Arizona gambling profile report

              \

2006 Arizona Youth Survey

Arizona Gambling Profile Report

REPORT PROVIDED BY:

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

2006 Arizona Youth Survey Shining Light on Arizona Youth
THIS REPORT IS PROVIDED BY THE Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

IN PARTNERSHIP WITH: Administrative Office of the Courts Arizona Department of Education Arizona Department of Health Services Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections Arizona Juvenile Justice Commission Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of Problem Gambling Arizona State University Governor's Division for Substance Abuse Policy Governor's Office for Children, Youth, and Families

2

Introduction
2006 Arizona Youth Survey Gambling Report
This report summarizes the results of the gambling questions from the 2006 Arizona Youth Survey administered to 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students during the spring of 2006. All schools in Arizona were invited to participate in the survey, and students from all of the 15 counties participated. The 2006 AYS contained nine questions that asked students how often during the past 12 months they had: 1) gambled at a casino, 2) played the lottery or scratchoff tickets, 3) bet on team sports, 4) played cards for money, 5) bet money on horse races, 6) played bingo for money or prizes, 7) gambled on the internet, 8) bet on dice games such as craps, and 9) bet on games of personal skill such as pool, darts, or bowling. The response categories were Never; Before, but not in the past year; A few times in the past year; Once or twice a month; Once or twice a week; and Almost every day.

CONTENTS:
Introduction:   Demographics   Risk & Protective Framework Tools for Assessment and Planning How to Read the Charts Data Charts:   Risk & Protective Factor Profiles   Substance Use & Antisocial Behavior   School Safety Risk and Protective Factor Definitions Data Tables Contacts for Prevention

This report contains results for nongamblers (those responding "Never"); infrequent gamblers (those responding "Before, but not in the past year" or "A few times in the past year"); and frequent gamblers (those responding "Once or twice a month," "Once or twice a week," or "Almost every day"). Table 1 contains the characteristics of gamblers, infrequent gamblers, frequent gamblers, and all students who completed the survey. There were a total of 12,062 students who did not complete the gambling questions and they were not included in the gambling analysis. Because not all students answered all of the questions, the number of students in the gender and ethnicity categories will often not equal the total number of students in grades 8, 10, and 12.

Gambling and the Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention
There is a developing body of research designed to help with the identification of risk and protective factors associated with youth problem gambling, however that body of research has not yet been tested to the same rigor as the risk and protective factors associated with substance abuse. The information surrounding prevention of youth problem gambling and science-based prevention strategies are sparse, therefore research from alcohol and substance abuse prevention is currently being employed in the youth problem gambling prevention field. There is an expanding collection of research pointing to the commonalities between youth problem gambling and other problem behaviors. Since contemporary efforts in alcohol and drug prevention have focused on science-based risk and protective factors, those factors were included in this report as they may be of significance in future youth problem gambling research.

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants
Student Totals
N o n - G a m b le r s I n f re q u e n t F requ en t 2006 Gamblers 2006 Gamblers 2006
Num ber Percent Numb er Perc ent Nu m b e r Perc ent

State 2006
Numbe r Percent

Total Students

18943

100 36.3 33.9 29.8 39.3 60.7 4.3 5.1 2.9 29.6 0.6 53.1 4.4

16279 6689 5572 4018 7317 8601 567 780 372 5309 148 8011 671

100 41.1 34.2 24.7 46.0 54.0 3.6 4.9 2.3 33.5 0.9 50.5 4.2

13117 5958 4453 2706 7590 5177 574 881 205 5251 122 5049 598

100 45.4 33.9 20.6 59.5 40.5 4.5 6.9 1.6 41.4 1.0 39.8 4.7

60401 26872 19581 13948 28381 30505 2592 3394 1341 21376 457 26761 2696

100 44.5 32.4 23.1 48.2 51.8 4.4 5.8 2.3 36.5 0.8 45.7 4.6

Grade 8 10 12 Gender Male Female Ethnicity African American American Indian Asian Hispanic Pacific Islander White Other
6867 6431 5645 7259 11231 792 939 533 5469 120 9805 815

3

2006 Prevention Needs Assessment Risk and Protective Factors
The Risk and Protective Factor Model of Prevention is based on the simple premise that to prevent a problem from happening, we need to identify the factors that increase the risk of that problem developing and then find ways to reduce the risks. Just as medical researchers have found risk factors for heart disease, such as diets high in fat, lack of exercise, and smoking, a team of researchers at the University of Washington has defined a set of risk factors for youth problem behaviors. Risk factors are characteristics of school, community, and family environments, as well as characteristics of students and their peer groups that are known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, teen pregnancy, and violent behavior among youth. Protective factors exert a positive influence or buffer against the negative influence of risk, thus reducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage in problem behaviors. Research on risk and protective factors has important implications for prevention efforts. The premise of this approach is that in order to promote positive youth development and to prevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to address those factors that predict the problem. By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, specific risk factors that are elevated and widespread can be identified and targeted by preventive interventions that also promote related protective factors. For example, if academic failure is identified as an elevated risk factor in a community, then mentoring and tutoring interventions can be provided that will improve academic performance, and also increase opportunities and rewards for classroom participation. The chart at the right shows the links between the 19 risk factors and the five problem behaviors. The check marks have been placed in the chart to indicate where at least two welldesigned, published research studies have shown a link between the risk factor and the problem behavior.

PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
Delinquency Substance Abuse Teen Pregnancy School Drop-Out

RISK FACTORS
Community
C Availability of drugs and firearms
ommunity laws and norms

M favorable toward drug use,
firearms and crime

T edia portrayals of violence L ransitions and mobility
ow neighborhood attachment and community disorganization

E F

xtreme economic and social deprivation

Family
amily history of the problem behavior

F

Family management problems Family conflict
avorable parental attitudes and A involvement in the problem behavior

chool
cademic failure in elementary school

L

Eack of commitment to school

Individual/Peer
arly and persistent antisocial behavior

A

F lienation and rebelliousness
riends who engage in the problem behavior

G

F ang involvement
avorable attitudes toward the problem behavior

E

arly initiation of the problem behavior

C

onstitutional factors S

4

Violence

The Arizona Youth Survey as a Tool for Building a Strategic Prevention Framework
The Arizona Youth Survey is an important part of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention Framework Process. CSAP created this 5-step model to guide states and communities through the process of creating planned, data-driven, effective, and sustainable prevention programming. The information presented in this section is taken from CSAP's Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant description. Step 1: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in Service Delivery   Community Needs Assessment: The results of this survey (presented in this Profile Report and in results reported at the State level) will help you to identify needs for prevention. States should consider administering a survey, such as the Arizona Youth Survey, biennially to assess adolescent substance use, anti-social behavior, and many of the risk and protective factors that predict adolescent problem behaviors. While planning prevention services, communities are urged to collect and use multiple data sources, including archival and social indicators, assessment of existing resources, key informant interviews, as well as data from this survey. Community Resource Assessment: It is likely that existing agencies and programs are already addressing some of the prioritized risk and protective factors. It is important to identify the assets and resources already available in the community and the gaps in services and capacity. Community Readiness Assessment: It is very important for states and communities to have the commitment and support of their members and ample resources to implement effective prevention efforts. Therefore, the readiness and capacity of communities and resources to act should also be assessed.

   

Step 2: Mobilize and/or Build Capacity to Address Needs: Engagement of key stakeholders at the state and community levels is critical to plan and implement successful prevention activities that will be sustained over time. Some of the key tasks to mobilize the state and communities are to work with leaders and stakeholders to build coalitions, provide training, leverage resources, and help sustain prevention activities. Step 3: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan: States and communities should develop a strategic plan that articulates not only a vision for the prevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and implementing prevention efforts. The strategic plan should be based on documented needs, build on identified resources/strengths, set measurable objectives, and identify how progress will be monitored. Plans should be adjusted with ongoing needs assessment and monitoring activities. The issue of sustainability should be kept in mind throughout each step of planning and implementation. Step 4: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure Development Activities: By measuring risk and protective factors in a population, prevention programs can be implemented that will reduce the elevated risk factors and increase the protective factors. For example, if academic failure is identified as a prioritized risk factor in a community, then mentoring, tutoring, and increased opportunities and rewards for classroom participation can be provided to improve academic performance. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to choose prevention programs that fit the Strategic Framework of the community, match the population served, and are scientifically proven to work. The Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technology website (www.westcapt.org) contains a search engine for identifying Best Practice Programs. Step 5: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, and Improve or Replace Those That Fail: Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determine if the outcomes desired are achieved and to assess program effectiveness, assess service delivery quality, identify successes, encourage needed improvement, and promote sustainability of effective policies, programs, and practices.

5

Tools for Assessment and Planning
School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data
Why the Arizona Youth Survey?
Data from the Arizona Youth Survey can be used to help school and community planners assess current conditions and prioritize areas of greatest need. Each risk and protective factor can be linked to specific types of interventions that have been shown to be effective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancing protection(s). The steps outlined here will help your school and community make key decisions regarding allocation of resources, how and when to address specific needs, and which strategies are most effective and known to produce results.

What are the numbers telling you?
Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Using the table below, note your findings as you discuss the following questions.   Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want?   Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want?   Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high?   Which substances are your students using the most?   At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels?   Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high?   Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most?   At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels?

How to decide if a rate is "unacceptable."
     

Look across the charts   which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the other? Compare your data with statewide, and national data   differences of 5% between local and other data are probably significant. Determine the standards and values held within your community   For example: Is it acceptable in your community for a percentage of high school students to drink alcohol regularly as long as that percentage is lower than the overall state rate?

Use these data for planning.
     

Substance use and antisocial behavior data   raise awareness about the problems and promote dialogue. Risk and protective factor data   identify exactly where the community needs to take action. Promising approaches   talk with resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs that have proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improving the protective factors that are low.

MEASURE
Risk Factors Protective Factors Substance Use Antisocial Behaviors

Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate Unacceptable Rate #1 #2 #3 #4

6

Practical Implications of the AYS
No Child Left Behind The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities section of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires that schools and communities use six Principles of Effectiveness to guide their decisions and spending on federally funded prevention and intervention programs. First introduced in 1998 by the Department of Education, the Principles of Effectiveness outline a data-driven process for ensuring that prevention programs achieve the desired results. The Principles of Effectiveness stipulate that local prevention programs and activities must: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. be based on a needs assessment using objective data regarding the incidence of drug use and violence, target specific performance objectives, be based on scientific research and be proven to reduce violence or drug use, be based on the analysis of predictor variables such as risk and protective factors, include meaningful and on-going parental input in program implementation, and have periodic evaluations of established performance measures.

The results of the Arizona Youth Survey presented in this report can help your school and community comply with the NCLB Act. The Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior charts provide information related to Principle 1 above. The Risk and Protective Factor charts provide information related to Principle 4. Overall, using the Risk and Protective factors planning framework helps schools meet all of the Principles of Effectiveness, and thereby assists schools in complying with the NCLB Act.

How to Read the Charts: Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Charts
There are four types of charts presented in this report: 1) substance use and antisocial behavior charts, 2) risk factor charts, 3) protective factor charts, and 4) school safety charts. All the charts show the results of the AYS, and the actual percentages from the charts are presented in Tables 3 through 10. Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior Charts This report contains information about alcohol, tobacco and other drug use (referred to as ATOD use throughout this report), and other problem behaviors of students. The bars on each chart represent the percentage of students in that grade who reported the behavior. The four sections in the charts represent different types of problem behaviors. The definitions of each of the types of behavior are provided below.   Ever-used is a measure of the percentage of students who tried the particular substance at least once in their lifetime and is used to show the percentage of students who have had experience with a particular substance.   30-day use is a measure of the percentage of students who used the substance at least once in the 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a more sensitive indicator of the level of current use of the substance. Binge drinking and a Pack or more of cigarettes per day are measures of heavy use of alcohol and tobacco. Binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks in a row during the two weeks prior to taking the survey. Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of the percentage of students who report any involvement with the eight antisocial behaviors listed in the charts in the past year. In the charts, antisocial behavior will often be abbreviated as ASB. Dots are used on the charts to show the overall average of all of the youth in each grade who participated in the survey for each behavior. More information about the dots is contained on the following page.

