Community Norms Survey: Measuring Adult and Youth Perceptions of Underage Drinking: Report of Findings

Transcription

1 Community Norms Survey: Measuring Adult and Youth Perceptions of Underage Drinking: Report of Findings Prepared by Evaluation Research and Development (ERAD) University of Arizona James Roebuck, PhD Christine Krikliwy, PhD

2 Executive Summary Executive Summary According to the CDC and comparison of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2013 survey, use of alcohol in Arizona when compared to the Nation is highest for usage before the age of 13. Current use of alcohol in Arizona is higher than the national average. The Arizona State Health Assessment April 2014 stated that the total costs associated with underage drinking in Arizona was $1.2 billion in Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) along with social service providers and community coalitions throughout Pima and Pinal Counties began working to develop and implement environmental level strategies to address underage drinking in Pima County. As part of this effort, a Community Norms Survey was developed in consultation with CPSA and administered throughout Pima County and parts of Pinal County from January of 2014 through May The survey was designed to gauge community perceptions around several aspects of underage drinking. The following report provides results of the data collected throughout Pima County and in parts of Pinal County. Two time periods are used to compare the data. Time period one represents the baseline and contains data collected during the last two quarters of the fiscal year Time period 2 spans data collected from the first three quarters of fiscal year Key findings include: Adults were twice as likely as youth to report concern about underage drinking. Adults were more likely to perceive alcohol as being easily accessible for youth, as compared to youth. These trends were similar for both baseline and time 2 and were stable across data collection points. There was a significant difference for adults in regards to Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (2.1% change, p = 0.014), there was no statistically significant difference for Perceptions of Risk and Harm of Underage Alcohol Usage (1.1%, p = 0.194). For youth there were significant changes in both Perceptions of Risk and Harm (3.4%, p = 0.000) and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (3.6%, p = 0.000) for the total sample. Examining results by zip code area, revealed statistically significant results in attitudes towards underage drinking for RISP NET/LFC (4.6%, p = 0.021), and CPC/CAPT/CFR/Providence/PPP zip code area (2.1%, p = 0.013). For the results that are significant, we see adult attitudes towards underage drinking as less tolerant when comparing baseline with time 2. Results by coalition/provider for LPKNC (CODAC, CFR), LUZ (LUZ/SAAF), and CPC/CAPT (CFR/Providence/PPP) for perceptions of risk and attitudes revealed statistically significant changes when comparing baseline with time 2. For RISP NET (LFC) area, only attitudes towards underage drinking had a significant change (7.7%, p = 0.009). Most parents reported engaging in conversation with their children about the dangers of underage drinking, with 77.5% (baseline) and 70.5% (time 2). A vast majority of youth reported being at least aware of advertisements aimed at educating the public about underage drinking. The top three ways adults thought that youth gained access to alcohol were from parties, followed by an unrelated adult providing it to them, and using a fake ID. A majority of adults strongly disagree to disagree that their community was doing an adequate job at stopping adults from providing youth alcohol. Adults also agreed that adults and establishments should be punished for providing alcohol to youth. A majority disagreed that law enforcement has adequate resources. Community Norms Survey Report 2

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 2 Introduction... 5 Alcohol s effect on Adolescent development... 5 Context of the Current Report... 6 Figure 1. Community Norms Data Dashboard... 6 Survey Administration... 7 Table 1. Survey Administration by Provider... 7 Table 2. Survey Administration by Zip Code Areas of Coalition and Providers... 8 Survey Counts by Zip Code... 9 Figure 2. Adult Survey Counts by Zip Code Areas in Pima County... 9 Figure 3. Youth Survey Counts by Zip Code Areas in Pima County... 9 Characteristics of the Sample Adult Demographics Table 3. Demographics: Adults Youth Demographics Table 4. Demographics: Youth Perception of Risk and Harm of Alcohol: Adults and Youth Table 5. Survey Items for the Perception of Risk and Harm of Alcohol: Adults Table 6. Survey Items for the Perception of Risk and Harm of Alcohol: Youth Attitudes towards Underage Drinking: Adults and Youth Table 7. Survey Items for Normative Attitudes towards Alcohol: Adults Table 8. Survey Items for Normative Attitudes towards Alcohol: Youth Scales Used in this Report: Perception of risk and normative attitudes towards underage drinking Table 9. Scales Used in This Report Methods Changes in the Perception of Risk and Harm associated with Underage Drinking Table 10. Changes in Adult Perceptions of the Risk and Harm Associated With Underage Drinking By Provider/Coalition Zip Code Area: Adults Table 11. Changes in Youth Perceptions of the Risk and Harm Associated With Underage Drinking By Provider/Coalition Zip Code Area: Youth Parents and Discussion about Alcohol Table 12. Distribution of Parents with Children Figure 4. Percent of Parents who Discussed the Dangers of Underage Drinking with their Children Youth Awareness of Alcohol Advertising Figure 5. Percent of Youth who Reported Awareness of Underage Drinking Advertisements Concern about Underage Drinking Figure 6. Percent of Adults and Youth Who Expressed Concern about Underage Drinking Ease of Access to Alcohol by Youth Figure 7. Percentages of Adult and Youth Perceptions of the Ease of Access to Alcohol by Youth Adult Perceptions of How Youth Get Alcohol Figure 8. Adult Perceptions of the Ways Youth Obtain Alcohol Adult Perceptions of the Consequences of Underage Drinking Figure 9. Adult Perceptions of the Top Three Consequences caused by Youth Using Alcohol in their Community Community Response to Underage Drinking and Support of Strategies Figure 10. Adult Support for Underage Drinking Penalties, Community Response, and Law Enforcement Resources Adult Awareness of Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking Figure 11. Adult Support for Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking Figure 12. Adult Awareness of Community Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking Adult Rankings of Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking Community Norms Survey Report 3

