Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families
Division for Substance Abuse Policy
The Impact
of Substance
Abuse:
A Snapshot
of Arizona
July 2007
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................ 1
Introduction ......................................................................................... 3
Arizona Demographics ................................................................... 3
Drug Trafficking .......................................................................... 5
Alcohol ............................................................................................... 6
Underage Drinking: A National and Statewide Crisis ............................... 6
Binge Drinking Among Individuals Between the Ages of 18 and 25.............. 11
Driving Under the Influence ........................................................... 12
Methamphetamine ................................................................................ 15
Prevention................................................................................ 15
Treatment ................................................................................ 17
Enforcement ............................................................................. 21
Children’s Cabinet ................................................................................ 24
Emerging Issues .................................................................................... 27
Conclusions ......................................................................................... 29
References.......................................................................................... 32
Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group Member Roster and Contact List .......... 30
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
- 1- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
E very two years, the Arizona Substance
Abuse Epidemiology Work Group,
staffed by the Division for Substance
Abuse Policy of the Governor’s Office for
Children, Youth and Families ( GOCYF), pro-duces
a statewide Substance Abuse Epidemi-ology
Profile, which compiles key substance
abuse- related findings. This document, a
snapshot of the larger report, draws out the
most salient and timely findings. It is in-tended
for use by policymakers, policy ana-lysts,
and other interested parties.
This snapshot centers on Arizona’s most
pressing substance abuse related- issues,
which can be broadly divided into three
categories: alcohol, methamphetamine, and
emerging issues. It also touches on the
substance abuse- specific indicators set forth
by the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet.
It appears that the number of individuals
reporting dependence on alcohol or alcohol
abuse has risen significantly in the last five
years. Between 2000 and 2005, there was a
50% increase in the percentage of people
( aged 12 and older) reporting dependence on
or abuse of alcohol— a problem that now af-flicts
one in ten Arizonans. Further, one in
four Arizonans, aged 12 and older, reported
binge drinking within the month prior to be-ing
surveyed.
Underage drinking is also a concern through-out
Arizona. Almost half of Arizona high
school students reported drinking at least
one alcoholic beverage on more than one of
the 30 days preceding the survey and over
20% reported engaging in binge drinking in
the two weeks prior to being surveyed— a dis-paraging
finding given the effects of alcohol
on the developing brain and body. Further-more,
over 20% of high school students re-ported
being drunk or high at school in the
past year, an indication that the problem can
be difficult to contain.
One success is the continued decrease in the
incidence of driving under the influence
( DUI). Between 2002 and 2005, arrests for
DUI decreased by over 16%. While this pro-gress
should be acknowledged, the data indi-cate
a need for continued observation.
Though alcohol use is the most prevalent
substance used by Arizona’s youth, some of
our young people are abusing a drug which
can have a quicker, more destructive impact:
methamphetamine. The impact of metham-phetamine
is felt throughout Arizona, as re-cently
detailed in the report issued by Gover-nor
Napolitano’s Methamphetamine Task
Force entitled, A Plan for Action: Addressing
the Methamphetamine Crisis in Arizona. We
continue to learn more about the nature of
methamphetamine use and addiction as our
state confronts the problem, and some new
findings in this report should orient our poli-cymaking
choices.
First, new findings show that methampheta-mine
is the only substance for which middle-and
high- school girls report higher usage
rates than boys. There is also a dispropor-tionate
use of methamphetamine by adult
females receiving drug treatment services,
Executive Summary
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 2-
suggesting that girls may continue to use
methamphetamine at higher rates into adult-hood.
The number of individuals seeking
treatment for methamphetamine and the
cost of treating individuals for addiction to
this substance continue to be remarkably
high— an indicator of just how devastating
the drug can be. Recent data indicate that
the production of this drug is moving out of
Arizona, as methamphetamine lab “ busts”
decrease; however, trafficking across the
Mexican border into Arizona has risen as a
substitute for in- state production.
Though issues surrounding methamphetamine
and alcohol are familiar to many policy-makers,
new epidemiological data point to
emerging issues in substance abuse that must
be addressed. Of concern is the growing
abuse of prescription drugs— almost 15% of
Arizona youth reported misusing prescription
drugs in 2006. While the incidence of drug
use tends to rise as youth progress through
school, use of inhalants has emerged as a
bigger problem among 8th graders than high
school students— an abnormality that preven-tion
professionals and school officials should
note. Finally, analysis of treatment
admissions by ethnic group indicates varying
levels of substance use among ethnic groups,
which offers some hope that
culturally- competent prevention measures,
tailored to individual communities and
reflective of their needs, might help to lower
substance abuse overall.
This snapshot provides hard data that
illustrate the severity of substance abuse in
Arizona. Alcohol and drug dependence and
abuse is consistently higher among 18 to 25-
year- olds than individuals in any other age
group. Prevention efforts must focus on this
age group and the age group preceding it, as
youthful experimentation can quickly
become adult abuse and dependence. With
strong, coordinated efforts, Arizona can
make progress in the fight to reduce
substance abuse.
Executive Summary
- 3- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Introduction
Arizona’s diverse population spans
more than 113,000 square miles,
borders Mexico, and is experienc-ing
rapid population growth. The
state is comprised of 15 counties
and 21 federally- recognized tribes.
As of 2006, Arizona had an esti-mated
population of 6,166,318
( U. S. Census Bureau, Population
Division, 2006 Population
Estimates, December 22, 2006).
While the overall United States
population grew 5.3% between
2000 and 2005, Arizona experi-enced
a 18.1% growth during the
same time period. The majority of
Arizona’s residents live in urban
areas within Maricopa County,
which is home to more than 3.6
million people, and in Pima
County, where some 924,000
people reside. The remainder of
Arizona Demographics
T his report addresses the prevalence of substance abuse throughout Arizona and the
financial burden it places on Arizonans. Special emphasis has been placed on the
following categories: underage drinking; arrests and injuries related to driving under the
influence of alcohol; prevention, treatment, and enforcement efforts related to methampheta-mine
use in Arizona; and substance abuse- specific indicators set forth by the Governor’s
Children’s Cabinet. This report provides a look at emerging substance abuse issues in Arizona
that threaten the health and safety of our state’s populace. The conclusion includes
recommendations regarding what data should be examined into the future to predict changes
and assist us with measuring the impact of our strategies at both a state and community level.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 4-
Arizona’s residents live in
the 13 other counties, which
are considered rural areas
( U. S. Census Bureau,
American Community Sur-vey,
2005, available at
h t t p : / / f a c t f i n d e r .
census. gov).
The median Arizona house-hold
income is $ 41,963,
slightly less than the na-tional
average of $ 43,318. In
Arizona, 13.9% of citizens
live below the poverty line—
slightly higher than the
12.5% national average ( U. S.
Census Bureau, American
Community Survey, 2005,
available at http:// fact
finder. census. gov).
Overall, 87.4% of Arizona
residents describe them-selves
as White ( 60.4% non-
Hispanic White). Hispanic
Arizonans constitute the
largest ethnic minority in
the state, accounting for
28.5% of the total popula-tion.
At the national level,
only 14.4% of individuals
indicate that they belong to
this ethnic group. Individuals
who report being American
Indian make up 5.1% of the
population, and many
identify themselves as
members of one of the 21
federally- recognized tribes
in Arizona. In addition, 3.6%
of Arizonans reported that
they are Black, 2.2% of the
population is Asian, and
1.5% reported a biracial
background ( U. S. Census Bu-reau,
American Community
Survey, 2005, available at
h t t p : / / f a c t f i n d e r .
census. gov).
Arizona is also linguistically
diverse. It is estimated that
27.4% of individuals residing
in Arizona speak a language
other than English at home.
This exceeds the 19.4% of
the national population that
speak a non- English lan-guage
at home ( U. S. Census
B u r e a u , A m e r i c a n
Community Survey, 2005,
available at http://
factfinder. census. gov).