 

 

 

7

How to Read the Charts: Risk and Protective Factor and School Safety Charts
Risk and Protective Factor Charts There are three components of the risk and protective factor charts that are key to understanding the information that the charts contain: 1) the cutpoints for the risk and protective factor scales, 2) the dots that indicate the state values, and 3) the dashed lines that indicate a more "national" value. Cut-Points Before the percentage of youth at risk on a given scale could be calculated, a scale value or cut-point needed to be determined that would separate the atrisk group from the not-at-risk group. The Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) survey was designed to assess adolescent substance use, antisocial behavior, and the risk and protective factors that predict these adolescent problem behaviors. The Arizona Youth Survey, and surveys designed for other states and areas, follow the PNA format and have the same goal of gathering information on the prevention needs of students, schools, communities, and states. Since PNA surveys have been given to over 200,000 youth nationwide, it was possible to select two groups of youth, one that was more at risk for problem behaviors and another group that was less at risk. A cut-point score was then determined for each risk and protective factor scale that best divided the youth from the two groups into their appropriate group, more at-risk or less at-risk. The criteria for selecting the more at-risk and the less atrisk groups included academic grades (the more atrisk group received "D" and "F" grades, the less atrisk group received "A" and "B" grades), ATOD use (the more at-risk group had more regular use, the less at-risk group had no drug use and use of alcohol or tobacco on only a few occasions), and antisocial behavior (the more at-risk group had two or more serious delinquent acts in the past year, the less atrisk group had no serious delinquent acts). The cut-points that were determined by analyzing the results of the more at-risk and less at-risk groups will remain constant and will be used to produce the profiles for future surveys. Since the cut-points for each scale will remain fixed, the percentage of youth above the cut-point on a scale (at-risk) will provide a method for evaluating the progress of prevention programs over time. For example, if the percentage of youth at-risk for family conflict in a community prior to implementing a community-wide family/parenting program was 60% and then decreased to 45% one year after the program was implemented, the program would be viewed as helping to reduce family conflict. Dots The dots on the charts represent the percentage of all of the youth surveyed from Arizona who reported `elevated risk' or `elevated protection'. The comparison to the state-wide sample provides additional information for your community in determining the relative importance of each risk or protective factor level. Scanning across the charts, you can easily determine which factors are most (or least) prevalent for your community. This is the first step in identifying the levels of risk and protection that are operating in your community and which factors your community may choose to address. Dashed Line Levels of risk and protection in your community also can be compared to a more national sample. The dashed line on each risk and protective factor chart represents the percentage of youth at risk or with protection for the seven state sample upon which the cut-points were developed. The seven states included in the norm group were Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. All the states have a mix of urban and rural students. Again, brief definitions of the risk and protective factors are provided following the profile charts. For more information about risk and protective factors, please refer to the resources listed on the last page of this report under Contacts for Prevention. School Safety Charts The school safety profile charts contain the percentages of students who felt unsafe at school or on the way to school, were threatened or injured with a weapon at school, were in a physical fight at school, or carried a weapon to school. The complete questions and values for each response option can be seen in Table 10.

8

Intention to Use Drugs Depressive Symptoms Rewards for ASB

Peer / Individual

Friend's Use of Drugs

Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to ASB Early Initiation of Drug Use Early Initiation of ASB Rebelliousness

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 8

Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE

School

Academic Failure Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns

Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Transitions & Mobility Community Disorganization Low Neighborhood Attachment

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

100

10

0

Non-Gamblers 2006

Perceived Availability of Drugs

Community

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Family

9

Low Commitment to School

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

Interaction with Antisocial Peers

7 State Norm 2006

Gang Involvement

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Prosocial Involvement Peer / Individual

Interaction with Prosocial Peers State 2006 Frequent Gamblers 2006 Religiosity Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

Belief in the Moral Order

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 8

Social Skills

PROTECTIVE PROFILE

Elevated Risk and Protection

7 State Norm 2006

Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

School

Family

Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement

Family Attachment Non-Gamblers 2006

Community

Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

100

10

0

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

10

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Intention to Use Drugs Depressive Symptoms Rewards for ASB

Peer / Individual

Friend's Use of Drugs

Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to ASB Early Initiation of Drug Use Early Initiation of ASB Rebelliousness

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 10

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles

Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE

School

Academic Failure Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns

Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Transitions & Mobility Community Disorganization Low Neighborhood Attachment

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

100

10

0

Non-Gamblers 2006

Perceived Availability of Drugs

Community

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Family

11

Low Commitment to School

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

Interaction with Antisocial Peers

7 State Norm 2006

Gang Involvement

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Prosocial Involvement Peer / Individual

Interaction with Prosocial Peers State 2006 Frequent Gamblers 2006 Religiosity Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

Belief in the Moral Order

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 10

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles

Social Skills

PROTECTIVE PROFILE

Elevated Risk and Protection

7 State Norm 2006

Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

School

Family

Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement

Family Attachment Non-Gamblers 2006

Community

Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

100

10

0

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

12

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Intention to Use Drugs Depressive Symptoms Rewards for ASB

Peer / Individual

Friend's Use of Drugs

Perceived Risk of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to ASB Early Initiation of Drug Use Early Initiation of ASB Rebelliousness

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 12

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles

Elevated Risk and Protection

RISK PROFILE

School

Academic Failure Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict Poor Family Management Perceived Availability of Handguns

Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Transitions & Mobility Community Disorganization Low Neighborhood Attachment

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

100

10

0

Non-Gamblers 2006

Perceived Availability of Drugs

Community

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Family

13

Low Commitment to School

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

Interaction with Antisocial Peers

7 State Norm 2006

Gang Involvement

Percentage of Youth at Risk

Prosocial Involvement Peer / Individual

Interaction with Prosocial Peers State 2006 Frequent Gamblers 2006 Religiosity Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

Belief in the Moral Order

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 12

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles

Social Skills

PROTECTIVE PROFILE

Elevated Risk and Protection

7 State Norm 2006

Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

School

Family

Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement

Family Attachment Non-Gamblers 2006

Community

Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

100

10

0

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

14

Percentage of Youth with Protective Factor

Heavy Use Antisocial Behavior Past

Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked to Harm Been Arrested Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School
*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.

