of Liberty County's middle school students have reported having smoked a cigarette in their lifetimes, compared to 28.9% of middle school students at the state level. Similarly, while the Florida rate for 30-day use of cigarettes for middle school students is 9.8%, Liberty County's rate is 12.6% for middle school students. Liberty County's high school rates are more comparable to Florida's. For both the state of Florida and Liberty County, there was relatively low use of smokeless tobacco compared to cigarette use (Tables 2a-2c and 3a-3c). This is often true of middle and high school populations. However, Liberty County's students did report higher rates of smokeless tobacco use compared to Florida's rates of use (24.4% versus 12.0%). Nationally, marijuana use has been rising, or remaining stable, over the last five years for middle and high school students (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 2000). In their lifetimes, about 22.3% of Florida's youth have used marijuana, with use ranging from 10.0% in middle school to 36.6% in high school (see Table 2a). The prevalence rates for marijuana use for Liberty County fall below the state rates for high school, where 22.2% of Liberty County high school students indicated that they have used marijuana in their lifetimes. A similar difference between Florida and Liberty County can be seen in the lifetime marijuana rates for middle schools students. While 10% of Florida middle school students reported use of marijuana in their lifetimes, the rate is 8.4% in Liberty County. For Florida, 30-day use of marijuana is 11.2% across all grades with 5.1% of middle school students and 18.3% of high school students indicating past 30-day use. Across grade cohorts in Liberty County, rates are similar to the state's (6.4% and 12.7% for middle school and high school students, respectively). Overall, for Florida, lifetime and the past 30-day use of marijuana is lower than use reported in the Monitoring the Future study. While many of Florida's youth are currently using marijuana (11.2% overall), the rate is lower than would be expected based on national trends. This is also true for Liberty County. As Table 2a illustrates, lifetime prevalence of inhalant use peaks slightly in the middle school years for surveyed youth in Florida. This is a common pattern for inhalant use, which typically increases rapidly through middle school and then declines in high school. Results for Liberty County reveal an opposite pattern where inhalant use is higher in the high school years. Florida's rate is higher than Liberty County's for reported lifetime use of inhalants. However, comparing Florida and Liberty County in 30-day prevalence rates for inhalant use reveals few differences.

13 9 In Liberty County, 10.2% of middle school students and 21.2% of high school students reported an alcohol binge in the past two weeks. Males were slightly more likely than females (17.4% versus 14.0% in Florida, and 16.9% versus 15.0% in Liberty County) to have engaged in binge drinking (i.e., had five or more drinks in one sitting in the last two weeks). Rates of the most commonly used substances in Liberty County-- alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and inhalants--are at levels that reflect, or slightly differ from, the current trends found at the statewide level. Florida and Liberty County share a serious youth alcohol abuse problem with the rest of the nation. It is by far the most frequently abused substance sampled. By the 6 th grade, 11.7% of Florida's youth reported past month use, increasing to over half (51.2%) of 12 th grade youth (DCF, 2000). In Liberty County, 10.2% of middle school students and 21.2% of high school students reported an alcohol binge in the past two weeks. Also notable is the finding that Liberty County's middle school students reported rates of current marijuana use higher than middle school students in the state (6.4% versus 5.1%). These findings highlight the need to target prevention of underage alcohol use to elementary school youth as well as to middle and high school youth. Analysis by Sex Findings for all drugs are also broken down by sex. For both Florida and Liberty County, few differences between males and females in alcohol involvement are apparent (Tables 2b and 3b). Males were slightly more likely than females (17.4% versus 14.0% in Florida, and 16.9% versus 15.0% in Liberty County) to have engaged in binge drinking (i.e., had five or more drinks in one sitting in the last two weeks). This difference was smaller in Liberty County than in the state of Florida overall. Rates of cigarette use are consistent for males and females at the state level, however, among Liberty County students, significantly more females reported lifetime and current cigarette use than males. Lifetime use of smokeless tobacco, however, was indicated by 18.1% of males and only 6.5% of females at the state-level and by 40% of males and 11% of females in Liberty County. Additionally, males reported more current use of smokeless tobacco at state (7.3% versus 2.4%) and county (18.8% versus 2.5%) levels (see Table 3b). A larger proportion of males than females had tried marijuana in their lifetimes at the state level (24.6% versus 20.2%), whereas at the county level, more females than males had tried marijuana (17.0% versus 12.3%) (see Table 2b). A more consistent pattern can be seen in the 30-day prevalence rate for marijuana. In Florida, 13.0% of males and 9.6% of females indicated use in the past 30-days. In Liberty County, 11.1% of males and 8.5% of females reported past 30-day use of marijuana.

