2013 state of utah profile report

7/29/2019 2013 State of Utah Profile Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2013-state-of-utah-profile-report 1/54

1

----

State of UtahProfile Report



2

IntroductionThe Charts and Tables in this ReportData Charts:

Table of Contents

Lifetime and 30 Day ATOD Use Problem Substance Use, Mental Health, and Antisocial Behavior

Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use

Risk and Protective Factor Profiles

The Risk and Protective Factor Model of PreventionBuilding a Strategic Prevention Framework

School and Community Improvement Using Survey DataRisk and Protective Factor Scale DefinitionsData TablesAppendixContacts for Prevention



3

Table 1 contains the characteristics of the studentsfrom the State of Utah who completed the survey.Because not all students answer all of the questions,the total number of survey respondents by genderand survey respondents by ethnicity may be less than

the reported total students.When using the information in this report, please payattention to the number of students who participatedfrom your community. If 60% or more of thestudents participated, the report is a good indicator of the levels of substance use, risk, protection, andantisocial behavior. If fewer than 60% participated,consult with your local prevention coordinator or asurvey professional before generalizing the results tothe entire community.

Coordination and administration of the Utah PNA

Survey was a collaborative effort of State of Utah,Department of Human Services, Division of SubstanceAbuse and Mental Health; Office of Education;Department of Health; and Bach Harrison, LLC. Formore information about the PNA or preventionservices in Utah, please refer to the Contacts for Prevention section at the end of this report.

2013 State of Utah Prevention NeedsAssessment Survey Report

This report summarizes the findings from the Utah2013 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey

that was conducted as part of the Student Health andRisk Prevention (SHARP) Statewide Survey. Thesurvey was administered to students in grades 6, 8,10 and 12 in 39 school districts and 14 charter schoolsacross Utah.

The results for the State of Utah are presented alongwith comparisons to 2009 and 2011 SHARP Surveyresults, where applicable. Results fromadministrations prior to 2009 may be found byconsulting past years’ profile reports. The PNASurvey was designed to assess adolescent substanceuse, anti-social behavior, and the risk and protective

factors that predict adolescent problem behaviors.

Further, in keeping with the vision that preventionservices are designed to have a positive impact on thelives of individuals, efforts have been made to ensurethat the PNA survey also gathers data on issues suchas mental health and suicide, gang involvement,academic issues, health and fitness, and otherprevention-related topics.

Table 1. Characteristics of Participants

State 2009 State 2011 State 2013

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

40,831 100 49,707 100 47,137 100

Survey Respondents by Grade

6 13,638 33.4 15,587 31.4 13,923 29.5

8 10,926 26.8 13,437 27.0 14,040 29.8

10 9,275 22.7 11,360 22.9 10,816 22.9

12 6,992 17.1 9,323 18.8 8,358 17.7

Survey Respondents by Gender

Male 19,418 48.3 24,063 48.6 22,760 48.4

Female 20,809 51.7 25,499 51.4 24,218 51.6

Survey Respondents by EthnicityAfrican American 544 1.4 743 1.5 742 1.6

Asian 695 1.7 855 1.7 750 1.6

Hispanic 4,848 12.1 5,619 11.5 6,029 13.0

American Indian 778 1.9 953 1.9 838 1.8

Pacific Islander 600 1.5 798 1.6 697 1.5

White 30,339 75.7 36,723 75.1 33,612 72.4

Multi-racial 2,288 5.7 3,220 6.6 3,731 8.0

Total Survey

Respondents

Introduction



4

There are five types of charts presented in this report:1)zsubstance use charts, 2)zproblem use, mentalhealth and antisocial behavior (ASB) charts,3)zsources of alcohol acquisition, 4)zplaces of alcoholconsumption, 5)zrisk factor charts and 6)zprotective

factor charts. Data from the charts are presentednumerically in Tables 3 through 9.

Understanding the Format of the Charts

There are several graphical elements common to allthe charts. Understanding the format of the chartsand what these elements represent is essential ininterpreting the results of the 2013 SHARP survey.