Tribes in Arizona
Ak- Chin Indian Community
Cocopah Tribe
Colorado River Indian Tribes
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
Fort Mojave Tribe
Gila River Indian Community
Havasupai Tribe
Hopi Tribe
Hualapai Tribe
Kaibab- Paiute Tribe
Navajo Nation
Pascua Yaqui Tribe
Quechan Tribe
Salt River Pima- Maricopa
Indian Community
San Carlos Apache Tribe
San Juan Southern Paiute
Tohono O’odham Nation
Tonto Apache Tribe
White Mountain Apache Tribe
Yavapai- Apache Nation
Yavapai- Prescott Indian Tribe
Introduction
- 5- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
While methamphetamine production in
Mexico has increased sharply, chemical
restrictions may make it difficult to sustain
current production levels. There are no
widely- accepted estimates regarding the
amount of methamphetamine produced in
Mexico; however, ample law enforcement
reporting and drug seizure data at the U. S.-
Mexico border indicate a significant increase
in methamphetamine production in Mexico
since 2003. Further production increases are
unlikely in the near future, and sustaining
the current high level of production in
Mexico has become more difficult, since the
Mexican Government recently reduced
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine imports
from 224 metric tons in 2004 to 132.5 metric
tons in 2005 ( with a goal of 70 metric tons
for 2006). Attempts to defeat the chemical
restrictions in Mexico will likely include
routing chemical shipments through transit
countries, particularly Central and South
America, for subsequent smuggling into
Mexico ( Drug Enforcement Administration,
2007 Arizona, available at http://
w w w . u s d o j . g o v / d e a / p u b s / s t a t e s /
arizona. html).
Arizona shares approximately 350 miles of
border with Mexico, making it susceptible to
transnational drug trafficking. In recent
years, an increasing number of smugglers
have traversed the sparse desert separating
Arizona and Mexico to traffic drugs through-out
the United States. Mexican smugglers
typically conceal cocaine, black tar heroin,
methamphetamine and marijuana in hidden
vehicle compartments or on human
pedestrians. Federal authorities seized 3,025
kilograms of cocaine, 86 kilograms of heroin,
669 kilograms of methamphetamine and
353,409 kilograms of marijuana in 2006.
Agents often capture smugglers at one of the
three Arizona principal ports of entry—
Nogales, Douglas and San Luis. Law enforce-ment
officials report increasing evidence
that drug traffickers and illegal immigrants
enter Arizona through subterranean tunnels
or through relatively unguarded areas,
especially the unguarded crossing points
between Sierra Vista and Nogales. ( Drug
Enforcement Administration, 2007
Arizona, available at http:// www. usdoj. gov/
dea/ pubs/ states/ arizona. html).
Drug Trafficking
Introduction
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 6-
Alcohol
A lcohol continues to be the number one substance used by adults and youth, both across
the nation and within Arizona. The effects of alcohol can be seen in the public health
arena, the justice system, within families, and in our youth. The study of alcohol use is
vital to the understanding of health consequences, as some consumption patterns, such as
binge drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol, provide crucial predictive informa-tion.
Of particular interest is the percentage of Arizonans ( aged 12 and older) reporting past-year
dependence on, or abuse of, alcohol— a figure that rose 50% between 2000 and 2005 ( from
6.4% to 9.7%). Further, almost one in four Arizonans aged 12 and older reported binge drinking
in the 30 days preceding the survey ( National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2005. Unpub-lished
Data. Department of Health and Human Services).
While alcohol use by adults continues to be of concern, this report focuses on underage alcohol
consumption for two primary reasons. First, alcohol kills six and a half times more youth than
all illicit drugs combined ( Miller, T., & Pacific Institute Research and Evaluation, 2001). Sec-ondly,
children who drink put themselves at risk of perpetrating violence, becoming a victim of
violence, or being a victim in a car crash ( Hingson, Heeren, Jamanka, et al. 2000).
" Research shows that young people who start
drinking before the age of 15 are five times
more likely to have alcohol- related problems
later in life. New research also indicates that
alcohol may harm the developing adolescent
brain. The availability of this research provides
more reasons than ever before for parents and
other adults to protect the health and safety of
our nation's children.”
Acting Surgeon General Kenneth Moritsugu,
M. D., M. P. H.
Underage drinking has received significant
attention at both the state and national
level. The Surgeon General’s Call to Action
to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking,
released in March 2007, emphasized how
underage drinking puts our youth at greater
risk for academic problems, criminal
behavior, poor decision making, risky sexual
activity, perpetration of physical and sexual
assaults, victimization through physical and
sexual assaults, damage to their developing
brains, and increased likelihood of death.
Underage Drinking: A National and Statewide Crisis
- 7- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Alcohol
Underage drinking has deleterious effects
on students’ academic achievement. In
Arizona, more than 20% of 10th and 12th
grade students, and more than 12% of 8th
grade students reported being drunk or
high at school in 2006 ( Arizona Youth Sur-vey:
State Report, 2006).
Table 1. Costs of Underage Drinking by
Problem Area, Arizona, 2005
Problem Total Costs
Youth Violence $ 508,500,000
Youth Traffic Crashes $ 398,700,000
High- Risk Sex, Ages 14 - 20 $ 182,400,000
Youth Property Crime $ 96,700,000
Youth Injury $ 34,800,000
Poisonings and Psychoses* $ 10,200,000
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
among Mothers Aged 15 - 20
$ 33,400,000
Youth Alcohol Treatment $ 31,600,000
Total $ 1,296,400,000
* Alcohol psychoses is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition ( DSM- IV) ( American
Psychiatric Association [ APA], 1994).
Total is greater than the sum of the total costs due to round-ing.
Data is garnered from a report instead of in raw form,
which does not allow for more accurate tabulation of the
total costs.
Source: Underage Drinking in Arizona: The Facts. Available
online at: http:// www. udetc. org/ factsheets/ Arizona. pdf
The consequences associated with
underage drinking impact our judicial
system, the safety of our roadways, and
the successful development of our youth.
Underage drinking also imposes an extraor-dinary
financial burden on society at large.
In 2005, underage drinking cost the state
approximately $ 1.3 billion dollars. Table 1
provides an illustration of the costs of
underage drinking, broken down by prob-lem
area. Alcohol psychoses is defined in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, 4th Edition ( DSM- IV)
( American Psychiatric Association [ APA],
1994) as substance- induced psychotic disor-ders
in which a person has hallucinations or
delusions that are judged to be due to the
direct physiological effects of alcohol. The
top three problem categories— youth
violence, youth traffic crashes and high- risk
sex related to alcohol use— cost the state
over $ 1 billion dollars alone. If underage
drinkers who become violent and/ or drink
and drive continue these behaviors into
adulthood, Arizona will pay long into the
future.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 8-
Alcohol
Figure 1 is a graphic representation of how Arizona compares to the nation on past 30- day
alcohol use from 2002 to 2006. The data show that alcohol use increases with age, and more
Arizona youth report past 30- day alcohol use than the national average, but a reduction in
consumption over the years examined is noted.
Figure 1. Comparison of Percentage of Arizona Youth to National Youth Reporting Past 30- Day
Alcohol Use.
In addition, we know that almost half of high
school students across the state reported
current alcohol consumption, defined as hav-ing
at least one drink of alcohol on more
than one of the 30 days preceding the survey
( Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System,
2005) and more than one in four underage
respondents ( aged 12 – 20) reported past 30-
day alcohol use ( State Estimates of Sub-stance
Use from the 2003 – 2004 and 2004 –
2005 National Surveys on Drug Use and
Health, 2007, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Department
of Health and Human Services).
Source: Arizona Youth Survey: Unpublished Data, 2006. Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
8th
Grade
10th
Grade
12th
Grade
8th
Grade
10th
Grade
12th
Grade
8th
Grade
10th
Grade
12th
Grade
2002 2004 2006
State
Nation
- 9- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Alcohol
We can also monitor general trends in alcohol consumption among students across counties.
The data suggest that underage drinking is more prevalent in rural areas. The following graph
( Figure 2) illustrates this, as Santa Cruz, Mohave, Greenlee, Gila, and Yavapai Counties had the
highest percentages of youth who reported past 30- day alcohol use.