1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking Prescription Drugs Steroids Ecstasy Sedatives Heroin Stimulants

ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 8

ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior

30 Day Use*

Methamphetamines Cocaine Hallucinogens

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Prescription Drugs Steroids Ecstasy Sedatives Heroin Stimulants

Ever Used

Cocaine Hallucinogens Inhalants Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

100

10

0

Non-Gamblers 2006

Methamphetamines

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Inhalants

15

Percentages (%)

Heavy Use Antisocial Behavior Past

Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked to Harm Been Arrested Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School
*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.

1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking Prescription Drugs Steroids Ecstasy Sedatives Heroin Stimulants

ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 10

ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior

30 Day Use*

Methamphetamines Cocaine Hallucinogens

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Prescription Drugs Steroids Ecstasy Sedatives Heroin Stimulants

Ever Used

Cocaine Hallucinogens Inhalants Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

100

10

0

Non-Gamblers 2006

Methamphetamines

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Inhalants

16

Percentages (%)

Heavy Use Antisocial Behavior Past

Handgun to School Carried a Handgun Attacked to Harm Been Arrested Stolen a Vehicle Sold Illegal Drugs Drunk or High at School Suspended from School
*30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.

1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day Binge Drinking Prescription Drugs Steroids Ecstasy Sedatives Heroin Stimulants

ATOD USE AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR

2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 12

ATOD Use and Antisocial Behavior

30 Day Use*

Methamphetamines Cocaine Hallucinogens

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol Prescription Drugs Steroids Ecstasy Sedatives Heroin Stimulants

Ever Used

Cocaine Hallucinogens Inhalants Marijuana Chewing Tobacco Cigarettes Alcohol 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

100

10

0

Non-Gamblers 2006

Methamphetamines

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Inhalants

17

Percentages (%)

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE 2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 8
50 45

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Carried a Weapon on School Property

Threatened or Injured on School Property

In a Physical Fight on School Property

Non-Gamblers 2006

Felt Unsafe at School

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

18

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE 2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 10
50 45

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Carried a Weapon on School Property

Threatened or Injured on School Property

In a Physical Fight on School Property

Non-Gamblers 2006

Felt Unsafe at School

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

19

School Safety Profile

SCHOOL SAFETY PROFILE 2006 Student Gambling Survey, Grade 12
50 45

Percent of Students with Safety Concerns

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Carried a Weapon on School Property

Threatened or Injured on School Property

In a Physical Fight on School Property

Non-Gamblers 2006

Felt Unsafe at School

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

20

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions
Community Domain Risk Factors Community and Personal Transitions & Mobility Neighborhoods with high rates of residential mobility have been shown to have higher rates of juvenile crime and drug selling, while children who experience frequent residential moves and stressful life transitions have been shown to have higher risk for school failure, delinquency, and drug use. Research has shown that neighborhoods with high population density, lack of natural surveillance of public places, physical deterioration, and high rates of adult crime also have higher rates of juvenile crime and drug selling. A low level of bonding to the neighborhood is related to higher levels of juvenile crime and drug selling. Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking age, restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in consumption. Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative attitudes toward drug use have preceded changes in prevalence of use. The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use by adolescents. Community Domain Protective Factors Opportunities for Positive Involvement Rewards for Positive Involvement Family History of Antisocial Behavior Family Conflict When opportunities are available in a community for positive participation, children are less likely to engage in substance use and other problem behaviors. Rewards for positive participation in activities helps children bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for substance use. Family Domain Risk Factors When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the children are more likely to engage in these behaviors. Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at risk for both delinquency and drug use.

Community Disorganization

Low Neighborhood Attachment Laws and Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use

Perceived Availability of Drugs and Handguns

Parental Attitudes Favorable In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children's use, Toward Antisocial Behavior & children are more likely to become drug abusers during adolescence. The risk is further increased if parents involve children in their own drug (or alcohol) using behavior, for example, asking the child to Drugs light the parent's cigarette or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator. Poor Family Management Parents' use of inconsistent and/or unusually harsh or severe punishment with their children places them at higher risk for substance use and other problem behaviors. Also, parents' failure to provide clear expectations and to monitor their children's behavior makes it more likely that they will engage in drug abuse whether or not there are family drug problems. Family Domain Protective Factors Family Attachment Opportunities for Positive Involvement Rewards for Positive Involvement Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance use and other problem behaviors. Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities and activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors. When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by their child, children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors. School Domain Risk Factors Academic Failure Beginning in the late elementary grades (grades 4-6), academic failure increases the risk of both drug abuse and delinquency. It appears that the experience of failure itself, for whatever reasons, increases the risk of problem behaviors.

21

Table 2. Risk and Protective Factor Scale Definitions (Continued)
Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of hallucinogens, cocaine, heroin, stimulants, and sedatives or non-medically prescribed tranquilizers is significantly lower among students who expect to attend college than among those who do not. Factors such as liking school, spending time on homework, and perceiving the coursework as relevant are also negatively related to drug use. School Domain Protective Factors Opportunities for Positive Involvement Rewards for Positive Involvement When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at school, they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors. When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to be involved in substance use and other problem behaviors. Peer-Individual Risk Factors Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater the involvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15 is a consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict lower drug involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use.