• The Bars on substance use and antisocial behaviorcharts represent the percentage of students in thatgrade who reported a given behavior. The bars onthe risk and protective factor charts represent the

percentage of students whose answers reflectsignificant risk or protection in that category. zzzzz

Each set of differently colored bars represents oneof the last three administrations of the PNA: 2009,2011, and 2013. By looking at the percentages overtime, it is possible to identify trends in substanceuse and antisocial behavior. By studying thepercentage of youth at risk and with protectionover time, it is possible to determine whether thepercentage of students at risk or with protection isincreasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Thisinformation is important when deciding which riskand protective factors warrant attention.

• Dots and Diamonds provide points of comparisonto larger samples. The dots on the charts representthe percentage of all of the youth surveyed acrossUtah who reported substance use, problembehavior, elevated risk, or elevated protection. zz

For the 2013 PNA Survey, there were 47,137participants in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, out of 72,709sampled, a participation rate of 64.8%. The factthat over 47,000 students across the stateparticipated in the PNA make the state dot a good

estimate of the rates of ATOD use and levels of riskand protective factors of youth in Utah. The surveyresults provide considerable information forcommunities to use in planning prevention services.

The diamonds represent national data from either theMonitoring the Future (MTF) survey or the BachHarrison Norm. The Bach Harrison Norm wasdeveloped by Bach Harrison LLC to provide states

and communities with the ability to compare theirresults on risk, protection, and antisocial measureswith more national measures. Survey participantsfrom eight statewide surveys and five large regionalsurveys across the nation were combined into a

database of approximately 460,000 students. Theresults were weighted to make the contribution of each state and region proportional to its share of thenational population. Bach Harrison analysts thencalculated rates for antisocial behavior and forstudents at risk and with protection. The results appearon the charts as BH Norm. In order to keep the BachHarrison Norm relevant, it is updated approximatelyevery two years as new data become available. zz zz z

A comparison to state-wide and national resultsprovides additional information for your communityin determining the relative importance of levels of

alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use,antisocial behavior, risk, and protection. Informationabout other students in the state and the nation canbe helpful in determining the seriousness of a givenlevel of problem behavior. Scanning across thecharts, it is important to observe the factors thatdiffer the most from the Bach Harrison Norm. Thisis the first step in identifying the levels of risk andprotection that are higher or lower than those inother communities. The risk factors that are higherthan the Bach Harrison Norm and the protectivefactors that are lower than the Bach Harrison Norm

are factors your community should consideraddressing when planning prevention programs.

Lifetime and 30-Day ATOD Use

• Lifetime use is a measure of the percentage of students who tried the particular substance atsome point in their lifetime and is used to showthe percentage of students who have hadexperience with a particular substance.

• 30-day use is a measure of the percentage of students who used the substance at least once inthe 30 days prior to taking the survey and is a

more sensitive indicator of the level of current useof the substance.

Problem Substance Use, Need for Treatment, and Antisocial Behavior

• Problem substance use is measured in severaldifferent ways: binge drinking (having five ormore drinks in a row during the two weeks prior

The Charts and Tables in this Report



5

to the survey), use of one-half a pack or more of cigarettes per day, and youth indicating drinkingalcohol and driving or reporting riding with a driverwho had been drinking alcohol during the past 30 days.

• The need for treatment estimates the percentage of

students in need of substance abuse and mentalhealth treatment. zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Substance abuse treatment needs are estimates of youth in need of alcohol treatment, drug treatmentand an estimate of students that need either alcoholOR drug treatment. The need for treatment isdefined as students who have used alcohol or drugson ten or more occasions in their lifetime andmarked three or more of the following six itemsrelated to their drug or alcohol use in the past year:1)zspent more time using than intended, 2)zneglectedsome of your usual responsibilities because of use,3)zwanted to cut down on use, 4)zothers objected toyour use, 5)zfrequently thought about using, and6)zused alcohol or drugs to relieve feeling such assadness, anger, or boredom. Students could mark eachitems as it related to their drug and/or alcohol use.