4 Figure 13. Adult Rankings of Community Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking (mean scores) Youth Discussions with Parents about Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs Figure 14. Youth Discussions with Parents and Other Adults about Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Use Sources of Help as Reported by Youth Figure 15. Youth Reported Sources of Help Discussion Appendix Zip Code Areas Table A1. Zip Code Areas by Provider/Coalition Table A2. Mean Scores for Scales of Risk and Harm and Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking by Zip Code (ADULTS) Table A3. Mean Scores for Scales of Risk and Harm and Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking by Zip Code (YOUTH) Table A4. Adult Perceptions of How Youth Get Alcohol Table A5. Adult Perceptions of Community Job at Preventing Underage Drinking and Support of Strategies Table A6. Adult Support of Strategies and Awareness of Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking Table A7. Youth Discussions with Parents about Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs Table A8. Sources of Help to Whom Youth Turn Mapping the Perception of Risk and Harm associated with Underage Drinking Figure A1. Adult Perception of Risk and Harm by Zip Code Figure A2. Youth Perception of Risk and Harm by Zip Code Mapping attitudes associated with Underage Drinking Figure A3. Adult attitudes around underage drinking by Zip Code Figure A4. Youth attitudes around underage drinking by Zip Code Survey Results for Perceptions of Risk and Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking Table A9. Retrospective post Survey Results: Adults Table A10. Retrospective post Survey Results: Youth Individuals Directly and Indirectly Served by Providers and Coalitions Figure A4. Frequency of Ages of those Directly and Indirectly Served (All Providers Oct 2014 through May 2015) Figure A5. Frequency of Gender of those Directly and Indirectly Served (All Providers Oct 2014 through May 2015) Figure A6. Frequency of Self Reported Race of those Directly and Indirectly Served (All Providers Oct 2014 through May 2015) Figure A7. Frequency of Ethnicity of those Directly and Indirectly Served (All Providers Oct 2014 through May 2015) Figure A8. Number of Hours Spent in Prevention Activities (All Providers Oct 2014 through May 2015) Surveys Items Used in This Report Survey Items for Adult Survey Survey Items for Youth Survey Community Norms Survey Report 4

5 Introduction According to the CDC and comparison of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2013 survey, use of alcohol in Arizona when compared to the Nation is highest for usage before the age of 13. Current use of alcohol in Arizona is higher than the national average. The Arizona State Health Assessment April 2014 stated that the total costs associated with underage drinking in Arizona were $1.2 billion in 2010 and includes: o o o Medical expenses (over): $119 million Loss of work costs (almost): $400 million Pain and suffering (over): $700 million Youth violence (homicide, suicide, and aggravated assault) and traffic crashes attributed to alcohol use by underage youth represent the largest costs for Arizona. o Estimated traffic fatalities: 23 o Non fatal traffic injuries: 862 o Homicides: 43 o Non fatal violent crimes (rape, robbery, assault): 20,000 Alcohol s effect on Adolescent development According to Johns Hopkins School of Public Health The Teen Years Explained, alcohol has a greater impact on adolescents than adults. Young people are more vulnerable to the negative effects of alcohol on the hippocampus, the area of the brain that regulates working memory and learning. Heavy alcohol usage during the teen years result in lower test scores related to memory and attention. According to Boileau et al (2003), alcohol causes an increase in dopamine transmission increasing activity in the brain reward pathway. Adolescents who have their first drink before age 15 are four times more likely to become alcohol dependent than those who wait until they are 21. At this vulnerable time in an adolescent s life; parents, administrators, and teachers need to provide guidance and be more involved in an adolescent s daily life. This critical period of development in an adolescent s life will determine his/her future. Thus, it is imperative to address underage drinking and implement strategies to reduce the negative effects this social issue has on the community, the family, and the individual. Community Norms Survey Report 5

6 Context of the Current Report Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) along with social service providers and community coalitions throughout Pima and Pinal Counties began working to develop and implement environmental level strategies to address underage drinking in Pima County. Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) engaged the services of Evaluation Research and Development (ERAD) to assist in gauging adult and youth perceptions of underage drinking in Pima County. Providers worked closely with community coalitions in designing and implementing actions targeted at reducing drinking among the youth in their respective communities. As part of this effort, a Community Norms Survey was developed in consultation with CPSA and administered throughout Pima County and parts of Pinal County from January of 2014 through May The survey was designed to gauge community perceptions around several aspects of underage drinking. English and Spanish surveys were available to adults and youth on paper and online. ERAD developed a website that housed the youth and adult surveys that served as an online location to Figure 1. Community Norms Data Dashboard distribute the survey and collect data. The website also provided a publicly available data dashboard that provided results from the survey (see Figure 1). The following report provides results of the data collected throughout Pima County and Marana. Two periods are used to compare the data. Time period one represents the baseline period and represents data collected during the last two quarters of the fiscal year Time 2 spans data collected from the first three quarters of fiscal year Data collection was suspended in the final quarter of the fiscal year Means based scales were computed to aid in testing significant differences from the baseline to time 2. Community Norms Survey Report 6

7 Survey Administration A total of 2615 adult surveys (baseline: 1197, time 2: 1418) and 3733 youth (baseline: 1679, time 2: 2054) were returned for analysis. Table 1 reports frequencies and percentages by provider for the baseline and time 2. Surveys were available in both English and Spanish, online, and in paper form. Table 1. Survey Administration by Provider Adults Baseline and Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Count % Count % AZYP % % CFR % % CODAC % % LFC % % Provider LUZ % % PPP % % Providence % % SAAF % % Online % % Total % % Youth Baseline and Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Count % Count % AZYP % % CFR % 0 0.0% CODAC % % LFC 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Provider LUZ % 0 0.0% PPP % % PROVIDENCE 9 0.5% 0 0.0% SAAF % % Online % 2 0.1% Total % % Community Norms Survey Report 7