During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes Attitudes Favorable Toward Antisocial Behavior and Drug and have difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, Use their attitudes often shift toward greater acceptance of these behaviors. Youth who express positive attitudes toward drug use and antisocial behavior are more likely to engage in a variety of problem behaviors, including drug use. Friends' Use of Drugs Young people who associate with peers who engage in alcohol or substance abuse are much more likely to engage in the same behavior. Peer drug use has consistently been found to be among the strongest predictors of substance use among youth. Even when young people come from well-managed families and do not experience other risk factors, spending time with friends who use drugs greatly increases the risk of that problem developing. Young people who associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors are at higher risk for engaging in antisocial behavior themselves. Young people who do not perceive drug use to be risky are far more likely to engage in drug use. Young people who receive rewards for their antisocial behavior are at higher risk for engaging further in antisocial behavior and substance use. Young people who do not feel part of society are not bound by rules, don't believe in trying to be successful or responsible, or who take an active rebellious stance toward society, are at higher risk of abusing drugs. In addition, high tolerance for deviance, a strong need for independence and normlessness have all been linked with drug use. Many prevention programs focus on reducing the intention of participants to use ATODs later in life. Reduction of intention to use ATODs often follows successful prevention interventions. Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely to use drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and other youth problem behaviors. Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use. Peer-Individual Protective Factors Religiosity Social Skills Belief in the Moral Order Prosocial Involvement Prosocial Norms Involvement with Prosocial Peers Young people who regularly attend religious services are less likely to engage in problem behaviors. Young people who are socially competent and engage in positive interpersonal relations with their peers are less likely to use drugs and engage in other problem behaviors. Young people who have a belief in what is "right" or "wrong" are less likely to use drugs. Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth. Young people who view working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in problem behavior. Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in antisocial behavior and substance use.

Interaction with Antisocial Peers Perceived Risk of Drug Use Rewards for Antisocial Behavior Rebelliousness

Intention to Use ATODs Depressive Symptoms

Gang Involvement

22

Table 3. Number of Students Who Completed the Survey Grade 8 Total Students
NonGamblers 2006 6867 Infrequent Gamblers 2006 6689 Frequent Gamblers 2006 5958 State 2006 26872 NonGamblers 2006 6431

Grade 10
Infrequent Gamblers 2006 5572 Frequent Gamblers 2006 4453 State 2006 19581 NonGamblers 2006 5645

Grade 12
Infrequent Gamblers 2006 4018 Frequent Gamblers 2006 2706 State 2006 13948

Table 4. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During Their Lifetime Grade 8 Drug Used
NonGamblers 2006 Infrequent Gamblers 2006 Frequent Gamblers 2006 State 2006 NonGamblers 2006

Grade 10
Infrequent Gamblers 2006 Frequent Gamblers 2006 State 2006 NonGamblers 2006

Grade 12
Infrequent Gamblers 2006 Frequent Gamblers 2006 State 2006

Alcohol 34.5 52.8 66.7 50.4 Cigarettes 20.5 29.8 43.6 30.8 Chewing Tobacco 4.2 6.7 13.7 8.0 Marijuana 11.5 16.4 27.8 18.3 Inhalants 9.0 15.6 21.7 15.2 Hallucinogens 1.0 1.5 3.8 2.1 Cocaine 1.8 2.5 6.5 3.6 Methamphetamines 1.4 2.0 4.5 2.6 Stimulants 1.9 3.3 5.8 3.4 Heroin 0.7 1.1 2.5 1.4 Sedatives 5.6 10.6 14.0 10.0 Ecstasy 0.8 1.6 3.9 1.9 Steroids 0.6 1.1 3.3 1.6 Prescription Drugs 5.8 10.5 14.0 9.8 Any Drug 23.6 35.7 49.9 36.2 Table 5. Percentage of Students Who Used ATODs During the Past 30 Days Grade 8 Drug Used Alcohol Cigarettes Chewing Tobacco Marijuana Inhalants Hallucinogens Cocaine Methamphetamines Stimulants Heroin Sedatives Ecstasy Steroids Prescription Drugs Any Drug
NonGamblers 2006 Infrequent Gamblers 2006 Frequent Gamblers 2006 State 2006

56.2 35.5 7.0 26.3 8.0 2.7 5.2 3.5 4.7 1.1 10.1 1.8 1.0 11.7 36.8

70.6 43.8 10.6 33.1 13.6 4.0 7.2 5.0 7.7 1.8 16.1 3.2 1.6 17.9 47.0 Grade 10

80.5 54.0 19.8 45.2 15.6 6.5 11.4 7.4 9.8 3.8 19.0 6.1 3.9 21.2 60.8

67.6 43.8 11.8 34.0 11.9 4.1 7.6 5.0 7.1 2.1 14.3 3.4 2.0 16.0 47.0

64.6 41.4 8.9 34.8 7.0 3.8 8.8 5.3 6.0 2.1 13.5 2.9 1.3 14.6 43.4

79.6 53.4 16.8 44.7 11.6 5.8 12.0 6.4 10.3 2.7 19.7 4.5 2.2 23.7 56.2 Grade 12

86.0 62.0 26.8 55.2 12.9 9.0 16.8 9.9 11.3 4.4 22.9 7.5 4.0 26.3 65.8

74.5 50.0 15.6 42.6 9.8 5.6 11.6 6.6 8.5 2.8 17.4 4.4 2.2 20.0 52.8

NonGamblers 2006

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

NonGamblers 2006

Infrequent Gamblers 2006

Frequent Gamblers 2006

State 2006

13.8 6.3 1.3 4.9 3.3 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.4 0.4 0.3 2.5 11.4

23.8 9.4 2.0 7.1 6.0 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.3 0.3 4.4 0.5 0.5 4.4 17.9