14 10 At the state level, the lifetime prevalence rate for alcohol use among African American youth is 39.5%, while for White, non- Hispanic youth it is 58.7% (DCF, 2000). Those data are consistent with national trends that show that African American youth are among the least involved with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (Johnston, O'Malley & Bachman, 2000). The any illicit drug rate is the prevalence rate for any use of any drug except alcohol and tobacco. Another category provided on Tables 2a-3c, any illicit drug except marijuana, does not exclude marijuana users; rather, marijuana is simply not considered when calculating these prevalence rates. In terms of lifetime and 30-day use of inhalants, males and females in the sample reported involvement at approximately the same rate (see Tables 2b and 3b). Analysis by Race/Ethnicity County-level analysis of the data, by ethnicity, is not possible because the sample sizes are low and further aggregation makes the results less valuable. However, it is important to note that compared to any of the other national ethnic groups, African-American youth have lower lifetime and past 30-day use for all substances sampled. At the state level, the lifetime prevalence rate for alcohol use among African- American youth is 39.5%, while for White, non-hispanic youth it is 58.7% (DCF, 2000). Those data are consistent with national trends that show that African-American youth are among the least involved with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (Johnston, O'Malley & Bachman, 2000). As a result, it is important to consider the ethnic distribution whenever drug usage trends are examined; given Liberty County's demographics, rates that are lower than, or similar to, the state's are not surprising. Use of Illicit Drugs Tables 2a-2c and 3a-3c also show the percentage of Florida youth reporting the use of illicit drugs other than marijuana and inhalants (hallucinogens, methamphetamines, cocaine, crack cocaine, steroids, heroin, other narcotics, depressants), by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort, respectively. Given that use rates of specific drugs in this category are low, it is useful to consider them in aggregate. Lower levels of use for specific illicit drugs (10% or less) are typical of adolescent populations. Also, the use of illicit drugs (other than inhalants) tends to be concentrated in the upper grade levels. While the use rates of these drugs are low, it is critical to note that any use of these extremely dangerous drugs should be taken into consideration in planning and developing prevention and treatment programs. Tables 2a-3c include prevalence rates listed for four distinct drug groupings. The any illicit drug rate is the prevalence rate for any use of any drug except alcohol and tobacco. Thus, if a student reports use of any one of these substances--regardless of use of any of the other drugs--he or she would be classified as having used any illicit drug. Another category provided on Tables 2a-3c, any illicit drug except than marijuana, does not exclude marijuana users; rather, marijuana is simply not considered when calculating the prevalence rates. This

15 11 The alcohol only rate is the prevalence of the use of alcohol without the use of any other drug. Finally, the alcohol or any illicit drug rate is an indication of the use of any drug or alcohol. Overall, 30.2% of Florida youth reported the use of at least one illicit drug in their lifetime. Liberty County students reported more use of these substances. As much as 19.1% of students (13.9% of middle school students and 24.6% of high school students) indicated lifetime use of an illicit substance. In Liberty County, while 13.4% of surveyed youth reported past 30-day use of any illicit drug (see Table 3a), that rate more than doubles to 27.1% for surveyed youth who report past 30-day use of alcohol or any illicit drug. rate is similar to any illicit drug, except marijuana is excluded from the calculation. Thus, these rates represent the use of specific illicit drugs over and above the use of marijuana. Consequently, rates are much lower. The difference in these two rates reflects the percentage of students who use marijuana exclusively. The alcohol only rate is the prevalence of the use of alcohol without the use of any other drug. Finally, the alcohol or any illicit drug rate is an indication of the use of any drug or alcohol. As with previous data, usage is reported for two time periods: lifetime (see Tables 2a-2c) and in the past 30 days (see Tables 3a-3c) and grouped by grade cohort, sex and age cohort. A variety of important findings are seen in the aggregate drug rates. The percentage of surveyed youth in Florida reporting the lifetime use of any illicit drug (the rate that includes marijuana) rises from 20.6% in middle school to 41.5% in high school. Overall, 30.2% of Florida youth reported the use of at least one illicit drug in their lifetimes. For Liberty County, these rates are lower: 