8 Providers and coalitions represented several zip code areas. Table 2 reports frequencies for zip code areas. The zip code areas reflect the geographical service areas that are the prime foci of strategies implemented by providers and coalitions. Note that some zip code areas overlap with one another, thus the areas are not mutually exclusive. For example, zip code areas for NRC, LPKNC, LSSC, and RISP NET are all within Pima County, resulting in frequencies for Pima County being larger than any one zip code area for the smaller coalitions. This fact is highlighted in Table 2 as the frequencies in Pima County were 1133 (baseline) and 1315 (time 2) for adults and 1570 (baseline) and 1799 (time 2) for youth. Table 2. Survey Administration by Zip Code Areas of Coalition and Providers Adults Baseline and Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % NRC (AZYP) ZIPCODE AREA NRC AZYP % % % LPKNC (CODAC, CFR) ZIPCODE AREA LPKNC CODAC CFR % % % LUZ (LUZ, SAAF) ZIPCODE AREA LUZ SAAF % % % RISP NET (LFC) ZIPCODE AREA RISPNET LFC % % % CPC/CAPT CFR PROVIDENCE PPP Pima County % % % Youth Baseline and Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % NRC (AZYP) ZIPCODE AREA NRC AZYP % % % LPKNC (CODAC, CFR) ZIPCODE AREA LPKNC CODAC CFR % % % RISP NET (LFC) ZIPCODE AREA RISPNET LFC % % % LUZ (LUZ, SAAF) ZIPCODE AREA LUZ SAAF % % % CPC/CAPT CFR PROVIDENCE PPP Pima County % % % Community Norms Survey Report 8

9 Survey Counts by Zip Code Figure 2 reports survey counts by zip code tabulation areas for the adults surveyed in Pima County, while Figure 3 reports the counts for youth survey responses. Survey counts displayed in the maps are provided for the entire dataset where valid Pima County zip codes were present. Overall, there was broad representation across Pima County by adult and youth respondents. For adults, the top three zip code area counts were (n=253), (n=189), and (n=151), while the top three zip code areas for youth were (n=909), (n=334), and (n=299). The lack of responses in some zip codes was problematic in providing an adequate picture of the distribution of perceptions across the County. Increased response rates are needed in zip code areas with low responses to provide adequate comparative analyses in terms of geographic locations. Within this report we provide spatial visualizations of the data, however, it should be stressed that valid analyses are made difficult by the uneven distribution of surveys across zip code areas. Thus, interpretation should be made with caution. See Appendix (Tables A1 A3) for full data on responses by zip codes. Figure 2. Adult Survey Counts by Zip Code Areas in Pima County Figure 3. Youth Survey Counts by Zip Code Areas in Pima County Community Norms Survey Report 9

10 Characteristics of the Sample Adult Demographics The community was well represented by adults as evidenced in the number of surveys returned, females were overrepresented at both time periods (69.4% baseline and 74.3% time 2). The vast majority of adults self reported as white, while the proportion related to ethnicity was split with fifty two percent reported being Hispanic or Latino. Respondents who marked other for race specified their race as Latino or Mexican, this holds true for both adults and youth surveyed. Table 3. Demographics: Adults Baseline and Program Year Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % Gender Ethnicity Male % % % Female % % % Hispanic/Latino % % % Not Hispanic/Latino % % % African American % % % Asian % % % Racial background Multiracial % % % Native American % % % Other (please specify) % % % White % % % % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% % 1 0.1% 2 0.1% % 2 0.2% 6 0.3% % 8 0.6% % Age Range of Respondent % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Community Norms Survey Report 10

11 Youth Demographics Youth respondents were split among male and female (52.9 baseline, 51.2% time 2). Self reported ethnicity tended to be strongly Hispanic at 70.7% for the total sample. There was no clear majority for race, though many identified as white (43.6% baseline, 42.7% time 2). Regarding grade level, the youth tended to be in the 9 th grade compared to other grade levels (see Table 4). Table 4. Demographics: Youth Gender How would you describe your ethnic background? How would you describe your racial background? What grade are you in? Age Range of Respondent Baseline and Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % Male % % % Female % % % Hispanic/Latino % % % Not Hispanic/Latino % % % African American % % % Asian % % % White % % % Multiracial % % % Native American % % % Other % % % 5th grade or younger % % % 6th % % % 7th % % % 8th % % % 9th % % % 10th % % % 11th % % % 12th % % % % 0 0.0% 0 0.0% % % % % % % % % % % % % % 2 0.2% 3 0.1% % 5 0.4% 8 0.3% % 0 0.0% 2 0.1% % 0 0.0% 1 0.0% % 0 0.0% 6 0.2% Community Norms Survey Report 11

12 Perception of Risk and Harm of Alcohol: Adults and Youth Adults and youth were asked their Perceptions of Risk and Harm associated with underage alcohol use. Items included, taking one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage and having fiver or more drinks in a row once or twice a week. Table 5 reports frequencies and percentages of the Perceptions of Risk and Harm survey items by baseline, time 2 and for the total sample. As shown, a majority of adults reported that there was great risk with underage drinking for moderate (61.5% baseline, 61.2% time 2) and heavy alcohol usage (77.9% baseline, 77.2% time2). Youth are less likely to report great risk with alcohol usage as compared with adults with only 29.7% reporting great risk for moderate use, and 54.6% for heavy use across the total sample (see Table 6). Table 5. Survey Items for the Perception of Risk and Harm of Alcohol: Adults How much do you think youth risk harming/hurting themselves (physically or in other ways) if they: Take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, liquor) nearly every day. Have five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage in a row once or twice a week. Table 6. Survey Items for the Perception of Risk and Harm of Alcohol: Youth How much do you think youth risk harming/hurting themselves (physically or in other ways) if they: Take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, liquor) nearly every day? Baseline and Program Year Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % No risk % % % Slight risk % % % Moderate risk % % % Great risk % % % No risk % % % Slight risk % % % Moderate risk % % % Great risk % % % Baseline and Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % No risk % % % Slight risk % % % Moderate risk % % % Great risk % % % No risk % % % Have five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage in a row once or twice a week? Slight risk % % % Moderate risk % % % Great risk % % % Community Norms Survey Report 12