36.9 16.8 5.3 14.1 10.0 2.0 3.1 1.8 2.7 1.2 7.3 1.6 1.7 7.1 31.3

24.1 10.5 2.7 8.5 6.2 1.0 1.7 1.0 1.5 0.7 4.5 0.8 0.8 4.5 19.7

29.1 13.4 2.0 11.4 2.0 1.1 1.9 1.1 2.1 0.4 4.0 0.5 0.4 4.7 18.6

38.9 16.4 3.0 15.1 3.4 1.4 2.4 1.4 3.0 0.4 7.1 0.7 0.6 6.9 24.6

53.4 22.7 7.9 22.1 4.5 3.2 4.7 3.0 4.3 1.5 10.2 2.4 2.4 11.5 36.7

39.2 17.1 4.0 15.7 3.1 1.7 2.9 1.7 2.9 0.7 6.6 1.0 1.0 7.3 25.6

36.8 16.9 2.6 13.6 0.9 0.9 2.2 1.0 1.6 0.5 4.7 0.5 0.5 5.1 19.9

50.9 23.2 4.9 18.0 2.0 1.7 3.6 1.0 3.0 0.5 7.7 0.6 0.6 8.7 26.9

61.7 28.6 11.8 27.1 2.5 3.6 5.3 2.7 3.8 1.6 11.4 2.1 2.5 13.3 38.6

47.0 21.8 5.4 18.1 1.7 1.7 3.3 1.4 2.6 0.8 7.1 0.9 1.0 8.1 26.6

 2006 refers to stimulants other than methamphetamines. For prior years, Stimulants included methamphetamines.  30 day use may appear higher than lifetime use due to missing student responses to the lifetime use question.

23

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Heavy Use of Alcohol and Cigarettes Grade 8 Drug Used
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Grade 10
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Grade 12
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Binge Drinking 6.7 11.2 23.1 13.4 1/2 Pack of Cigarettes/Day 0.6 0.7 2.2 1.0 Table 7. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior in the Past Year Grade 8 Behavior
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

14.6 1.5

20.5 2.2

35.0 3.7

22.4 2.4

19.9 2.6

29.8 4.1

42.9 6.1

28.2 3.9

Grade 10
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Grade 12
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Suspended from School 13.8 16.7 27.8 Drunk or High at School 7.7 11.1 21.2 Sold Illegal Drugs 2.2 3.4 9.3 Stolen a Vehicle 2.0 2.8 8.4 Been Arrested 5.1 6.0 14.4 Attacked to Harm 9.9 16.1 28.4 Carried a Handgun 3.7 5.9 13.0 Handgun to School 0.6 0.8 3.1 Table 8. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection Grade 8 Protective Factor Community Domain Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Family Domain Family Attachment Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement School Domain Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement Peer-Individual Domain Religiosity Social Skills Belief in the Moral Order Interaction with Prosocial Peers Prosocial Involvement Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006

19.8 13.0 4.9 4.6 8.3 17.9 7.6 1.6

10.6 14.7 4.8 2.0 5.7 9.7 3.3 0.5

13.0 20.2 7.9 3.6 7.9 15.2 5.9 0.8

23.0 30.9 16.2 9.2 15.0 26.8 14.1 3.9

15.5 21.1 9.1 4.7 9.3 16.5 7.5 1.6

6.1 14.7 5.4 1.5 5.2 8.1 3.6 0.6

7.9 21.4 9.2 2.4 6.8 12.5 6.6 0.6

16.4 33.9 18.8 6.5 13.7 22.9 13.2 3.5

9.4 21.4 9.8 3.1 7.8 13.2 7.0 1.4

Grade 10
State 2006 NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Grade 12
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

41.0 32.6 51.7 61.7 64.1 62.0 53.4 50.8 69.6 68.0 51.9 39.6 60.1

38.8 29.2 48.1 55.8 60.4 59.7 51.2 46.4 61.3 54.6 48.0 38.7 59.0

35.6 29.2 45.9 53.5 56.7 55.5 44.8 44.2 42.2 40.3 40.5 39.0 56.7

38.2 30.4 48.7 57.4 60.6 59.1 50.7 46.2 58.3 54.3 46.1 37.7 58.8

38.8 36.1 45.8 53.9 55.8 64.8 64.1 48.2 62.5 72.1 52.7 40.9 62.7

37.4 36.1 43.1 53.8 55.4 64.3 64.4 43.6 53.5 63.0 50.5 40.3 60.3

35.1 36.3 42.9 50.5 52.7 60.2 57.3 42.0 37.7 49.4 46.5 41.4 58.5

37.1 36.3 44.1 53.0 54.9 62.9 62.3 44.3 52.4 62.6 49.6 39.3 61.1

39.4 35.3 57.9 56.9 57.7 67.1 49.9 71.8 74.8 61.4 51.6 42.6 54.7

38.0 34.8 56.7 55.6 57.6 67.3 48.9 71.6 66.4 49.3 47.1 38.7 53.1

35.0 36.3 56.4 54.4 54.6 60.2 43.9 68.3 49.3 35.9 45.3 36.8 51.0

37.6 35.2 57.1 55.9 56.9 65.2 48.0 70.7 66.0 51.2 48.1 39.1 53.4

24

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Risk Grade 8 Risk Factor Community Domain Low Neighborhood Attachment Community Disorganization Transitions & Mobility Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use Perceived Availability of Drugs Perceived Availability of Handguns Family Domain Poor Family Management Family Conflict Family History of Antisocial Behavior Parent Attitudes Favorable to ASB Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use School Domain Academic Failure Low Commitment to School Peer-Individual Domain Rebelliousness Early Initiation of ASB Early Initiation of Drug Use Attitudes Favorable to ASB Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use Perceived Risk of Drug Use Interaction with Antisocial Peers Friend's Use of Drugs Rewards for ASB Depressive Symptoms Intention to Use Drugs Gang Involvement
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Grade 10
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Grade 12
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

39.0 39.3 50.4 29.6 28.0 29.4 39.1 44.6 30.4 34.2 19.1 42.8 36.2 32.9 29.1 23.0 34.1 22.7 35.1 46.2 30.3 38.7 40.5 25.7 17.1

40.8 48.1 53.2 36.2 37.3 36.5 48.0 54.1 43.2 51.1 30.0 43.4 40.1 43.7 37.9 33.6 46.7 31.2 44.9 56.4 39.8 50.3 45.9 36.3 22.8

42.2 58.5 57.3 49.5 50.9 48.3 58.2 58.8 56.2 62.2 39.6 52.3 48.9 56.5 52.7 50.6 60.4 45.5 55.4 70.5 55.3 59.2 49.3 48.8 38.6