Figure 2. Percentage of 8th, 10th, and 12th Grade Students Combined
Reporting Past 30- Day Alcohol Use, Arizona, 2006.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
State
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
Arizona Data Source: Arizona Youth Survey: State Report, 2006. Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission.
National Data Source: Monitoring the Future, 2006.
While there are serious harms associated
with any alcohol use by youth, the
consequences associated with underage
drinking are exacerbated when youth drink
heavily. Binge drinking, defined as the
consumption of five or more drinks in one
sitting, often leads to impairment that can
cause injury. Binge drinking may also be a
better marker for alcohol abuse or
dependence in youth or later in adulthood
than overall alcohol use.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 10-
Alcohol
Figure 3. Comparison of Percentage of Arizona Youth to National Youth
( 8th, 10th, and 12th Grade Students) Who Reported Past
2- Week Binge Drinking, 2002 – 2004.
Figure 3 shows the per-centage
of students
who reported binge
drinking, both in Ari-zona
and nationwide,
and indicates that in
both 2002 and 2004,
more Arizona youth in
8th, 10th and 12th
grades reported binge
drinking than did youth
nationally, which may
in part explain the high
costs of underage
drinking in Arizona.
Figure 4 indicates that the percentage of youth who reported binge drinking within the 2
weeks preceding the survey varied widely by county. The counties with the highest percent-ages
of youth who reported binge drinking were: Gila, Greenlee, Mohave, Santa Cruz and Yava-pai.
These same five counties also had the highest percentages of youth who reported past 30-
day alcohol use. Interestingly, youth in Apache, Graham and Yuma Counties had high percent-ages
of youth who re-ported
past 2- week binge
drinking, but none of
these counties had the
highest percentage of
youth who reported past
30- day alcohol use. This
may indicate that pre-vention
efforts targeted
at these counties need to
focus on the harmful ef-fects
of binge drinking
rather than on overall
alcohol use. When we
examine binge drinking
Arizona Data Source: Arizona Youth Survey: State Report, 2006. Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission.
National Data Source: Monitoring the Future, 2006.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade 8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade
2002 2004
State
Nation
Figure 4. Percentage of 8th, 10th, and 12th Grade Students Combined
Who Reported Past 2- Week Binge Drinking, by County, 2006.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Sta te
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
Source: Arizona Youth Survey: County Reports, 2006. Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission. Retrieved from: http:// azcjc. gov/ pubs/ home/ 2006_ AYS_ County_ Reports. pdf
- 11- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Alcohol
Binge Drinking Among Individuals Between the
Ages of 18 and 25
The years when an individ-ual
is transitioning to
adulthood can be trou-bling,
as higher substance
abuse occurs between the
ages of 18 and 25. Figure 5
illustrates that a higher
percentage of Arizona
residents ages 18 – 25
experience numerous
problems related to sub-stance
abuse, including
binge drinking, than indi-viduals
in other age
groups. The Substance
Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
overall ( among 8th, 10th and 12th grade students combined), we note that nine counties had
higher percentages of youth who reported binge drinking than the overall state average
( Arizona Youth Survey: County Reports, 2006. Arizona Criminal Justice Commission).
Note. Use refers to past- month use.
Note. Binge alcohol use is defined as consuming five or more alcoholic drinks on the same
occasion on at least 1 day within the last 30 days.
Source: State Estimates of Substance Use from the 2004 – 2005 National Surveys on Drug
Use and Health. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department
of Health and Human Services.
Figure 5. Selected Indicators of Substance Use, Estimated Percentages,
by Age Group, Arizona, 2004 – 2005 Averages.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
12- 17 18- 25 26+
Illicit Drug Use
Alcohol Use
Binge Alcohol Use
Cigarette Use
( SAMHSA)— provider of the data displayed in Figure 6— defines binge drinking as the consump-tion
of five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least one day within the last 30 days.
Further, SAMHSA defines alcohol dependence based on criteria specified in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition ( DSM- IV) ( American Psychiatric Association
[ APA], 1994) that relate to health and emotional problems associated with alcohol use; at-tempts
to cut down on use; and tolerance, withdrawal, and other symptoms associated with
the consumption of alcohol. It is important to gauge the proportion of the population that is
dependent upon alcohol as dependence is more indicative of a severe substance problem than
alcohol abuse. In addition, we know that those who become dependent upon or abuse alcohol
were more likely to have begun drinking before the age of 15 ( Grant & Dawson, 1997). Finally,
SAMHSA indicates that an individual who is needing, but not receiving, treatment for alcohol
use is a person who meets the criteria for abuse of, or dependence on, alcohol according to
the DSM- IV, but has not received specialty treatment for alcohol abuse/ dependence in the past
year.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 12-
Alcohol
Arizona bears a great
burden due to DUI-related
loss of life, pain
and suffering, property
damage, and medical
costs. Figure 7 indicates
that of alcohol- related
fatalities, injury acci-dents,
and motor
vehicle crashes that
cause property damage,
drivers between the
ages of 25 and 34 are
Source: 2005 Arizona Crash Facts Summary, Arizona Department of Transportation.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Fatal crashes Injury crashes Property Damage Accidents
0 – 20
21 – 24
25 – 34
35 – 44
45 – 54
55+
Not Stated
Figure 6 compares Arizonans to the percentage of individuals in the nation by age group who
are estimated to drink alcohol, engage in binge drinking, be dependent upon alcohol or need,
but not receive, treatment for alcohol use. These data indicate that both binge alcohol use
and overall alcohol use should be of greater concern than alcohol dependence or needing, but
not receiving, treatment
for alcohol use. Further,
Figure 6 indicates that
while slightly higher per-centages
of Arizonans
reported alcohol use and
binge alcohol use than did
respondents across the na-tion,
Arizona mirrors na-tional
alcohol use trends.
Figure 7. Number of Drivers Involved in Alcohol- Related Crashes by Age
Group, Arizona, 2005.
Figure 6. Comparison of Percentage of Arizonans to the Nation on Several
Indicators of Alcohol Use and Consequences, 2004 — 2005.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
AZ USA AZ USA AZ USA
12- 17 18- 25 26+
Alcohol Dependence*
Needing, but not Receiving,
treatment for Alcohol Use*
Alcohol Use**
Binge Alcohol Use**+
* Past year dependence/ treatment need
** Past month use
**+ Binge alcohol use is defined as consuming five or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on
at least 1 day within the last 30 days.
Source: Changes in Prevalence Rates of Drug Use between 2002 – 2003 and 2004 – 2005 among
States. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and
Human Services.
Driving Under the Influence
- 13- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Alcohol
In addition to injuries, fatalities and property
damage, driving under the influence has pro-found
effects on the legal system and the
productivity of Arizonans. Among adults,
more arrests were made for DUI than for
drug sale and manufacturing/ possession com-bined.
Specifically, 34,859 adult arrests and
516 juvenile arrests were made for DUI in
2005 ( Crime in Arizona, 2005. Arizona De-typically
behind the wheel. However, if we combine the age categories inclusive of drivers
between the ages of 0 and 20 and 21 and 24, we note that drivers between the ages of 0 and
24 had more alcohol- related accidents than did those between the ages of 25 and 34,
indicating that both youth and young adults are engaging in a behavior that causes great harm.
partment of Public Safety). Among adults,
4,127 were given probation for their DUI
charge ( Arizona Adult Probation
Population, 2006. Adult Probation Services
Division, Administrative Office of the
Courts). Figure 8 illustrates that the largest
number of arrests were for those drivers
between the ages of 18 and 24.
Figure 8. Arrests for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol by
Age Group, Arizona, 2005.
Source: Crime in Arizona, 2005. Arizona Department of Public Safety.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
< 13
13 – 17
18 – 24
25 – 29
30 – 34
35 – 39
40 - 44
45+
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 14-
Table 2. Youth and Adult DUI Arrests, Arizona,
2002 - 2005
2002 2003 2004 2005
Juvenile
DUI Arrests
605 612 595 516
Adult
DUI Arrests
41,146 38,924 37,802 34,859
Source: Crime in Arizona, 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005. Arizona
Department of Public Safety.