Needs Mental Health Treatment was estimatedusing the K6 Scale that was developed with supportfrom the National Center for Health Statistics foruse in the National Health Interview Survey. Thetool screens for psychological distress by askingstudents “During the past 30 days, how often did

you: 1)zfeel nervous? 2)zfeel hopeless? 3)zfeelrestless or fidgety? 4)zfeel so depressed that nothingcould cheer you up? 5)zfeel that everything was aneffort? and 6)zfeel worthless? zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzz

Answers were scored based on responses: None of

the time (0 points), A little of the time (1 point),Some of the time (2 points), Most of the time (3points), All of the time (4 points). Students with ascore of 13 or more points were determined to be inneed of mental health treatment. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Youth considering suicide are also in need of mental health services. This section of the report alsocontains the percentage of students answering yes tothe question, “During the past 12 months, did youever seriously consider attempting suicide?”

• Antisocial behavior (ASB) is a measure of thepercentage of students who report any involvementduring the past year with the eight antisocialbehaviors listed in the charts.

Sources of Alcohol and Places of Alcohol Use

These charts present the percentage of students whoobtained alcohol from nine specific sources and thepercentage that used alcohol in six specific places during

the past year. Questions regarding sources of alcoholwere not asked in 2011, but were included on the 2013SHARP PNA. The number of students reporting use ispresented to assist in interpreting the results.

Risk and Protective Factors

Risk and protective factor scales measure specificaspects of a youth’s life experience that predict whetherhe/she will engage in problem behaviors. The scales,defined in Table 2, are grouped into four domains:community, family, school, and peer/individual. Therisk and protective factor charts show the percentage of students at risk and with protection for each of the scales.

Additional Tables in this Report

Tables 10 to 12 contain additional data for preventionplanning and reporting to state and federal agencies.

Drug Free Communities

Table 10 contains information relevant to Drug FreeCommunity (DFC) grantees. These tables report the fourDFC Core Measures on alcohol, tobacco, marijuana andprescription drugs:

• Perception of Risk - The percentage of respondents

who report that regular use of the substance hasmoderate risk or great risk

• Perception of Parental/Peer Disapproval - Thepercentage of respondents who report their parentsfeel regular use of alcohol/ANY use of cigarettes,marijuana, or prescription drugs is wrong or very wrong.

• Past 30-Day Use - The percentage surveyed reportingusing the substance at least once in the past 30 days

Data for Prevention Planning

Table 11 contains information on student perceptions of school safety, bullying, classroom and school discipline,and student perception of ATOD use among their peers.

Perceived Parental Approval and ATOD Use

Table 12 explores the relationship between perceivedparental approval and ATOD use. A full explanation of how to interpret these data is available accompanyingthe tables.

The Charts and Tables in this Report



6

Substance Use and Antisocial Behavior

* 2013 lifetime use is calculated from a different set of questions than previous years. (Consult appendix for explanation.)** Prescription Stimulants/Tranquilizer wording is not identical to MTF, but is functionally equivalent. In 2011, Sedatives was replaced by Prescription Sedatives &

† Prescription Drugs is a combined measure showing the total use of any Stimulant, Sedative, Tranquilizer, or Narcotic Prescription Drugs (Consult appendix fo†† Monitoring the Future does not survey 6th grade students.

A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C

h e w i n g T o b a c c o

M a r i j u a n a

H a l l u c i n o g e n s

C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s

M e t h a m p h e t a m i n e s

* * P r e s c r i

p t i o n S t i m u l a n t s

* * P r e s c r i p t i o n S e d a t i v e s

* * P r e s c r i p t i o n

T r a n q u i l i z e r s

P r e s c r i p t i o n N a r c o t i c s

† P r e s c r i p t i o n D r u g s

H e r o i n

A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )



2013 State of Utah Student Survey, Grade 6

Lifetime Use* 30-Day Use



7



† Prescription Drugs is a combined measure showing the total use of any Stimulant, Sedative, Tranquilizer, or Narcotic Prescription Drugs (Consult appendix fo

A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i







H e r o i n

A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )







8




A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i







H e r o i n

A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )







9




A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i







H e r o i n

A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )







10


† Prescription Drugs is a combined measure showing the total use of any Stimulant, Sedative, Tranquilizer, or Narcotic Prescription Drugs (Consult appendix fo†† 'All Grades' MTF data are not available.