19.1% of students (13.9% of middle school students and 24.6% of high school students) indicated lifetime use of any illicit drug. In Florida, 8.9% of students have used any illicit drug except marijuana in the last 30 days: 7.7% of middle school students and 10.4% of high school students (see Table 3a). In Liberty County, the rates are 6.1% and 5.9%, for middle school and high school students, respectively, and 6.0% of all students. Thus, 5.9% of Liberty County's high school students have used inhalants, hashish, LSD, methamphetamines, cocaine, crack cocaine, steroids, heroin, other narcotics or barbiturates in the last 30 days. Including marijuana use in this drug grouping brings the aggregate use rate up to 15.2% for high school students (see Table 3a) in Liberty County. Tables 2a-2c also show the lifetime and current use prevalence of alcohol only, and alcohol or any illicit drug use. These rates are categorized by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort. Just over 14.2% of all youth surveyed in Florida reported using only alcohol--no other drugs--in the past 30 days. A lower percentage (6.7%) of Liberty County youth reported using alcohol only in the past 30 days. Alcohol or any illicit drug use is defined by assessing whether surveyed youth reported alcohol use and/or use of any one of the other drugs (e.g., marijuana, inhalants). In Liberty County, while 13.4% of surveyed youth reported past 30-day use of any illicit drug (see Table 3a), that rate more than doubles to 27.1% for surveyed youth who reported past 30-day use of alcohol or any illicit drug.

16 12 In Florida, 15.3% reported having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, 14.7% reported being Suspended from School and 12.2% reported having been Drunk or High at School. These same three rates were also high in Liberty County where 11.6% of students reported having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, 11.6% reported being Suspended from School and 8.3% reported having been Drunk or High at School. Regardless of its underlying definition, the fact that around 15% of Florida's youth--across grade levels-- indicate that they have attacked another person with intent to harm in the past 12 months is an important finding. In Liberty County the rate of having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm was only slightly higher in high school (11.9%) than in middle school (11.2%). Prevalence of Antisocial Behavior Eight antisocial behaviors were assessed with the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey. Information on antisocial behavior is only collected for one prevalence period, the past 12 months. See Tables 5a to 5c for specific findings by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort. It is important to note that across the state, youth consistently reported that they have Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, have been Suspended from School, or have been Drunk or High at School in the last 12 months as their most common Antisocial Behaviors. In Florida, 15.3% reported having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, 14.7% reported being Suspended from School and 12.2% reported having been Drunk or High at School. These same three rates were also high in Liberty County as well, where 11.6% of students reported having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, 11.6% reported being Suspended from School and 8.3% reported having been Drunk or High at School. It should be noted that school suspension rates are difficult to interpret because school suspension policies vary substantially from district to district, so these rates should be viewed with caution. However, the other two problem behaviors are legitimate targets for prevention and intervention efforts given their relatively high rates. The 12-month prevalence of a variety of delinquent behaviors increases with grade and, consequently, age. In Liberty County, adolescents who reported being Drunk or High at School is higher in high school (10.9%) than middle school (5.1%) (Table 5a for rates by grade cohorts). One of the delinquent behaviors that seems unrelated to age is Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm. This prevalence rate is stable across age and grade cohorts. However, it should be noted that the underlying definition of this behavior may change over time. What it means for a middle school student to attack another student with intent to harm is probably qualitatively different from what it means to a high school student. Regardless of its underlying definition, the fact that around 15% of Florida's youth--across grade levels--indicate that they have attacked another person with intent to harm in the past 12 months is an important finding (see table 5a). In Liberty County the rate of having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm is only slightly higher in high school (11.9%) than in middle school (11.2%). Analysis by Sex There are substantial differences between the sexes among these delinquent behaviors. In fact, males were more likely to indicate that