Another measure of DUI comes from self-reports
of driving under the influence of
alcohol or riding as a passenger with some-one
known to have been drinking. In 2005,
over one in three Arizona high school
students reported driving with someone who
had been drinking alcohol and over one in
nine reported driving after drinking alcohol.
Information about the relationship of the stu-dent
to the impaired driver is not available.
However, due to the large number of youth
who reported driving after drinking alcohol,
it is likely that the majority of youth who
reported riding with someone who had been
drinking were in the car with friends, as
opposed to family members ( Arizona Youth
Survey: State Report, 2006. Arizona Criminal
Justice Commission).
In conclusion, we find that alcohol continues
to be the most frequently used substance by
adults and youth in Arizona, placing a large
financial and social burden on the state.
While underage drinking and the costs
related to DUI arrests and alcohol- related
motor vehicle accidents remain high, we find
Alcohol
that both juvenile and adult DUI
arrests have been decreasing. The data in
Table 2 indicate that both juvenile and
adult DUI arrests decreased approximately
16% between 2002 and 2005 ( from 605 to
516 for juveniles and from 41,146 to
34,859 for adults). We also note that
underage drinking, including binge
drinking, appears to be more prevalent in
rural areas and we find that substance
abuse in Arizona is more prevalent
between the ages of 18 and 25, a trend
that is consistent with that found nation-wide.
- 15- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Methamphetamine
Table 4 compares Arizona 8th, 10th, and
12th graders to youth across the nation and
indicates that Arizona youth are more
likely to use methamphetamine during the
30- day period preceding the survey than
are youth across the nation. 10th grade ap-pears
to be an especially high- risk time for
these students as a higher percentage of
Table 4. Comparison of Percentage of Arizona and
National 8th, 10th, and 12th Grade Youth Who
Reported Past- 30 Day Use of Methamphetamine, 2006
Arizona United States
Grade 8 1.00 0.60
Grade 10 1.70 0.70
Grade 12 1.40 0.90
Arizona Data Source: Arizona Youth Survey: State Report, 2006.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
National Data Source: Monitoring the Future, 2006.
Prevention
In order to understand where prevention efforts should be targeted, we must identify popula-tions
that are more likely to use methamphetamine. For instance, the Arizona Youth Survey
provides excellent data delineating use patterns and related behaviors among 8th, 10th and 12th
graders. However, while we have federal estimates of methamphetamine use among adults in
Arizona, our knowledge of the full impact of methamphetamine, including how best to prevent
its use and its associated consequences, would be expanded by an adult substance abuse
Table 3. Percentage of Respondents Reporting Past-
Year Methamphetamine Use, U. S.
2002 2003 2004
Individuals ( 12 and older) 0.7 0.6 0.6
Adolescents ( 12- 17) 0.9 0.7 0.6
Adults ( 18- 25) 1.7 1.6 1.6
Adults ( 26 and older) 0.4 0.4 0.4
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health,
cited in National Drug Intelligence Center, U. S. Department of Jus-tice,
National Drug Threat Assessment, 2006.
M ethamphetamine is a significant threat to the health and safety of all Arizona residents.
The production, distribution, and use of methamphetamine is of special concern be-cause
of the pervasiveness of the problem in Arizona and our proximity to the Mexican
border, a principal port of entry for drug smuggling. In fact, while Arizona represents only 13%
of the southwest U. S.- Mexico border, an estimated 40% of all drugs that cross this border are
seized in Arizona. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration ( DEA), Mexican- produced
methamphetamine is the most common type of methamphetamine encountered in Arizona
( http:// www. usdoj. gov/ dea/ pubs/ states/ arizona. html).
prevalence survey similar to the Arizona
Youth Survey already conducted in Arizona.
Table 3 shows a downward or stable trend
in past- year methamphetamine use,
depending on the age group of interest, in
a national sample of individuals aged 12
and older. It also informs us that
nationally, individuals between the ages of
18 and 25 are most likely to use metham-phetamine,
indicating a need to focus pre-vention
efforts at earlier ages to avoid the
use of this substance.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 16-
Methamphetamine
Table 5. Percentage of Arizona Students* Who
Reported Using Methamphetamine in the Past
30 Days, Statewide and by County, Arizona,
2006
County Percent
Apache 2.50
Cochise 1.70
Coconino 1.10
Gila 2.00
Graham 3.80
Greenlee 0.50
La Paz 3.10
Maricopa 1.10
Mohave 2.50
Navajo 3.00
Pima 0.90
Pinal 2.10
Santa Cruz 1.10
Yavapai 1.30
Yuma 1.40
Arizona 1.30
* Students in 8th, 10th and 12th grades combined.
Source: Arizona Youth Survey: State Report, 2006. Arizona
Criminal Justice Commission. Retrieved from: http://
azcjc. gov/ pubs/ home/ 2006_ AYS_ County_ Reports. pdf.
According to a report by the National
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
at Columbia University entitled, The For-mative
Years: Pathways to Substance
Abuse Among Girls and Young Women
Ages 8 – 22, girls may be more vulnerable
to becoming addicted to substances
( 2003). Girls and young women have
weight concerns and unhealthy dieting
behaviors that may increase their risk for
substance abuse, they are more
frequently the victims of sexual and
physical abuse— another factor that may
increase the risk for substance use— and
girls that use substances are more likely
to be depressed and suicidal. The report
also notes that amphetamines leave the
body more quickly in the presence of testos-terone,
which could indicate differential
consequences for girls, as the drug may be
present in their bodies for longer periods
after use. For these reasons, it is imperative
to understand differences in the prevalence
of methamphetamine use in Arizona by
gender so that our prevention, treatment
and enforcement efforts can account for the
differential needs of female and male users.
them reported using methamphetamine
than did 8th and 12th graders ( both in Ari-zona
and nationally).
While it is useful to understand the over-all
use of methamphetamine across
Arizona, due to the diversity of our state,
county estimates can be more helpful in
our prevention efforts. Table 5 highlights
the significant differences in metham-phetamine
use by locale. It is important
to note that neither of the most populous
counties ( Maricopa and Pima) have the
highest percentages of youth who re-ported
methamphetamine use. Instead,
youth methamphetamine use appears to
be higher in Arizona’s rural areas.
- 17- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Methamphetamine
Treatment
As noted in the previous
section, methamphetamine
use may impact women
differently than it does
men. Differences by gender
can be seen in the substance
abuse treatment system.
Table 6 presents the number
of admissions to publicly
funded substance abuse
treatment services in Ari-zona.
This information is
categorized by the primary
substance used within the
30 days preceding the survey
and is also broken down by
gender in order to illustrate
the disproportionate use of
methamphetamine by
women. Approximately 21%
We find that while higher percent-ages
of boys in Arizona report overall
substance use, higher percentages of
girls reported past 30- day use of
methamphetamine at 8th, 10th and
12th grades ( Figure 9) ( Arizona Youth
Survey: State Report, 2006). Not
only are higher percentages of girls
reporting methamphetamine use but
they may be more susceptible to
becoming addicted to the substance
than boys ( National Center on Addic-tion
and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, 2003).
Table 6. Primary Substance Reported Upon Treatment Admission
by Gender, Arizona, 2006
GENDER
Male Female Total
N Percent N Percent
None 6,534 43.27 3,325 42.17 9,859
Alcohol 3,683 24.39 1,387 17.59 5,070
Cocaine or Crack 895 5.93 452 5.73 1,347
Marijuana or Hashish 1,246 8.25 533 6.76 1,779
Heroin 657 4.35 323 4.10 980
Other Opiates and Synthetics 129 0.85 116 1.47 245
Other Hallucinogens 9 0.06 8 0.10 17
Methamphetamine 1,819 12.05 1,655 20.99 3,474
Other Stimulants 6 0.04 7 0.09 13
Benzodiazepine 24 0.16 26 0.33 50
Other Sedatives or Hypnotics 16 0.11 12 0.15 28
Inhalants 3 0.02 1 0.01 4
Other 17 0.11 21 0.27 38
Unknown 63 0.42 19 0.24 82
Total 15,101 100.00 7,885 100.00 22,986
Note. Primary substance reported upon treatment admission is a self- report of the
primary substance used during the last 30 days by the client; " None" indicates that a
client reported no substance use in the past 30 days.