A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i







H e r o i n

A l c o h o l

C i g a r e t t e s

C


M a r i j u a n a


C o c a i n e

I n h a l a n t s


* * P r e s c r i



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )



2013 State of Utah Student Survey, All Grades





11

* 6th grade MTF data for Binge Drinking and 1/2 Pack Cigarettes/Day are unavailable.** National comparison data for Driving While Drinking, Riding with a Drinking Driver, and Antisocial Behavior are Bach Harrison Norm values.

Please see Tables 5 and 6 for more information on the time frames for the values presented in this chart.


* B

i n g e D r i n k i n g i n

t h e P a s t 2 w e e k s

* 1 / 2 P a c k o f

C i g a r e t t e s / D a y

*

* D R I V E a v e h i c l e

w h

e n y o u h a d b e e n

d

r i n k i n g a l c o h o l ?

* * R I D E i n a v e h i c l e

d r i v e n b y s o m e o n e

d


N e e d s A l c o h o l

T r e a t m e n t

N e e d s D r u g

T r e a t m e n t

N e e d s A l c a n d / o r

D r u g T r e a t m e n t

N e e d s M e n t a l

H e a l t h T r e a t m e n t

S e r i o u s l y

C o n s i d e r e d S u i c i d e

S u s p e n d e d

f r o m S

c h o o l

D r u n k o r H i g h

a t S c h o o l

S

o l d I l l e g a l D r u g s

S t o l e n a V e h i c l e

B e e n A r r e s t e d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )


Problem Substance Use, Need For Treatment, and Antisocial Behavior


Antisocial Behavior (Problem Substance Use Need for Treatment



12


* National comparison data for Binge Drinking and 1/2 Pack Cigarettes/Day are Monitoring the Future values.** National comparison data for Driving While Drinking, Riding with a Drinking Driver, and Antisocial Behavior are Bach Harrison Norm values.


* B



* 1 / 2 P a c k o f


*


w h


d




d



T r e a t m e n t

N e e d s D r u g

T r e a t m e n t





S e r i o u s l y


S u s p e n d e d

f r o m S

c h o o l


a t S c h o o l

S




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )







13




* B



* 1 / 2 P a c k o f


*


w h


d




d



T r e a t m e n t

N e e d s D r u g

T r e a t m e n t





S e r i o u s l y


S u s p e n d e d

f r o m S

c h o o l


a t S c h o o l

S




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )







14




* B



* 1 / 2 P a c k o f


*


w h


d




d



T r e a t m e n t

N e e d s D r u g

T r e a t m e n t





S e r i o u s l y


S u s p e n d e d

f r o m S

c h o o l


a t S c h o o l

S




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )







15


* 'All Grades' MTF data for Binge Drinking and 1/2 Pack Cigarettes/Day are unavailable.** National comparison data for Driving While Drinking, Riding with a Drinking Driver, and Antisocial Behavior are Bach Harrison Norm values.


* B



* 1 / 2 P a c k o f


*


w h


d




d



T r e a t m e n t

N e e d s D r u g

T r e a t m e n t





S e r i o u s l y


S u s p e n d e d

f r o m S

c h o o l


a t S c h o o l

S




0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P

e r c e n t a g e ( % )







16

I b o u g h t i t m y s e l f

f r o m a

s t o r e

I g o t i t a t a p a r t y

I g a v e s o m e o n e

e l s e m o n e y t o

b u y i t f o r m e

I g o t i t f r o m

s o m e o n e I k n o w

a g e 2 1 o r o l d e r

I g o t i t f r o m s

o m e o n e

I k n o w u n d e r a g e 2 1

I g o t i t f r o m a

f a m i l y

m e m b e r o r r e l a t i v e

o t h e r t h a n m y p a r e n t s

I g o t i t f r o m h

o m e

w i t h m y p a r e n t s ’

p e r m i s s i o n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P e r c e n t a g e ( % ) r e p o r t i n g 1 o r m o r e s o u r c e s

.

State 2009Sample: 1,202

State 2013Sample: 60

Sources Of Alcohol*


If you drank alcohol (not just a sip or taste) in the past year, how did you get it?

Sources of Alcohol

* Questions regarding sources of alcohol were not asked in 2011.** Sample size represents the number of youth who chose at least one place of drinking alcohol. Students who indicated they had not drunk alcohol in the past yea

In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community.