13 Attitudes towards Underage Drinking: Adults and Youth The survey asked members of the community under what conditions would it be tolerable for youth to consume alcohol. Items ranged from special rites of passage, under the supervision of adults, as long as they don t drive intoxicated, at parties and at home as long as there are adults present. As reported in Table 7, adults felt that special rites of passage, such as cultural and religious events, were the most tolerable avenues for underage drinking compared with other items. Nearly forty percent "strongly agreed" to "agreed" that it was okay for youth to use alcohol at rites of passages, such as cultural and religious events. Youth did not think it was wrong for adults to use alcohol, 79.8% said it was "not wrong" to "a little bit wrong" for adults to take one or two drinks. Yet, the majority (57.3%) thought it was "wrong" to "very wrong" for someone their age to use alcohol occasionally (see Table 8). Table 7. Survey Items for Normative Attitudes towards Alcohol: Adults Baseline and Program Year I think it is okay for a person under 21 to drink alcohol Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % For special rites of passage (like cultural & religious events). Under the supervision of their parents or guardians. As long as they don t drive while intoxicated. Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % How much do you agree with the following statements? It is OK for youth to drink at parties if they don t get drunk. It is OK for youth to drink if they don t drive afterward. It is OK for youth to drink alcohol at home, as long as parents or other family members are present. Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % Community Norms Survey Report 13

14 Table 8. Survey Items for Normative Attitudes towards Alcohol: Youth Baseline and Time 2 How wrong do you think it is for Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % Someone your age to: drink beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey, or gin) regularly?. Someone your age to: take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, liquor)?. Adults to: drink beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey, or gin) regularly? Adults to: take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, liquor)?. Not wrong to a little bit wrong % % % Wrong to very wrong % % % Not wrong to a little bit wrong % % % Wrong to very wrong % % % Not wrong to a little bit wrong % % % Wrong to very wrong % % % Not wrong to a little bit wrong % % % Wrong to very wrong % % % How much do you agree with the following statements? It is OK for youth to drink at parties if they don t get drunk. Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % It is OK for youth to drink if they don t drive afterward. It is OK for youth to drink alcohol at home, as long as parents or other family members are present. Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % Strongly Disagree to Disagree % % % Strongly Agree to Agree % % % Community Norms Survey Report 14

15 Scales Used in this Report: Perception of risk and normative attitudes towards underage drinking To understand how Perceptions of Risk and Harm and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking have changed over time, means based scales were computed using survey items. The following table describes the two scales used in this report: risk and harm of alcohol use by youth, and normative attitudes about underage drinking. Adult and youth scales for risk and harm were identical, while adult and youth scales for normative attitudes were slightly different as noted below. In addition, where appropriate, survey items were reverse coded so that high mean scores were consistent across survey items. Higher mean scores for Risk and Harm indicate a greater perception of risk associated with underage drinking, while higher scores for Normative Attitudes indicates less tolerance for underage drinking. Table 9 reports the population, the question introduction, the survey items, the response sets, and the alpha of the scale. For all the scales, the alpha values indicated that the scales were internally reliable. Table 9. Scales Used in This Report Scale Population Question Intro Survey Items Response Sets Alpha Risk/Harm of Alcohol Use by Youth Normative Attitudes about Underage Drinking Adults and Youth Adults Youth How much do you think youth risk harming/hurting themselves (physically or in other ways) if they: I think it is okay for a person under 21 to drink alcohol How much do you agree with the following statements? How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to: How wrong do you think it is for adults to: How much do you agree with the following statements? Take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, liquor) nearly every day? Have five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage in a row once or twice a week? For special rites of passage (like cultural & religious events)? Under the supervision of their parents or guardians? As long as they don t drive while intoxicated? It is OK for youth to drink at parties if they don t get drunk. It is OK for youth to drink if they don t drive afterward. It is OK for youth to drink alcohol at home, as long as parents or other family members are present. Drink beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey, or gin) Take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, liquor)? Drink beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey, or gin) regularly? Take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, liquor)? It is OK for youth to drink at parties if they don t get drunk It is OK for youth to drink if they don t drive afterward It is OK for youth to drink alcohol at home, as long as parents or other family members are present 1 = No risk 2 = Slight Risk 3 = Moderate Risk 4 = Great Risk 1 = Strongly agree 2 = Agree 3 = Disagree 4 = Strongly Disagree 1 = Not wrong at all 2 = A little bit wrong 3 = Wrong 4 = Very Wrong 1 = Strongly agree 2 = Agree 3 = Disagree 4 = Strongly Disagree Adults Youth Adults Youth Community Norms Survey Report 15

16 Methods To test for differences in the scales between baseline and time 2, we utilize an independent samples t test. This test helps compare whether two groups have different average values. It asks the question, what are the chances that randomly selected groups would be as different as the selected groups? In other words, the t test examines whether a difference between two groups' averages are unlikely to have occurred because of random chance. The independent samples t test compares the means of two unrelated groups of respondents on the same dependent variables. If the respondents would have been matched with a participant ID in a pre post test, for example, a paired samples t test would have been a more appropriate test (paired sample T test is used for the retrospective post surveys). One statistic that is output is the p value. The p value is an estimated probability that the result could have occurred by chance. A p value of.05 indicates that the results had a 5 percent chance that the difference in the mean scores could have occurred at random. Typically, we run a statistical test and aim for a value of.05 or less (p <.05). If we obtain a result of less than.05, we state that the results are statistically significant and have a 5% or less chance that the results could have occurred by chance. To obtain the t test, scales constructed from survey items are submitted to a statistical software program using the mean scores of two groups, e.g., the baseline and time 2, or before and after groups as in a retrospective post survey. The hypothesis is that there is a significant difference between the two groups on the relevant scale, and that this difference did not occur by chance. The hypothesis will be accepted if there is a significant p value of.05 or less. To obtain the percentage change in the mean scores, the mean from time 2 is subtracted from the baseline mean and then divided by the baseline mean; the result is then multiplied by 100 to obtain the percent change in the mean scores Community Norms Survey Report 16