Note. Total is more than 100 due to rounding.
Source: Treatment Episodes Data Set ( TEDS), 2006 Unpublished Data, Department of
Health Services.
Figure 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Past 30- Day
Methamphetamine Use by Substance, Grade and Gender,
Arizona, 2006.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
Grade 8 Grade 10 Grade 12 Total
Female
Male
Source: Arizona Youth Survey: State Report, 2006. Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 18-
Methamphetamine
of women who entered treatment reported methamphetamine use, while only 12% of men did
so. This translates to approximately one in five women and one in eight men who reported us-ing
methamphetamine as their primary substance.
There has been a consistent decrease in the number of youth and adults reporting
lifetime and past 30- day methamphetamine use and a corresponding decrease in the number of
methamphetamine- related lab seizures and overall methamphetamine possession, distribution
and production arrests. However, the economic, public health and social burdens of
methamphetamine use upon the citizens of Arizona have increased. This is especially evident
in the number of substance abuse treatment and hospital/ emergency department admissions.
Considering the increasing number of admissions to treatment services, current data suggest
that methamphetamine use has a disproportionate impact on health care admissions and the
public substance abuse treatment system; more methamphetamine users are seeking
treatment from an already overburdened behavioral health system.
As shown in Table 7, rates of hospital
admissions for methamphetamine, co-caine
and heroin/ opioid abuse have in-creased
from 1990 to 2005. However,
beginning around 1999, the rate of in-crease
is steepest for methampheta-mine.
Notably, the rate of hospital ad-missions
is over four times higher in
2005 than it was only six years earlier.
While hospital admissions for metham-phetamine
outnumbered those for co-caine
in 2004, methamphetamine sub-stantially
outnumbered admissions for
both cocaine and heroin/ opioids in Ari-zona
for the first time in 2005. Recall
that in 1990, hospital admissions for
methamphetamine were approximately
one- quarter of those for cocaine or her-oin/
opioids.
Table 7: Hospital Admission Rates ( per 100,000 Population)
for Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and Heroin/ Opioid, Ari-zona
( 1990- 2005)
Methamphetamine Cocaine Heroin/ Opioid
1990 8 31 33
1991 4 31 29
1992 7 34 31
1993 14 30 33
1994 36 39 39
1995 41 42 47
1996 23 53 57
1997 30 55 58
1998 26 66 64
1999 24 69 65
2000 32 69 71
2001 42 71 77
2002 60 74 90
2003 82 86 91
2004 94 91 97
2005 110 90 98
Source: Cunningham, J. K., Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and Heroin/ Opioid
Hospital Admissions in Arizona: Trends and Regional Variations ( 1990- 2005).
Department of Family and Community Medicine, The University of Arizona.
- 19- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Methamphetamine
Table 8 compares enrollment in the
public substance abuse treatment
system by the primary substance
reported upon admission, as well as by
the percentage of respondents report-ing
use of that substance in Arizona.
Admissions to the public treatment
system for methamphetamine use are
disproportionately high compared to
past- year methamphetamine use in
the population. Specifically, while
only 1.3% of the population was
estimated to be using methampheta-mine,
29% of those enrolled in the
publicly- funded substance abuse
treatment system reported it as their
primary substance.
Table 8. Comparison of Enrollments in Substance Abuse
Treatment Programs by Primary Substance
Reported at Admission to Past- Month Prevalence of
Substance Use, Arizona
Primary
Substance Enrollmenta
Percentage of
Total
Enrollment Prevalence
Alcohol 14,988 35 9.52b *
Methamphetamine 12,496 29 1.30c**
Heroin 5,914 14 0.20c**
Marijuana 5,571 13 10.60c**
Cocaine 4,296 10 3.80c**
Total 43,265 100
Note. Total equals more than 100 due to rounding.
* indicates percent reporting past year alcohol dependence or abuse.
** indicates percent reporting past year use.
aEnrollment figures are for fiscal year 2005.
bAnnual averages of 2003 and 2004 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health.
cAnnual averages of 2002, 2003, and 2004 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, Statewide Substance Abuse Utilization
Management Report, ( 2006), Unpublished Data, reported to Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on
Drug Use and Health.
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health ( 2002, 2003, and 2004 averages) estimates that
more individuals have used marijuana and cocaine in the past year than have used metham-phetamine;
however, the percentage of marijuana and cocaine users enrolled in Arizona’s pub-lic
treatment system is less than the percentage enrolled for methamphetamine use. Data in
Table 8 indicate that past- year estimates for alcohol dependence or abuse are more than
seven times higher than past year estimates for methamphetamine use, but admissions for al-cohol
use are only 1.2 times as high as admissions for methamphetamine use.
Considering the proportion of admissions
for the top five primary substances
to the public treatment system in Tables
9 and 10, heroin and methamphetamine
users consume a disproportionate share
of services, in terms of absolute number
of service units and average units of ser-vices
per 1,000 member months, with
member months defined as the number
of months an individual is enrolled. To
Table 9. Units of Service by Primary Substance at
Admission, Fiscal Year 2005, Arizona
Total units
Percent of
Total units
Percent of
Enrollees
Heroin 715,115 28.93 14.00
Methamphetamine 645,886 26.13 29.00
Alcohol 634,067 25.65 35.00
Marijuana 253,139 10.24 13.00
Cocaine 223,460 9.04 10.00
Total 2,471,667 100.00 100.00
Note. Total is more than 100 due to rounding.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, Statewide
Substance Abuse Utilization Management Report, ( 2006)
Unpublished Data.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 20-
Methamphetamine
calculate the member months for a period of time, the number of enrollees is multiplied by
the number of months each member is enrolled.
Methamphetamine users consume more treatment services than alcohol users even though
there are approximately 20% more alcohol users in the public treatment system than metham-phetamine
users. Heroin users consume approximately 29% of the services spent on the top
five primary substances, yet heroin users constitute only 14% of the public treatment
population.
Methamphetamine abusers use 22% more services than alcohol users. Over 4,307 metham-phetamine
users receive services in a month. Heroin users utilize almost three times the ser-vices
as alcohol users and more than double the services of methamphetamine and
cocaine users.
Table 10. Average Units of Service per 1,000 Member Months by Primary Substance at Admission,
Fiscal Year 2005, Arizona
Service
Alcohol Use
Combined
Methamphetamine Cocaine Heroin Marijuana
Treatment 1,692.21 1,849.49 1,160.17 877.04 1,939.87
Support 1,008.55 1,147.55 1,918.82 4,899.32 1,063.11
Behavioral Health Day* 308.92 608.43 268.64 111.67 367.50
Rehabilitation 158.63 277.76 104.61 76.02 177.27
Residential 125.59 228.65 380.39 86.57 69.06
Medical 110.00 118.16 418.53 3,950.57 101.64
Pharmacy 59.00 39.49 47.52 45.75 45.19
Crisis Intervention 31.95 19.87 20.54 10.20 14.23
Inpatient 30.56 17.89 15.42 19.43 8.59
All Services 3,525.41 4,307.29 4,334.64 10,076.57 3,786.46
* The Arizona Department of Health Services defines “ Behavioral Health Day” program services as regularly- scheduled, either
on an hourly, half- day or full- day basis, and may consist of therapeutic nursery, in- home stabilization, after- school programs,
and specialized outpatient substance abuse programs. These programs can be provided to an individual, a group of individuals,
and/ or to families in a multitude of settings and are grouped into the following three subcategories: Supervised; Therapeutic;
and Psychiatric/ Medical.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, Statewide Substance Abuse Utilization Management Report, ( 2006), Unpub-lished
Data.