17




f r o m a

s t o r e




b u y i t f o r m e

I g o t i t f r o m




o m e o n e



f a m i l y




o m e


p e r m i s s i o n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


.



Sources Of Alcohol*



Sources of Alcohol



18

** Places of alcohol use were not measured prior to 2009.** Sample size represents the number of youth who chose at least one place of alcohol consumption. Students who indicated they had not drank alcohol in the pa** In the case of smaller sample sizes, caution should be exercised before generalizing results to the entire community.


f r o m a

s t o r e




b u y i t f o r m e

I g o t i t f r o m




o m e o n e



f a m i l y




o m e


p e r m i s s i o n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


.



Sources Of Alcohol*



Sources of Alcohol





19



f r o m a

s t o r e




b u y i t f o r m e

I g o t i t f r o m




o m e o n e



f a m i l y




o m e


p e r m i s s i o n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


.



Sources Of Alcohol*



Sources of Alcohol





20



f r o m a

s t o r e




b u y i t f o r m e

I g o t i t f r o m




o m e o n e



f a m i l y




o m e


p e r m i s s i o n

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


.



Sources Of Alcohol*


Sources of Alcohol





21

A t m y h o m e o r

s o m e o n e e l s e ’ s

h o m e w i t h o u t a n y

p a r e n t p e r m i s s i o n

A t m y h o m e

w i t h m y p a r e n t ’ s

p e r m i s s i o n

A t s o m e o n e

e l s e ’ s h o m e

w i t h t h e i r p a r e n t ’ s

p e r m i s s i o n

* A t o r n e a r s c h o o l

I n a c a r

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P e r c e n t a g e ( %

) r e p o r t i n g 1 o r m o r e t i m e s

.



Places Of Alcohol Use


During the past year did you drink alcohol at any of the following places?

Places of Alcohol Use

* At or near school was introduced in the 2011 SHARP PNA.** Sample size represents the number of youth who chose at least one place of drinking alcohol. Students who indicated they had not drunk alcohol in the past yea




22



A t m y h o m e o r




A t m y h o m e


p e r m i s s i o n

A t s o m e o n e



p e r m i s s i o n


I n a c a r

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



.









23


A t m y h o m e o r




A t m y h o m e


p e r m i s s i o n

A t s o m e o n e



p e r m i s s i o n


I n a c a r

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



.











24


A t m y h o m e o r




A t m y h o m e


p e r m i s s i o n

A t s o m e o n e



p e r m i s s i o n


I n a c a r

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



.











25


A t m y h o m e o r




A t m y h o m e


p e r m i s s i o n

A t s o m e o n e



p e r m i s s i o n


I n a c a r

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



.










26

L o

w N e i g h b o r h o o d

A t t a c h m e n t

L a w s & N o r m s

F a v o r

a b l e t o D r u g U s e

P e r c e i v e d A v a i l a b i l i t y

o f D r u g s


o f H a n d g u n s

P o o r F a m i l y

M a n a g e m e n t

F a m i l y C o n f l i c t

F a m i l y H i s t o r y

o f A n

t i s o c i a l B e h a v i o r

P

a r e n t a l A t t i t u d e s

F

a v o r a b l e t o A S B

P


F a v o r


A

c a d e m i c F a i l u r e

L

o w C o m m i t m e n t

t o S c h o o l

R e b e l l i o u s n e s s

E a r l y I n i t i a t i o n

o f A S B


o f D r u g U s e

A t t i t u d e s F a v o r a b l e

t o A S B


t o D r u g U s e

P e r c e i v e d R i s k

o f D r u g U s e

I n t e r a c t i o n w i t h

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P e r c e n t a

g e ( % ) o f y o u t h a t r i s k


Risk Profile


Peer/IndividuaCommunity Family School




27

R e w a r d s

f o r P r o s o c i a l

I n v o l v e m e n t

F a

m i l y A t t a c h m e n t

O p p o r t u n i t i e s



R e w a r d s






R e w a r d s



R e l i g i o s i t y

B e l i e f i n t h e

M o r a l O r d e r


P r o s o c i a l P e e r s

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P e r c e n t a g e ( % ) o f y o u t h w i t h p r o t e c t i o n