17 13 they had committed all eight anti-social behaviors. These results are not surprising. The literature on delinquency indicates that males are more involved in delinquent behavior than are females (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1995). This difference was particularly pronounced for Carrying a Gun in the Neighborhood, Selling Illegal Drugs, and being Arrested. In each case, for both the state of Florida and Liberty County, more than twice as many males as females reported these behaviors (see Table 5b). Risk factors are characteristics that are known to increase the likelihood that a youth will engage in one or more problem behaviors. For example, a risk factor in the community environment is the existence of Laws and Norms Favorable to Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use. Protective factors are characteristics in the youth's community, school, family, and individual environments that are known to decrease the likelihood that a youth will engage in problem behaviors. For example, strong positive attachment or bonding to parents reduces the risk of an adolescent engaging in problem behaviors. Risk and Protective Factor Profile Research during the past 30 years supports the view that alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, delinquency, school achievement, and other important outcomes in adolescence, are associated with specific aspects of the youth's community, school, family environments, and individual characteristics. For our purpose, these characteristics are called risk or protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics that are known to increase the likelihood that a youth will engage in one or more problem behaviors. For example, a risk factor in the community environment is the existence of Laws and Norms that are Favorable to Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use. In those communities where there is acceptance or tolerance of drug use, youth are more likely to engage in alcohol, tobacco and other drug use. Protective factors are characteristics in the youth's community, school, family, and individual environments that are known to decrease the likelihood that a youth will engage in problem behaviors. For example, strong positive attachment or bonding to parents reduces the risk of an adolescent engaging in problem behaviors. The analysis of risk and protective factors is the most powerful paradigm available for understanding the genesis of both positive and negative adolescent behavioral outcomes. This analysis can then lead to the successful design of adolescent prevention programs (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992). A substantial amount of research shows that exposure of adolescents to a greater number of risk factors is associated with more substance use and delinquency. Research also shows that exposure to a number of protective factors is associated with lower prevalence of these problem behaviors (Bry, McKeon, & Pandina, 1982; Newcomb, Maddahian, & Skager, 1987; Newcomb & Felix-Ortiz, 1992; Newcomb, 1995; Pollard, et al., 1998; Pollard & Lofquist, 1998).

18 14 Risk-factor and protectivefactor scales are measured on a scale. A score of 50 represents the national average based on the CTC Six-State Study. Appendix B provides a complete list of the risk and protective factors, the corresponding risk and protective factor scales in the survey, and selected survey items associated with the factors. Graphs 1, 2a, and 2b represent the risk and protective data graphically. These complex graphs are designed to convey multiple comparison groups for each risk-factor and protectivefactor score that is estimated from the Liberty County data. The aggregate levels of risk and protective factors in an adolescent population determine the level of current and future negative and positive behaviors. However, it is specific risk or protective factors that are the targets for prevention programming. That is, the most effective prevention programs identify what risk factors are elevated in the student population, what protective factors are suppressed, and then implement prevention programming that specifically targets the identified risk or protective factors. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Scores To support this process, a risk-factor and protective-factor "profile" was developed for Florida surveyed youth by calculating the average value of each of the risk and protective factor scales. Tables 7, 8, and 9, and Graphs 1, 2a and 2b show the results for all risk and protective factor scale scores for Florida and Liberty County. In each case, risk-factor and protective-factor scales are measured on a scale. A score of 50 represents the national average based on the CTC Six-State Study. This data base is currently the best available data for adolescents in the United States. Scores above 50 indicate that youth (either youth in Florida or Liberty County) are, on average, elevated in the specific risk or protective factors when compared to norms established in the CTC Six-State Study. Scores below 50 indicate that Florida youth are, on average, lower than the norms established in the CTC Six-State Study for specific risk or protective factors. Ideally, because of their relationship with current and future behavioral outcomes, all risk factors would be below the CTC Six-State Study average, and all protective factors would be above the CTC Six-State Study average. Appendix B provides a complete list of the risk and protective factors, the corresponding risk-factor and protective-factor scales in the survey, and selected survey items associated with the factors. Understanding the Graphs Graphs 1, 2a and 2b represent the risk and protective data graphically. These complex graphs are designed to convey multiple comparison groups for each risk-factor and protective-factor score that is estimated from the Liberty County data. Comparisons are critical to the understanding of risk-factor and protective-factor data as the scale scores alone contain little intrinsic meaning. This is true of many psychosocial measures. An intelligence score (IQ), for instance, has little meaning without the knowledge that "average intelligence" is represented by a score of 100. Comparison points for risk-factor and protective-factor information are much the same. Many comparison

19 15 Five aspects of each riskfactor or protective-factor score are represented on each graph: (1) the 50 mark refers to the national average, (2) the yellow dot refers to the county analyzed in this report, (3) the thin black line represents the average for Florida, (4) the gray, vertical line represents the distribution of counties around the Florida average, and, (5) the red 'X' represents counties that have been identified as "like" the county represented in the report in a single aspect: student population. Elevated risk scores are found at the state level in the Community Domain: Low Neighborhood Attachment, and Personal Transitions and Mobility scored at the 56 and 59 marks, respectively. These two risk factor scales measure whether youth feel positively bonded to their home community. The elevation of these two scales indicates that Floridasurveyed youth, in general, are not feeling a positive attachment towards their home communities. points are provided so that effective evaluation of a specific score's meaning can be better understood. Five aspects of each risk-factor or protective-factor score are represented on each graph. First, the 50 mark refers to the national average. Second, the yellow dot refers to the county that is analyzed in this report (in this case, Liberty County). Next, the thin black line represents the average for Florida. Fourth, the gray, vertical, line represents the distribution of counties around the Florida average. Ninety-five percent of counties in Florida fall in the area covered by the gray line. Finally, the red 'X' represents counties that have been identified as "like" the county represented in the report in a single aspect: student population. Thus, for Liberty County, the red 'X' represents the average risk-factor or protective-factor score for the larger counties in Florida. For Liberty County, the counties that are similar in terms of student population (up to 2,499 students) are: Wakulla, Baker, Hardee, DeSoto, Bradford, Holmes, Taylor, Madison, Washington, Gilchrist, Union, Gulf, Dixie, Hamilton, Calhoun, Jefferson, Franklin, and Glades. State of Florida Risk and Protective Factor Profile Tables 7, 8, and 9 display the risk-factor and protective-factor values for Liberty County and Florida. Across all risk and protective factors, for all Florida students, the average risk-factor score is 49 and the average protective-factor score is 50. Elevated risk scores are found at the state level in the Community Domain: Low Neighborhood Attachment, and Personal Transitions and Mobility scored at the 56 and 59 marks, respectively. These two risk factor scales measure whether youth's feelings of positive bonding to their home community. For example, the Low Neighborhood Attachment scale is measured by questions such as: "I like my neighborhood," or: "If I had to move, I would miss the neighborhood I now live in." Bonding with the community works to reduce the likelihood that students will adopt antisocial norms, attitudes, or values. The risk factor Personal Transitions and Mobility measures specifically the number of times students have moved homes or schools in the past year and the past five years. The elevation of these two scales indicates that Florida- surveyed youth, in general, are not feeling a positive attachment towards their home communities. These two risk factors may be jointly elevated for several reasons. One reason is that Florida surveyed youth are reporting that they are moving significantly more often than youth in other states. Also, if a large number of families are moving in and out