- 21- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Methamphetamine
In addition, the
Maricopa HIDTA
Methamphetamine
Task Force, working
in partnership with
the Drug Enforce-ment
Administration,
conducted an inten-sive
investigation
into an Internet
supplier of red phos-phorous—
a necessary
precursor chemical
used to make
methamphetamine—
which led to the
arrest of the owner of the web- based company in Scotland. The customer list seized from the
company led to the discovery and seizure of over 100 methamphetamine labs in the United
States, 20 of which were located in Arizona. This highlights the international reach of
methamphetamine and emphasizes the difficulty of eradicating methamphetamine from our
state ( http:// www. azcentral. com/ community/ tempe/ articles/ tr- methbust0530- CR. html,
May 30, 2007 article).
Enforcement
Emerging information from the drug courts throughout Arizona indicates that methampheta-mine
use plays a significant role in the number of individuals entering the judicial system. For
example, 100% of the 30 individuals served in the Cochise County Adult Drug Court indicated
that methamphetamine was their primary drug. The same holds true for 96% of those present-ing
at the Maricopa County Adult Drug Court and more than three- quarters of those served at
the Yuma County Adult Drug Court. Finally, over half of those served at the Gila County Adult
Drug Court specified methamphetamine as their primary drug.
Data from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ( HIDTA) Highway Interdiction Initiative
indicate that there were a total of 412 seizures within Arizona reported to the HIDTA Intel
Center during the 2006 calendar year, which totaled 1,031.85 pounds. Of this amount, Figure
10 illustrates that approximately 836 pounds were seized as a result of port of entry
inspections and highway interdictions from the Mexican border north to Casa Grande ( HIDTA,
personal communication).
Figure 10. Methamphetamine Seizures in Pounds, Casa Grande South,
Arizona, 2006.
25.973
38.667
101.034
68.427
52.026
41.198
25.627
153.474
102.618
49.260 79.098
98.665
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Pounds Siezed
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ( HIDTA) Highway
Interdiction Initiative, ( 2006), Unpublished Data.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 22-
Methamphetamine
Figure 11 illustrates the great reductions that have been made in the number of methampheta-mine
lab- related seizures, labs seized, adult arrests, children affected, and cases prosecuted
by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
Table 11 indicates the number of
methamphetamine lab incidents that
occurred in Arizona as well as the
number that occurred nationwide. It also
illustrates the decreasing number of
methamphetamine labs by reporting the
percentage of these incidents that
occurred in Arizona.
Table 11. Methamphetamine Lab Incidents,
Comparison of Arizona to Nation, 2001 — 2006
Arizona U. S.
Percent of U. S. Meth Lab
Incidents that Occurred in
Arizona
2001 320 13537 2.36
2002 254 16212 1.57
2003 119 17356 0.69
2004 71 17170 0.41
2005 75 12484 0.60
2006 14 6435 0.22
Note. Not all 50 states reported.
Source: Data for the table were derived from information pro-vided
by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, High Inten-sity
Drug Trafficking Area ( HIDTA) Task Force ( http://
www. usdoj. gov/ dea/ pubs/ states/ arizonap. html) and ( http://
www. usdoj. gov/ dea/ concern/ map_ lab_ seizures. html).
Figure 11. Trends in Incidences of Methamphetamine- Related Consequences, 2000 — 2006.
Source: Data for the table were derived from information provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, High Inten-sity
Drug Trafficking Area ( HIDTA) Task Force, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties’ Child Protective Services ( CPS) and County
Attorney’s Offices as compiled in the, Arizona Alliance for Drug Endangered Children Program, 2006 Annual Report, Arizona
Attorney General’s Office.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006*
Meth. Lab- related seizures
Meth. labs seized
Adults arrested
Children affected
Cases prosecuted by AG’s Office
# of child victims
- 23- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
N umerous efforts by state and federal
agencies aim to reduce the use and
distribution of methamphetamine in
Arizona. Law enforcement agencies through-out
Arizona have taken an active role in
providing leadership and support to local
community coalitions in an effort to develop
effective strategies to combat metham-phetamine.
The Arizona Department of Public Safety
continues to take the lead in monitoring and
tracking certain precursor chemicals com-monly
used in the production of metham-phetamine.
In addition, the HIDTA Maricopa
Methamphetamine Lab Task Force has been
active in combating the effects of metham-phetamine,
including conducting
investigations into suspicious purchases of
pseudoephedrine and other chemicals.
Further, the HIDTA partners with the HIDTA
Southwest Methamphetamine Initiative, the
Phoenix Police Department Drug Enforce-ment
Bureau, and other agencies to provide
methamphetamine awareness presentations
to schools, businesses, community groups
and other government agencies. The HIDTA
also provides a Clandestine Lab Certification
course twice a year to law enforcement
officers across the state in order to ensure
that an adequate number of lab- certified
officers are available in each region of the
state to respond to and safely dismantle
methamphetamine labs. Recognizing the
dangers to children found in
methamphetamine environments, state law
enforcement agencies now work with Child
Protective Services to effectively apply the
Drug Endangered Children protocols. Federal
and state agencies have been providing
assistance to the Indian Tribes in the form of
training and other resources to address
methamphetamine abuse and distribution on
reservation lands.
In summary, while we know that Arizona
youth are more likely to use methampheta-mine
than are youth across the
nation, the lack of an adult prevalence
survey in Arizona limits our abilities to make
more definitive conclusions about metham-phetamine
use among Arizona adults.
Our analyses also indicate that youth
methamphetamine use appears to be higher
in Arizona’s rural areas and disproportion-ately
affects females, including the use of
substance abuse treatment services.
Considering the increasing number of
admissions to treatment services in the
population, current data suggest that
methamphetamine use has a disproportion-ate
impact on health care admissions and
public substance abuse treatment, has a
large impact on the judicial system in
Arizona, and our border with
Mexico is targeted by those seeking to traffic
methamphetamine throughout the United
States.
Methamphetamine
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 24-
Children’s Cabinet
T he membership of the Governor’s Chil-dren’s
Cabinet includes directors of all
of Arizona’s child- serving state agen-cies,
as well as key gubernatorial policy advi-sors
and is chaired by Governor Janet Napoli-tano.
The Children’s Cabinet meets quarterly
to remove barriers to success by focusing at-tention
and resources on Arizona’s children,
families and communities and by coordinat-ing
policies and service- delivery systems. The
Children's Cabinet has identified three prior-ity
goals:
• Children have access to affordable, high-quality
physical and behavioral health
care and grow up in healthy environ-ments.
• Children start school ready to succeed
and have quality educational experiences
from preschool through graduate school
( P- 20).
• Children live in safe, stable and suppor-tive
families and neighborhoods.
The Children’s Cabinet has a vested interest
in several indicators of substance abuse:
youth cigarette use and the consumption of
alcohol and methamphetamine. As noted
earlier, alcohol use by youth can lead to im-pairment,
injury and sometimes death. In
addition, we know the dangers of metham-phetamine
use are extreme, and such use
can often lead to criminal behaviors that also
endanger our children. Finally, smoking ciga-rettes,
especially because youth may become
addicted more easily than adults, can be pre-dictive
of illness that may have long- term
consequences.
Table 12 indicates that a higher percentage
of youth reported the use of alcohol in the
30 days preceding the survey than those who
reported cigarette or methamphetamine use.
With the exception of methamphetamine, as
children progress through school, the data
indicate that substance use increases.
Table 12. Percentage of Students Reporting
Past- 30 Day Substance Use by Substance and
Grade, Arizona, 2006
Grade
8
Grade
10
Grade
12
Total
Alcohol use 24.10 39.20 47.00 34.40
Cigarette use 10.50 17.10 21.80 15.30
Methamphetamine 1.00 1.70 1.40 1.30
Source: Arizona Youth Survey: State Report, ( 2006). Arizona
Criminal Justice Commission.
- 25- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Children’s Cabinet
Figure 12 offers hope that efforts to curb tobacco use have been successful; both cigarette and
smokeless tobacco use among Arizona youth have decreased from 2002 to 2006. Figure 13
represents the downward trend in high school students’ use of alcohol.
Figure 12. Trends in Percentage of Youth Reporting Tobacco Consumption, Arizona, 2002 – 2006.