40.7 48.2 53.7 37.8 38.1 37.0 47.9 52.2 42.7 48.5 29.1 48.6 41.1 43.8 40.2 35.2 46.2 32.4 45.4 58.4 41.3 48.7 45.7 36.5 26.3

46.3 52.0 58.5 36.3 42.3 23.2 39.4 37.9 35.5 37.8 31.3 47.8 37.2 39.1 31.7 27.9 39.7 29.0 31.6 48.2 35.3 39.3 44.5 36.0 17.2

46.3 57.6 61.3 41.0 48.6 25.0 44.2 42.5 42.8 53.6 43.6 46.5 38.5 47.9 40.9 35.4 51.7 36.7 38.6 56.4 42.4 46.7 45.3 45.4 19.9

47.8 64.4 62.7 52.8 59.5 37.5 53.7 46.4 54.7 63.2 52.6 55.6 46.2 58.5 55.3 49.8 61.9 47.4 49.8 69.2 54.2 52.7 46.5 56.4 35.4

46.9 57.6 60.4 42.5 48.8 27.6 45.0 42.2 43.2 50.0 41.1 51.6 40.1 47.5 42.4 36.6 49.7 36.6 39.2 58.1 43.2 45.0 45.5 44.9 23.9

49.6 48.6 53.0 28.7 45.9 29.4 39.4 35.5 31.3 36.8 32.1 40.8 40.4 37.3 28.7 26.2 37.0 27.2 32.9 42.1 28.6 47.4 38.2 23.5 11.5

49.6 53.0 55.4 35.5 53.1 33.6 46.8 38.4 42.0 50.8 44.1 41.2 42.7 45.0 39.8 35.2 48.4 37.4 42.7 51.9 36.5 56.1 39.0 31.4 15.2

50.1 58.4 57.8 44.9 60.0 44.8 53.4 42.2 48.7 58.0 50.9 49.5 49.2 55.8 54.3 46.7 59.5 45.6 52.8 66.9 47.0 63.0 37.9 39.9 26.0

49.8 52.3 54.9 34.6 51.3 34.1 44.8 38.3 38.6 45.9 40.1 44.1 43.0 44.3 38.8 34.1 45.6 34.6 40.5 52.0 35.9 53.8 38.6 29.9 16.3

25

Table 10. Percentage of Students Reporting School Safety Issues Grade 8 Question Response
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Grade 10
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

Grade 12
NonInfrequent Frequent Gamblers Gamblers Gamblers 2006 2006 2006 State 2006

0 days During the past 30 days, on how 1 day many days did you carry a weapon 2-3 days such as a gun, knife, or club on 4-5 days school property? (q43) 6 or more days During the past 30 days, on how many days did you not go to school because you felt you would be unsafe at school or on your way to or from school? (q41) 0 days 1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times 0 times 1 time 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-7 times 8-9 times 10-11 times 12 or more times

96.8 1.4 0.9 0.2 0.7 91.7 4.7 2.0 0.4 1.2 90.2 5.1 2.5 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.8 84.0 9.6 4.0 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5

94.3 3.0 1.1 0.3 1.2 90.6 5.7 2.4 0.7 0.7 86.6 7.0 4.0 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 78.2 13.1 5.8 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.6

87.9 4.9 2.7 1.3 3.2 85.9 7.2 3.9 1.2 1.9 75.8 10.9 6.7 2.2 1.0 0.6 0.5 2.2 63.8 16.8 11.4 3.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 2.2

93.1 3.1 1.6 0.6 1.6 89.3 6.0 2.8 0.7 1.2 84.5 7.7 4.2 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 1.2 75.4 13.1 7.1 2.1 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.0

96.2 1.2 0.7 0.3 1.6 94.2 3.1 1.5 0.5 0.6 91.3 4.6 2.1 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 90.6 6.2 2.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3

93.9 2.2 1.3 0.6 2.0 93.3 3.6 2.0 0.4 0.7 87.7 7.1 3.2 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 86.2 8.6 3.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3

86.8 4.3 2.9 1.1 4.9 89.3 5.4 2.6 0.7 2.0 77.5 9.0 7.0 2.0 1.1 0.5 0.3 2.7 74.5 12.5 8.1 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.3

92.7 2.4 1.5 0.7 2.7 92.2 4.1 2.1 0.5 1.1 86.1 6.7 3.9 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.3 84.3 8.9 4.4 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7

96.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.8 96.7 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 94.2 3.0 1.9 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 94.9 3.5 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2

94.5 1.4 1.0 0.4 2.7 95.6 2.7 1.1 0.2 0.4 91.5 4.3 2.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 92.6 5.1 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3

88.7 2.7 1.7 1.1 5.8 91.7 3.9 1.9 0.8 1.6 82.8 6.9 5.7 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.7 82.8 9.3 4.8 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.9

94.0 1.4 0.9 0.6 3.0 95.0 2.6 1.2 0.4 0.7 90.5 4.4 3.0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.7 91.1 5.5 2.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4

During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? (q39)

During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight on school property? (q40)

26

Table 11. Youth Gambling Behavior
8th Grade Gambling Profile How often in the past 12 months have you: Gambled at a Casino? Played the lottery or scratch of tickets? Bet on team sports? Played cards for money? Bet money on horse races? Played bingo for money or prizes? Gambled on the Internet? Bet on dice games such as craps? Bet on games of personal skill? Never
Number Percent

Not in the past year
Number Percent

A few times in the past year
Number Percent

Once or twice a Once or twice a Almost everyday month week
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