17 Changes in the Perception of Risk and Harm associated with Underage Drinking In the following section (tables 10 and 11), independent sample t tests were used to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the mean scores between baseline and time 2. The baseline period refers to surveys collected during the last half of the fiscal year , while time 2 refers to surveys collected during the first three quarters of fiscal year In each table, results are reported first for the overall total sample. The total sample may contain responses where the zip code is unknown or does not fall within a provider zip code area. Following the total sample, results are provided for each provider/coalition zip code area (see Appendix for zip code areas). Table 10 reports adult data, and Table 11 contains the results for the youth. Comparing baseline with time 2, in Table 10, there was a significant difference for adults in regard to Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (2.1% change, p = 0.014) as the p value was less than.05. For adult Perceptions of Risk and Harm, since the p value was greater than.05 there was no statistically significant difference for Perceptions of Risk and Harm (1.1%, p = 0.194). Examining results by zip code area, revealed statistically significant results in attitudes towards underage drinking for RISP NET/LFC (4.6%, p = 0.021), and CPC/CAPT/CFR/Providence/PPP zip code area (2.1%, p = 0.013). The results that are significant indicate that adult Attitudes towards Underage Drinking as less tolerant in time 2 when comparing with baseline. For youth, on the other hand, there were significant changes in both Perceptions of Risk and Harm (3.4%, p = 0.000) and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (3.6%, p = 0.000) for the total sample (see Table 11). Similar results were found by coalition/provider for LPKNC (CODAC, CFR), LUZ (LUZ/SAAF), and CPC/CAPT (CFR/Providence/PPP) with both Perceptions of Risk and Harm and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking being statistically significant when comparing baseline with time 2. RISP NET (LFC) area Attitudes towards Underage Drinking had a significant change (7.7%, p = 0.009). The results indicate that many youth tended to view alcohol as risky and with less tolerance in time 2 when comparing with baseline data Community Norms Survey Report 17

18 Table 10. Changes in Adult Perceptions of the Risk and Harm Associated With Underage Drinking By Provider/Coalition Zip Code Area: Adults TOTAL SAMPLE Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking NRC (AZYP) ZIPCODE AREA Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking LPKNC (CODAC, CFR) ZIPCODE AREA Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking LUZ (LUZ, SAAF) ZIPCODE AREA Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking RISP NET (LFC) ZIPCODE AREA Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking CPC/CAPT CFR PROVIDENCE PPP Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 1.1% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 0.4% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 2.8% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 3.1% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 2.3% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 1.5% % Community Norms Survey Report 18

19 Table 11. Changes in Youth Perceptions of the Risk and Harm Associated With Underage Drinking By Provider/Coalition Zip Code Area: Youth TOTAL SAMPLE Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking NRC (AZYP) ZIPCODE AREA Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking LPKNC (CODAC, CFR) ZIPCODE AREA Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking LUZ (LUZ, SAAF) ZIPCODE AREA Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking RISP NET (LFC) ZIPCODE AREA Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking CPC/CAPT (CFR/PROVIDENCE,PPP) Pima County Zip Code Area Scale: Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking Scale: Norms and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time Baseline Time N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 3.4% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 4.1% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 6.5% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 6.5% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 2.2% % N Mean % Change Sig. (2 tailed) 3.4% % Community Norms Survey Report 19

20 Parents and Discussion about Alcohol Parents were asked if they had children, a majority of adults indicated at least one child (see Table 12). The numbers of parents increased from 646 (baseline) to 1118 (time 2). A majority of the parents said they had spoken with their children about the dangers of underage drinking. Comparing baseline with time 2, the percentage of parents talking with their children about the dangers of underage drinking decreased from 77.5% to 70.5%, as shown in Figure 4. Table 12. Distribution of Parents with Children Baseline and Program Year Baseline Time 2 Total Count Count Count Children under the age of 21 Yes No Ages: Ages: Children by age Ages: Ages: Ages: Figure 4. Percent of Parents who Discussed the Dangers of Underage Drinking with their Children 100.0% 80.0% 77.5% 70.5% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 22.5% 29.5% 0.0% Yes No Baseline Time Community Norms Survey Report 20

21 Youth Awareness of Alcohol Advertising To understand whether youth were aware of efforts to curb underage drinking in their community, a survey item asked, During the past 12 months, do you recall hearing, reading, or watching an advertisement about the prevention of alcohol use or underage drinking? Percentages of youth responses at baseline and time 2 are reported in Figure 5 below. A majority of youth said they recalled an advertisement about the prevention of alcohol use or underage drinking. There was no real trend in awareness of the youth. Figure 5. Percent of Youth who Reported Awareness of Underage Drinking Advertisements 100.0% 75.0% 76.5% 77.7% 50.0% 25.0% 23.5% 22.3% 0.0% Baseline Time 2 No Yes Concern about Underage Drinking Adults and youth were asked, How concerned are you about youth, someone your age, drinking alcohol in your community? Percentages of responses for baseline and time 2 responses are reported in Figure 6. Comparison between adults and youth regarding concern about underage drinking in their community, revealed a relatively stable pattern. Adults were nearly twice as likely to report being concerned to very concerned as compared to youth about underage drinking in their community. Figure 6. Percent of Adults and Youth Who Expressed Concern about Underage Drinking 100.0% 85.6% 85.4% 75.0% 50.0% 42.7% 46.5% 25.0% 0.0% Baseline Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Adults Youth Community Norms Survey Report 21