Source: Arizona Youth Survey: State Report, ( 2006). Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
2002 2004 2006
Percent of students w ho used
cigarettes in the past 30 days*
Percent of students w ho used
smokeless tobacco in the past 30 days*
Percent of students w ho have used
cigarettes in their lifetime*
Percent of students w ho have used
smokeless tobacco in their lifetime*
Figure 13. Trends in Percentage of High School Students Reporting Current Alcohol Use,
Arizona, 2002 – 2006.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2002 2004 2006
Alcohol use among 10th graders
Alcohol use among 12th graders
Source: Arizona Youth Survey: State Report, ( 2002); ( 2004); ( 2006). Arizona Criminal Justice Commission.
Note. These data are indicative of alcohol use on at least 1 day in the 30 days preceding the survey.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 26-
The data provided on youth substance abuse will be published in an inaugural report on out-comes
for children, which will encompass child and adolescent health, the spectrum of educa-tion
from early childhood education through high school graduation, child welfare, economic
stability and juvenile justice in Arizona. The Children’s Cabinet report will provide a baseline
for future reports that will help measure trends and progress towards the three priority goals:
children have access to affordable, high- quality physical and behavioral health care and grow
up in healthy environments; children start school ready to succeed and have quality educa-tional
experiences from preschool through graduate school ( P- 20); and children live in safe,
stable and supportive families and neighborhoods.
Children’s Cabinet
- 27- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
I n the analyses conducted for this report,
successes in substance abuse prevention,
treatment and enforcement were noted.
It is important to examine both successes
and areas of concern in order to determine
which areas show improvement and what
issues may need more intensive efforts.
Further, some areas that were not examined
within the body of this report are worthy of
note and may require further monitoring.
Overall, Arizona has been successful in its
attempts to reduce substance use among our
youth and we have also seen decreases in the
prevalence of arrests for driving under the
influence of alcohol. The years between 2000
and 2006 saw a decline in methampheta-mine-
related consequences in Arizona,
including the number of lab seizures, adults
arrested, children affected, disposal costs
and cases prosecuted by the Office of the
Attorney General. While these data are
cause for celebration, we must be cautious
in our interpretations. The disproportion-ately-
destructive impact of methampheta-mine
means that while these successes are a
step in the right direction, serious financial
and social burdens are still being felt
throughout Arizona. Further, while adult ar-rests
for drug possession increased, arrests
for drug sale/ manufacturing and DUI offenses
decreased. DUI arrests, in particular, de-creased
over 16% between 2002 and 2005.
While we can recognize positive movement,
we must maximize efforts to accelerate it.
Data demonstrate that while use and a num-ber
of consequences have been reduced, we
are still experiencing a disproportionate bur-den
on our treatment system, hospitals, and
law enforcement and child welfare systems.
For example, an emerging trend was noted in
the analyses conducted for this report.
Typically, we find that older youth are more
likely to use substances than are younger
students. However, we find that higher
percentages of Arizona 8th graders reported
the use of inhalants than did 10th and 12th
graders ( Arizona Youth Survey: State Report,
2006), a pattern that mirrors a national
trend ( Monitoring the Future, 2006, http://
monitoringthefuture. org/ data/ 06data/
pr06t3. pdf). This is especially worthy of
monitoring because of the damaging effects
of inhalants on the developing brain.
The misuse of prescription drugs is a topic
that has received national attention. We find
that almost 15% of Arizona youth reported
the misuse of prescription drugs in 2006.
Unfortunately, comparisons to national
prevalence rates cannot be made at this
time because of differences in state and fed-eral
survey designs.
Several noteworthy findings regarding the
treatment of substance abuse were noted in
our analyses. For example, while treatment
admissions for illicit drugs are 9 times higher
than admissions for alcohol, a higher
percentage of people needed, but did not
receive, treatment for alcohol use than for
illicit drug use in the past year. Future
analyses should examine the reasons these
Emerging Issues
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 28-
Emerging Issues
individuals are less likely to receive treat-ment
services in order to guide decisions
about their care.
Further, there were striking differences in
the primary substance reported upon treat-ment
admission by ethnic classification.
White respondents were more likely to
report alcohol than other substances, though
methamphetamine followed closely behind.
The most often- cited primary substance for
American Indians seeking treatment was
alcohol. Further, higher percentages of
American Indian 8th, 10th and 12th grade
youth reported past 30- day cigarette,
methamphetamine and other drug use than
students in other racial/ ethnic categories,
indicating that for many American Indians,
substance use patterns may be different in
adolescence than for those who seek
treatment. The most often cited primary
substance by African Americans was crack
cocaine, followed closely by alcohol.
Further, a higher percentage of Pacific
Islander students reported past 30- day
alcohol and binge alcohol use than did
other students. These findings indicate the
need to monitor substance abuse by
ethnicity in order to provide culturally-competent
prevention and treatment
efforts.
Finally, in addition to differences in
substance abuse trends by ethnic classifica-tion,
differences in consumption patterns
were also noted by age. Specifically, a con-sistently
higher percentage of individuals
between the ages of 18 and 25 reported
alcohol or illicit drug dependence or abuse
than those in other age categories and
were the most likely to report that they
needed, but did not receive, treatment for
alcohol and illicit drug use.
- 29- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
T he analyses for this report indicate
that the most often- reported sub-stances
used in the 30 days preced-ing
the survey among Arizona youth were
alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana; specifi-cally,
we find that over one in ten youth
reported using marijuana or cigarettes in
the past 30 days, and over one- third re-ported
alcohol use during the same time
period. By comparison, only 1.30% of 8th,
10th and 12th grade students in 2006 re-ported
using methamphetamine in the past
30 days. This indicates the need for further
analysis and reporting on the impact of
these substances on Arizona’s youth. For
this reason, future reports will examine the
impact of marijuana, tobacco, prescription
drug misuse, and other substances not de-tailed
in this report in order to expand our
knowledge of these public health concerns.
However, the absence of an Arizona adult-prevalence
survey seriously hinders our
abilities to gauge the prevention, treat-ment,
and enforcement needs among the
adult population. Reports on specific sub-stances
of interest to Arizona will allow for
a better understanding of how they affect
Conclusions
For more information on this report or on substance abuse data in Arizona, please contact:
Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group
Jeanne Blackburn
( 602)- 542- 6004
jblackburn@ az. gov
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and Families
Division for Substance Abuse Policy
1700 West Washington Street, Suite 101
Phoenix, AZ 85007
http:// gocyf. az. gov/ SAP/
our populace, including the financial and so-cial
impact they have on Arizona.
The data presented in this report give a
robust picture of the impacts of alcohol and
methamphetamine on our state and its
inhabitants. The findings contained herein
should be used to guide decisions about the
allocation of resources, including the funding
of prevention, treatment and enforcement
efforts, and should be utilized to inform the
public about the prevalence of substance use
and its associated consequences. This report
facilitates data- driven decisions and
solutions to the critical substance abuse
problems facing Arizona and provides a
foundation for reducing the state’s substance
abuse problem.
The Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work
Group will issue a plan of action to address
the specific gaps in data identified in this re-port
in the full 2007 Substance Abuse Epide-miology
Profile to be released in the fall of
2007.
The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona - 30-
Richard Porter, Chair
Chief, Bureau of Public Health Statistics
Arizona Department of Health Services
150 North 18th Avenue, Suite 550
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602- 542- 7330
porter@ azdhs. gov
Michelle Anderson
Senior Research Analyst
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
1624 West Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602- 542- 6580
manderson@ azdjc. gov
Jeanne Blackburn
Data Analyst
Governor’s Office for Children, Youth and
Families- Division for Substance Abuse Policy
1700 West Washington Street, Suite 101
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602- 542- 6004
Jblackburn@ az. gov
Jeanne Brandner
Program Specialist
Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts
Juvenile Justice Division
1501 West Washington Street, Suite 337
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602- 452- 3537
jbrandner@ courts. az. gov
James Cunningham, Ph. D.
Associate Professor
Department of Family and Community
Medicine
College of Medicine
The University of Arizona
1450 N. Cherry Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85719
Phone: 520- 615- 5080
jkcunnin@ email. arizona. edu
Dennis Embry, Ph. D.