18248 12405 12008 12669 17467 13738 17163 16332 13563

94.5 64.3 63.0 66.6 91.9 72.6 91.1 86.8 71.9

539 1810 1710 1640 552 1676 533 672 1370

2.8 9.4 9.0 8.6 2.9 8.9 2.8 3.6 7.3

267 2819 2641 2417 468 2068 407 750 1842

1.4 14.6 13.8 12.7 2.5 10.9 2.2 4.0 9.8

95 1339 1074 1241 213 778 287 463 963

0.5 6.9 5.6 6.5 1.1 4.1 1.5 2.5 5.1

29 632 676 592 124 326 194 270 541

0.2 3.3 3.5 3.1 0.7 1.7 1.0 1.4 2.9

124 293 964 465 173 333 249 331 582

0.6 1.5 5.1 2.4 0.9 1.8 1.3 1.8 3.1

Table 12. Youth Gambling Behavior
10th Grade Gambling Profile How often in the past 12 months have you: Gambled at a Casino? Played the lottery or scratch of tickets? Bet on team sports? Played cards for money? Bet money on horse races? Played bingo for money or prizes? Gambled on the Internet? Bet on dice games such as craps? Bet on games of personal skill? Never
Number Percent

Not in the past year
Number Percent

A few times in the past year
Number Percent

Once or twice a Once or twice a Almost everyday month week
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

15531 11488 10583 10625 14913 12984 14789 13829 11585

95.2 70.4 65.5 66.0 92.6 80.8 92.8 86.4 72.4

352 1187 1335 1250 450 1143 300 540 992

2.2 7.3 8.3 7.8 2.8 7.1 1.9 3.4 6.2

218 2353 2157 2323 376 1229 334 718 1778

1.3 14.4 13.3 14.4 2.3 7.6 2.1 4.5 11.1

73 807 808 1104 159 395 222 418 844

0.4 4.9 5.0 6.9 1.0 2.5 1.4 2.6 5.3

30 316 444 472 97 142 123 215 416

0.2 1.9 2.7 2.9 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.3 2.6

105 164 840 316 111 175 177 293 388

0.6 1.0 5.2 2.0 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.8 2.4

27

Table 13. Youth Gambling Behavior
12th Grade Gambling Profile How often in the past 12 months have you: Gambled at a Casino? Played the lottery or scratch of tickets? Bet on team sports? Played cards for money? Bet money on horse races? Played bingo for money or prizes? Gambled on the Internet? Bet on dice games such as craps? Bet on games of personal skill? Never
Number Percent

Not in the past year
Number Percent

A few times in the past year
Number Percent

Once or twice a Once or twice a Almost everyday month week
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

11660 9355 8713 8348 11445 10665 11421 10803 9289

94.9 76.1 71.4 68.6 94.0 87.9 94.1 89.1 76.4

247 739 876 825 309 618 186 379 615

2.0 6.0 7.2 6.8 2.5 5.1 1.5 3.1 5.1

260 1544 1537 1749 222 570 215 425 1239

2.1 12.6 12.6 14.4 1.8 4.7 1.8 3.5 10.2

58 432 459 763 100 159 120 242 548

0.5 3.5 3.8 6.3 0.8 1.3 1.0 2.0 4.5

13 144 230 332 40 61 90 142 270

0.1 1.2 1.9 2.7 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.2

51 80 383 150 58 66 110 137 190

0.4 0.7 3.1 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.6

Table 14. Youth Gambling Behavior
All Grades Gambling Profile How often in the past 12 months have you: Gambled at a Casino? Played the lottery or scratch of tickets? Bet on team sports? Played cards for money? Bet money on horse races? Played bingo for money or prizes? Gambled on the Internet? Bet on dice games such as craps? Bet on games of personal skill? Never
Number Percent

Not in the past year
Number Percent

A few times in the past year
Number Percent

Once or twice a Once or twice a Almost everyday month week
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

45439 33248 31304 31642 43825 37387 43373 40964 34437

94.9 69.4 66.0 66.9 92.7 79.3 92.4 87.2 73.2

1138 3736 3921 3715 1311 3437 1019 1591 2977

2.4 7.8 8.3 7.9 2.8 7.3 2.2 3.4 6.3

745 6716 6335 6489 1066 3867 956 1893 4859

1.6 14.0 13.4 13.7 2.3 8.2 2.0 4.0 10.3

226 2578 2341 3108 472 1332 629 1123 2355

0.5 5.4 4.9 6.6 1.0 2.8 1.3 2.4 5.0

72 1092 1350 1396 261 529 407 627 1227

0.2 2.3 2.8 3.0 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.3 2.6

280 537 2187 931 342 574 536 761 1160

0.6 1.1 4.6 2.0 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.6 2.5

28

Contacts For Prevention
Regional Prevention Contacts
Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties Bill Burnett Community Partnership of Southern Arizona (CPSA) 520-618-8807 Gila, La Paz, Pinal, and Yuma Counties Linda Weinberg Cenpatico Behavioral Health of Arizona 480-231-7504 Apache, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties Petrice Post Northern Arizona Regional Behavioral Health Authority (NARBHA) 928-214-2177 Maricopa County Juan Aristizabal ValueOptions 602-9145844 Gila River Tribe Marnie McNicholas 602-528-7106 Pasqua Yaqui Tribe Jill Fabian 520-879-6067 Navajo Nation Maxine Nakai 928-871-7946 Colorado River Indian Tribes Iris Leivas 928-669-6577 Arizona Department of Health Services Division of Behavioral Health Services Lisa Shumaker 602-364-4594 www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm Arizona Prevention Resource Center 1-800-432-2772 www.azprevention.org Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety Steve Ballance/Charles Katz 602-543-6174/602-543-6618 steve.ballance@asu.edu/charles.katz@asu.edu Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) http://prevention.samhsa.gov Governor's Office of Children, Youth, and Families 602-542-4043 http://www.governor.state.az.us/cyf/index.html Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities U.S. Department of Education www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS Arizona Department of Gaming's Office of Problem Gambling Paula Burns 602-266-8299 ext. 351 www.problemgambling.az.gov Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) www.samhsa.gov Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) www.westcapt.org Bach Harrison, L.L.C. R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D. 801-359-2064 www.bach-harrison.com

Other State and National Contacts:
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission Michelle Neitch/ Phillip Stevenson 602-364-1173/602-364-1157 www.azcjc.gov Arizona Department of Education Student Services Division www.ade.az.gov

29