22 Ease of Access to Alcohol by Youth One survey item asked adults and youth about their perceptions of the ease of access to which youth can obtain alcohol with the following question: If you wanted to get some beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey, or gin), how easy would it be for you to get some? Percentages of adult and youth responses are reported in Figure 7. The disparity between adults and youth was also evidenced in their reported views on the ease of access of youth to alcohol. As noted in Figure 7, adults were more likely to think it was easy for youth to get alcohol, while youth thought it was much harder. Figure 7. Percentages of Adult and Youth Perceptions of the Ease of Access to Alcohol by Youth 100.0% 87.0% 83.4% 75.0% 50.0% 50.5% 49.5% 47.7% 52.3% 25.0% 13.0% 16.6% 0.0% Baseline Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Adults Youth Very to sort of easy Sort of to very hard Community Norms Survey Report 22

23 Adult Perceptions of How Youth Get Alcohol Adults were asked how they thought youth obtained alcohol in their community by a survey item which asked, In your opinion, what are the top three (3) ways youth get alcohol? The top three ways across baseline and time 2 was from parties, followed by an unrelated adult providing it to them, and using a fake ID. Figure 8. Adult Perceptions of the Ways Youth Obtain Alcohol Stealing it from stores, or a beer run Someone else under the age of 21 gives it to them 9.50% 7.90% 15.90% 14.10% From their parents home 32.00% 32.50% From parties 57.80% 55.50% Using a fake ID 34.60% 31.10% Buying it from stores (liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, or gas station) Buying it at a restaurant, bar or club Buying it at a public event, such as a concert or sporting event 6.20% 5.50% 3.40% 2.50% 6.40% 5.30% Asking an adult to buy it for them Another family member older than 21 gives it to them 30.40% 28.60% 30.40% 29.50% An unrelated adult older than 21 gives it to them A parent or guardian gives it to them 52.70% 49.00% 38.00% 33.20% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% % Time 2 Baseline Community Norms Survey Report 23

24 Adult Perceptions of the Consequences of Underage Drinking Adults were asked, In your opinion, which of the following are the three (3) most common problems or consequences caused by youth alcohol use in our community? Car accidents, followed by alcohol abuse/addiction, and driving under the influence were the top three consequences for both baseline and time 2. Figure 9. Adult Perceptions of the Top Three Consequences caused by Youth Using Alcohol in their Community Violence, getting into fights, etc % 33.20% Unintended or teen pregnancy 19.60% 27.20% Sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS 13.20% 11.50% Physical harm, such as accidents or injuries 27.80% 26.10% Mental and/or emotional problems 15.50% 24.40% Getting arrested or juvenile delinquency 13.70% 21.50% Car accidents 58.20% 58.10% Driving under the influence (DUI) 47.60% 45.30% Alcohol abuse/addiction 57.30% 54.70% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% % Time 2 Baseline Community Norms Survey Report 24

25 Community Response to Underage Drinking and Support of Strategies Adults were asked to rate how well their community was doing stopping adults from providing alcohol to youth; and whether they thought adults and establishments should be punished for providing alcohol to youth; and if law enforcement had adequate resources to prevent youth from using alcohol. A majority of adults strongly disagree to disagree their community was doing an adequate job at stopping adults from providing youth alcohol. Adults also agreed that adults and establishments should be punished for providing alcohol to youth. A majority disagreed that law enforcement has adequate resources (see Figure 10). Figure 10. Adult Support for Underage Drinking Penalties, Community Response, and Law Enforcement Resources % 80.00% 77.80% 73.50% 80.60% 81.30% 60.00% 40.00% 59.90% 52.80% 40.10% 47.20% 60.20% 54.40% 39.80% 45.60% 20.00% 26.50% 22.20% 19.40% 18.70% 0.00% Strongly disagree to disagree Strongly agree to agree Adults providing alcohol for youth, including parents and family members, should receive heavy fines. Strongly disagree to disagree Strongly agree to agree My community does a good job at stopping adults from providing alcohol to youth. Strongly disagree to disagree Strongly agree to agree Law enforcement has adequate resources to prevent youth from using alcohol. Strongly disagree to disagree Strongly agree to agree Bars, restaurants and stores caught selling alcohol to youth twice within the same year should lose their liquor license. Baseline Time Community Norms Survey Report 25

26 Adult Awareness of Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking Adults were asked whether they supported strategies to prevent underage drinking. Strategies on the survey included requiring liquor law training for people that serve or sell alcohol; and having police check to see if bars were selling alcohol to minors. For both items, the vast majority of adults supported these strategies. Regarding awareness of current strategies, only Shoulder Taps and Red Tagging had a majority of adults who indicated that they were aware of these strategies (see Figure 12). Figure 11. Adult Support for Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking % 80.00% 85.80% 85.30% 76.90% 77.70% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 5.00% 7.50% 9.20% 7.10% 9.10% 10.60% 14.00% 11.70% Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure Requiring liquor law training for everyone that serves or sells alcohol at bars, restaurants or stores. Having police check to see if bars, restaurants, or stores were selling alcohol to youth in the past year. Baseline Time 2 Figure 12. Adult Awareness of Community Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking % 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 47.20% 44.70% 33.50% 38.70% 19.30% 16.60% 28.40% 28.50% 51.20% 53.70% 20.40% 17.80% 38.00% 37.50% 44.80% 46.90% 17.20% 15.60% 54.50% 51.10% 31.10% 35.10% 14.30% 13.80% 0.00% Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure Yes No Unsure Social host ordinances (imposes liability on adults that serve alcohol to minors) Shoulder taps (program to prevent minors from asking adults to buy alcohol outside of liquor stores) Sticker Shock (putting stickers on alcohol to raise awareness of the penalties for providing alcohol to youth) Red tagging (a notice posted by police at the premises where an unruly gathering has occurred) Baseline Time Community Norms Survey Report 26