President/ CEO
PAXIS Institute
P. O. 31205
Tucson, AZ 85751
Phone: 520- 299- 6770
dde@ paxis. org
Katherine Guffey
Child and Family Service Manager
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Division of Children, Youth and Families
1789 West Jefferson Street
Post Office Box 6123
Phoenix, AZ 85005
Phone: 602- 542- 2371
Kguffey@ azdes. gov
Charles Katz, Ph. D.
Associate Professor and Interim Director
Center for Violence Prevention and
Community Safety
School of Criminal Justice and Criminology
Arizona State University
PO Box 37100
Phoenix, AZ 85069- 7100
Phone: 602- 543- 6618
Charles. Katz@ asu. edu
Wesley Kortuem
Epidemiology Spatial Analyst
Arizona Department of Health Services
150 North 18th Avenue, Suite 550
Phoenix, AZ 85007- 3248
Office: ( 602) 542- 4452
KORTUEW@ azdhs. gov
Zeenat Mahal
Director and Lead Epidemiologist
Epidemiological Center
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
2214 North Central Avenue, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: 602- 307- 1995
Zeenat. mahal@ itcaonline. com
Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group
Member Roster and Contact List
- 31- The Impact of Substance Abuse: A Snapshot of Arizona
Catherine Osborn
Research and Evaluation Specialist
Arizona Department of Education
School Safety and Prevention
1535 West Jefferson Street, Bin # 29
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602- 364- 0103
cosborn@ ade. az. gov
Jody Sekerak
Statistician
Indian Health Services
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 605
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: 602- 364- 5274
Fax: 602- 364- 5311
Jody. Sekerak@ ihs. gov
Meena Shahi
Evaluator
Arizona Department of Health Services
Division for Behavioral Health
150 North 18th Avenue, Suite 220
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602- 364- 4594
shahim@ azdhs. gov
Gowri Shetty
Senior Epidemiologist
Arizona Department of Health Services
Tobacco Education Prevention Program
150 North 18th Avenue, Suite 550
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602- 364- 0824
shettyg@ azdhs. gov
Phillip Stevenson
Director
Statistical Analysis Center
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
1110 West Washington Street, Suite 230
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Phone: 602- 364- 1157
pstevenson@ azcjc. gov
Wendy Wolfersteig
Senior Management Research Analyst
Arizona Prevention Resource Center
Arizona State University
542 East Monroe Street, Building D
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Phone: 480- 965- 2733
Wendy. wolfersteig@ asu. edu
Funding provided by the Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration ( SAMHSA), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention ( CSAP) and the Arizona Parent’s
Commission on Drug Education and Prevention.
Substance Abuse Epidemiology Work Group
Member Roster and Contact List
Administrative Office of the Courts ( 2006). Arizona Adult Probation Population.
Adult Probation Services Division. Retrieved from: http://
www. supreme. state. az. us/ apsd/ pdf/ FY06AnnualAdultReport2007. pdf.
Arizona Attorney General’s Office. ( 2006). Arizona Alliance for Drug Endangered Children Program, Annual Report. Retrieved from: http://
www. azag. gov/ DEC/ docs/ AnnualReport2006. pdf.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. ( 2006). Arizona Youth Survey: County Reports. Retrieved from: http:// azcjc. gov/ pubs/
home/ 2006_ AYS_ County_ Reports. pdf.
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission. ( 2006). Arizona Youth Survey: State Report. Retrieved from: http:// azcjc. gov/ sac/
CurrentProjects. asp.
Arizona Department of Health Services. ( 2006). Treatment Episodes Data Set ( TEDS). Unpublished Data. http:// www. azdhs. gov/ bhs/.
Arizona Department of Public Safety. ( 2005). Crime in Arizona. Retrieved from: http:// www. azdps. gov/ crimereport/ 03RptPDF. pdf.
Arizona Department of Transportation. ( 2005). Arizona Crash Facts Summary. Retrieved from: http:// www. azdot. gov/ mvd/ Statistics/ crash/
PDF/ 05crashfacts. pdf.
Arizona Methamphetamine Task Force. ( 2007, May). A Plan for Action: Addressing the Methamphetamine Crisis in Arizona. Retrieved
from: http:// gocyf. az. gov/ SAP/ documents/ 050407_ MethFullReport. pdf.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2005). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Retrieved from: http:// www. cdc. gov/
healthyyouth/ yrbs/.
Cunningham, J. K. ( 2006). Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and Heroin/ Opioid Hospital Admissions in Arizona: Trends and Regional Varia-tions
( 1990- 2005). Applied Behavioral Health Policy, University of Arizona. Retrieved from: http:// www. fcm. arizona. edu/
index. cfm/ 3,1,376/ az_ drug_ admissions. pdf.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition ( DSM- IV) American Psychiatric Association [ APA], 1994.
Drug Enforcement Administration. ( 2007). Arizona. Retrieved from: http:// www. usdoj. gov/ dea/ pubs/ states/ arizona. html.
Grant, B. F., & Dawson, D. A. ( 1997). Age at Onset of Alcohol Use and its Association with DSM- IV Alcohol Abuse and Dependence: Re-sults
from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 103- 110.
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ( HIDTA) Highway Interdiction Initiative ( COBJIA) Force. Personal Communication. Retrieved from:
http:// www. usdoj. gov/ dea/ pubs/ states/ arizonap. html and http:// www. usdoj. gov/ dea/ concern/ map_ lab_ seizures. html.
Hingson, R. W., Heeren, T., Jamanka, A., & Howland J. ( 2000). Age of Drinking Onset and Unintentional Injury Involvement After Drinking.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 1527- 1533.
Miller, T. & Pacific Institute Research and Evaluation. ( 2001). Adolescent Deaths Attributable to Underage Drinking and to Other Illicit Drug
Use. Schneider Institute for Health, Policy at Brandeis University Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Problem. Re-trieved
from: http:// sihp. brandeis. edu/ pub_ details_ 106. html.
Monitoring the Future Survey. ( 2006). Retrieved from: http:// monitoringthefuture. org/ data/ 06data/ pr06t3. pdf.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse ( 2003). The Formative Years: Pathways to Substance Abuse Among Girls and Young
Women Ages 8 – 22. Columbia University. Retrieved from: http:// www. casacolumbia. org/ supportcasa/ item. asp? cID= 12& PID= 131.
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation ( PIRE). ( 2006, October). Underage Drinking in Arizona: The Facts. Retrieved from: http://
www. udetc. org/ factsheets/ Arizona. pdf.
Sanchez, V. ( 2007). International Meth Bust Hits Valley. Retrieved from: http:// www. azcentral. com/ community/ tempe/ articles/ tr-methbust0530-
CR. html, May 30, 2007 article.
Statewide Substance Abuse Utilization Management Report ( 2006). Unpublished Data, Arizona Department of Health Services. http://
www. azdhs. gov/ bhs/.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. ( 2007). Changes in Prevalence Rates of Drug Use between 2002 – 2003
and 2004 – 2005 among States. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: http:// www. oas. samhsa. gov/
StateChanges/ 3trends. doc.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ( 2006). National Drug Threat Assessment. National Drug Intelligence Cen-ter,
U. S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from: http:// www. usdoj. gov/ ndic/ pubs11/ 18862/ index. htm.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. ( 2007). State Estimates of Substance Use from the 2003 – 2004 and 2004 –
2005 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: http://
www. nationaloutcomemeasures. samhsa. gov/ outcome/ NoUsePass30Days. asp?
outcome= 2& cType= Bar& OutputType= memory& p_ state= AZ& NoUsePass30Days= DAY& GroupID= 3.
United States Census Bureau. ( 2005). American Community Survey. Retrieved from: http:// factfinder. census. gov.
United States Census Bureau. ( 2006). Population Estimates. Retrieved from: http:// www. unm. edu/~ bber/ demo/ statesforweb2000s. xls.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. ( 2005). National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Unpublished Data. http://
www. oas. samhsa. gov/ nsduh. htm.
United States Surgeon General. ( 2007). Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking. Retrieved from: http://
www. surgeongeneral. gov/ topics/ underagedrinking/.
References
- 32-