27 Adult Rankings of Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking Adults were asked to rank from 1 to 4 strategies such as increased penalties/fines and increased police presence to enforce alcohol laws with the survey question, Please rank the following as the most effective or helpful strategies in reducing the number of youth buying alcohol illegally. Average rankings are shown in Figure 13, and higher mean scores indicate a higher ranking. The highest ranked strategy was stricter fines for adults (3.08 baseline), while the lowest was more police to enforce alcohol laws (1.89 baseline, 2.44 time 2). Figure 13. Adult Rankings of Community Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking (mean scores) Stricter penalties/fines for Stricter penalties/fines for adults who buy alcohol for retailers that sell alcohol to youth youth Stricter penalties/fines for youth who use alcohol Baseline Time More police officers available to enforce alcohol laws Community Norms Survey Report 27

28 Youth Discussions with Parents about Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs Youth were asked whether they talked to their parents about tobacco, alcohol, or drug use. Percentages are calculated by dividing the frequency of youth who marked the survey items by the total number of youth who completed the survey for the particular time period. According to the results in Figure 14, many youth talked to their parents about these items, yet there is room for increased discussion among youth and parents. Figure 14. Youth Discussions with Parents and Other Adults about Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Use Yes talked about drug use 49.30% 48.90% Yes talked about alcohol 39.90% 41.80% Yes talked about tobacco 34.10% 34.00% No I did not talk 34.90% 36.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% % Time 2 Baseline Community Norms Survey Report 28

29 Sources of Help as Reported by Youth Youth were asked, Which of the following people do you feel comfortable going to for help when things go wrong or when you need someone to talk to about your problems? to understand the nature of their support system. As shown in Figure 15, friends were listed as the top source, followed by parents and siblings, while teachers, coaches, and instructors did not receive as much support in comparison. Figure 15. Youth Reported Sources of Help No one to talk to 4.50% 4.80% Other adults Counselors 13.10% 12.90% 15.20% 13.60% Tutors Mentors Coaches Instructors Teachers 2.60% 2.60% 8.00% 7.60% 11.70% 11.20% 15.60% 15.20% Friends 64.40% 69.20% Other relatives 27.90% 31.40% Siblings 42.40% 45.70% Grandparents 24.20% 24.30% Parents 62.60% 61.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% % Time 2 Baseline Community Norms Survey Report 29

30 Discussion This report highlights adult and youth perceptions of underage drinking within Pima County. Overall, adults were nearly twice as likely as youth to report concern about underage drinking. Adults were also more likely to perceive alcohol as being easy to access for youth, as compared to youth. These trends were similar for both the baseline and time 2 and were stable across data collection points. There was a significant difference for adults concerning Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (2.1% change, p = 0.014), yet there was no statistically significant difference for Perceptions of Risk and Harm (1.1%, p = 0.194). Examining results by zip code area, revealed statistically significant results in attitudes towards underage drinking for RISP NET/LFC (4.6%, p = 0.021), and CPC/CAPT/CFR/Providence/PPP zip code area (2.1%, p = 0.013). For the results that are significant, indicate that adult Attitudes towards Underage Drinking as less tolerant in time 2 when comparing with baseline data. For youth, on the other hand, there were significant changes in both perceptions of risk (3.4%, p = 0.000) and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (3.6%, p = 0.000) for the total sample (see Table 11). Similar results by coalition/provider for LPKNC (CODAC, CFR), LUZ (LUZ/SAAF), and CPC/CAPT (CFR/Providence/PPP) for both Perceptions of Risk and Harm and Attitudes towards Underage Drinking were statistically significant when comparing baseline with time 2. For RISP NET (LFC) area, only Attitudes towards Underage Drinking had a significant change (7.7%, p = 0.009). The results indicate that many youth tended to view alcohol as more risky and with less tolerance when comparing the two time periods (baseline and time 2). Most parents reported engaging in conversation with their children about the dangers of underage drinking, with 77.2% (baseline) and 69.2% (time 2) saying they talked with their child. A vast majority of youth reported being at least aware of advertisements aimed at educating the public about underage drinking. The top ways adults thought that youth gained access to alcohol were from parties, followed by an unrelated adult providing it to them, and using a fake ID. A majority of adults strongly disagreed to disagreed that their community was doing an adequate job at stopping adults from providing youth alcohol. Adults also agreed that adults and establishments should be punished for providing alcohol to youth. A majority disagreed that law enforcement has adequate resources. Regarding awareness of current strategies to curb underage drinking, only Shoulder Taps and Red Tagging had a majority of adults who indicated they were aware of these strategies Community Norms Survey Report 30

31 Appendix Zip Code Areas For reference, the following table lists the zip codes associated with the provider/coalition Community Norms Survey Report 31

32 Table A1. Zip Code Areas by Provider/Coalition PIMA County: PROVIDENCE, CFR, PPP CPC, PCTCAPT LFC RISPNET CODAC, CFR LPKNC AZYP NRC LUZ, SAAF LSSC Red Rock Ajo, Why Lukeville Arivaca Green Valley, Madera Canyon, Sahuarita Mount Lemmon Green Valley Continental, Sahuarita Sasabe Cowlic, Fresnal Canyon, Gu Achi, Little Tucson, Pisinemo, Pisinemo Trading Post, Sells, Sil Nakaya, Vamori Topawa Corona de Tuc, Corona de Tucson, Santa Rita, Santa Rita Foothills, Vail Cortaro Marana Rillito Marana Tucson Tucson Tucson Oro Valley, Tucson Kino, Tucson Mission, Tucson Davis Monthan AFB, DM AFB, Tucson Davis Monthan AFB, Tucson Pima Community College, Tucson Rincon, Tucson Coronado, Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Fort Lowell, Tucson Sun, Tucson Tucson Tucson Sun, Tucson Tucson Tucson, University of Arizona Tucson Tucson, Veterans Hospital Arizona Medical Center, Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Rincon, Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Community Norms Survey Report 32 Name

33 PIMA County: PROVIDENCE, CFR, PPP CPC, PCTCAPT LFC RISPNET CODAC, CFR LPKNC AZYP NRC LUZ, SAAF LSSC Community Norms Survey Report 33 Name Tucson Tucson Tucson Oro Valley, Tucson Catalina, Tucson Catalina, Oro Valley, Saddlebrooke, Tucson Tucson Tucson Oro Valley, Tucson Tucson I B M Corp, Tucson Tucson Tucson Rincon, Tucson Rincon, Tucson Fort Lowell, Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Tucson Oro Valley, Tucson TSN, Tucson, Tuscon Tucson Business Reply, Tucson Table A2. Mean Scores for Scales of Risk and Harm and Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking by Zip Code (ADULTS) Zip Code Count Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking (Adults) Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (Adults)

34 Zip Code Count Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking (Adults) Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (Adults) Subtotal 2474 Missing 141 Total Community Norms Survey Report 34

35 Table A3. Mean Scores for Scales of Risk and Harm and Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking by Zip Code (YOUTH) Zip Code Count Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking (Youth) Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (Youth) Community Norms Survey Report 35

36 Zip Code Count Risk/Harm of Underage Drinking (Youth) Normative Attitudes towards Underage Drinking (Youth) Subtotal 3367 Missing 140 Total Community Norms Survey Report 36

37 Table A4. Adult Perceptions of How Youth Get Alcohol Baseline and Program Year Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % A parent or guardian gives it to them % % % An unrelated adult older than 21 gives it to them % % % Another family member older than 21 gives it to them % % % Asking an adult to buy it for them % % % Top Ways Youth Get Alcohol Buying it at a public event, such as a concert or sporting event % % % Buying it at a restaurant, bar or club % % % Buying it from stores (liquor store, convenience store, supermarket, or gas station) % % % Using a fake ID % % % From parties % % % From their parents home % % % Someone else under the age of 21 gives it to them % % % Stealing it from stores, or a beer run % % % Other (please specify) % % % Table A5. Adult Perceptions of Community Job at Preventing Underage Drinking and Support of Strategies Baseline and Program Year Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % Adults providing alcohol for youth, including parents and Strongly disagree to disagree % % % family members, should receive heavy fines. Strongly agree to agree % % % My community does a good job at stopping adults from providing alcohol to youth. Strongly disagree to disagree % % % Strongly agree to agree % % % Law enforcement has adequate resources to prevent youth from using alcohol. Bars, restaurants and stores caught selling alcohol to youth twice within the same year should lose their liquor license. Strongly disagree to disagree % % % Strongly agree to agree % % % Strongly disagree to disagree % % % Strongly agree to agree % % % Community Norms Survey Report 37

38 Table A6. Adult Support of Strategies and Awareness of Strategies to Curb Underage Drinking Baseline and Program Year Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % Do you support the following strategies to prevent underage drinking? Requiring liquor law training for everyone that serves or sells alcohol at bars, restaurants or stores. Having police check to see if bars, restaurants, or stores were selling alcohol to youth in the past year. Yes % % % No % % % Unsure % % % Yes % % % No % % % Unsure % % % Are you aware of the following strategies or policies in your community? Social host ordinances (imposes liability on adults that serve alcohol to minors) Shoulder taps (program to prevent minors from asking adults to buy alcohol outside of liquor stores) Sticker Shock (putting stickers on alcohol to raise awareness of the penalties for providing alcohol to youth) Red tagging (a notice posted by police at the premises where an unruly gathering has occurred) Yes % % % No % % % Unsure % % % Yes % % % No % % % Unsure % % % Yes % % % No % % % Unsure % % % Yes % % % No % % % Unsure % % % Table A7. Youth Discussions with Parents about Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs Baseline and Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % No I did not talk % % % Talk Yes talked about tobacco % % % Yes talked about alcohol % % % Yes talked about drug use % % % Community Norms Survey Report 38

39 Table A8. Sources of Help to Whom Youth Turn Sources of Help Baseline and Time 2 Baseline Time 2 Total Count % Count % Count % Parents % % % Grandparents % % % Siblings % % % Other relatives % % % Friends % % % Teachers % % % Coaches Instructors % % % Mentors % % % Tutors % % % Counselors % % % Other adults % % % No one to talk to % % % Community Norms Survey Report 39

40 Mapping the Perception of Risk and Harm associated with Underage Drinking Mapping Perceptions of Risk and Harm by zip code involves locating the level of these beliefs. To do this, we relate the mean scores of the scales used above to their respective zip code. We then submit this data to QGIS, which is an open source geographic information systems software package. There were many zip codes that had few respondents, resulting in mapping only those that had at least 30 respondents in Figures A1 and A2. For each area, the zip code along with the mean score is reported. Darker shaded areas represent higher levels of risk associated with underage drinking. The data are combined for baseline and time 2. For adults, the highest area of risk was for the zip code (3.76) followed by (3.73). The highest level of the Perception of Risk and Harm for underage drinking for youth was in zip code (3.24) followed by (3.20). Figure A1. Adult Perception of Risk and Harm by Zip Code Figure A2. Youth Perception of Risk and Harm by Zip Code Community Norms Survey Report 40

41 Mapping attitudes associated with Underage Drinking Mapping Attitudes towards Underage Drinking by zip codes involves a similar process as noted above for Perceptions of Risk and Harm. For each area, the zip code along with the mean score is reported. Darker shaded areas represent less tolerance for underage drinking. The data are combined for baseline and time 2. For adults, the least tolerant area for underage drinking was for the zip code (3.56) followed by (3.51). The least tolerant area for underage drinking for youth was in zip code (2.69) followed by (2.68). Youth attitudes are more tolerant (lower mean scores) across zip codes compared with adults. Figure A3. Adult attitudes around underage drinking by Zip Code Figure A4. Youth attitudes around underage drinking by Zip Code Community Norms Survey Report 41