Protective Profile


Peer/IndiviCommunity Family School




28

L o


A t t a c h m e n t

L a w s & N o r m s

F a v o r



o f D r u g s


o f H a n d g u n s

P o o r F a m i l y

M a n a g e m e n t



o f A n


P


F


P


F a v o r


A


L


t o S c h o o l



o f A S B


o f D r u g U s e


t o A S B


t o D r u g U s e


o f D r u g U s e


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P e r c e n t a



Risk Profile






29

R e w a r d s



F a





R e w a r d s






R e w a r d s





M o r a l O r d e r



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Protective Profile






30

L o


A t t a c h m e n t

L a w s & N o r m s

F a v o r



o f D r u g s


o f H a n d g u n s

P o o r F a m i l y

M a n a g e m e n t



o f A n


P


F


P


F a v o r


A


L


t o S c h o o l



o f A S B


o f D r u g U s e


t o A S B


t o D r u g U s e


o f D r u g U s e


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P e r c e n t a



Risk Profile






31

R e w a r d s



F a





R e w a r d s






R e w a r d s





M o r a l O r d e r



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Protective Profile






32

L o


A t t a c h m e n t

L a w s & N o r m s

F a v o r



o f D r u g s


o f H a n d g u n s

P o o r F a m i l y

M a n a g e m e n t



o f A n


P


F


P


F a v o r


A


L


t o S c h o o l



o f A S B


o f D r u g U s e


t o A S B


t o D r u g U s e


o f D r u g U s e


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P e r c e n t a



Risk Profile






33


R e w a r d s



F a





R e w a r d s






R e w a r d s





M o r a l O r d e r



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Protective Profile





34

L o


A t t a c h m e n t

L a w s & N o r m s

F a v o r



o f D r u g s


o f H a n d g u n s

P o o r F a m i l y

M a n a g e m e n t



o f A n


P


F


P


F a v o r


A


L


t o S c h o o l



o f A S B


o f D r u g U s e


t o A S B


t o D r u g U s e


o f D r u g U s e


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

P e r c e n t a



Risk Profile






35


R e w a r d s



F a





R e w a r d s






R e w a r d s





M o r a l O r d e r



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Protective Profile





36

Bonding confers a protective influence only when thereis a positive climate in the bonded community. Peersand adults in these schools, families and neighborhoodsmust communicate healthy values and set clearstandards for behavior in order to ensure a protectiveeffect. For example, strong bonds to antisocial peers

would not be likely to reinforce positive behavior.

Research on risk and protective factors has importantimplications for children’s academic success, positiveyouth development, and prevention of health andbehavior problems. In order to promote academicsuccess and positive youth development and toprevent problem behaviors, it is necessary to addressthe factors that predict these outcomes. Bymeasuring risk and protective factors in a population,specific risk factors that are elevated and widespreadcan be identified and targeted by policies, programs,and actions shown to reduce those risk factors and to

promote protective factors.Each risk and protective factor can be linked to specifictypes of interventions that have been shown to beeffective in either reducing risk(s) or enhancingprotection(s). The steps outlined here will help the State of Utah make key decisions regarding allocation of resources,how and when to address specific needs, and whichstrategies are most effective and known to produce results.

In addition to helping assess current conditions andprioritize areas of greatest need, data from the SHARPPrevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey can be apowerful tool in applying for and complying with

several federal programs (such as the StrategicPrevention Framework process, the No Child LeftBehind Act and Drug Free Communities grants),outlined later in this report. The survey also gathersvaluable data which allows state and local agencies toaddress other prevention issues related to academicachievement, mental health, gang involvement, healthand fitness, and personal safety.

Prevention is a science. The Risk and Protective FactorModel of Prevention is a proven way of reducingsubstance abuse and its related consequences. Thismodel is based on the simple premise that to prevent aproblem from happening, we need to identify the factorsthat increase the risk of that problem developing and

then find ways to reduce the risks. Just as medicalresearchers have found risk factors for heart disease suchas diets high in fat, lack of exercise, and smoking; a teamof researchers at the University of Washington havedefined a set of risk factors for youth problem behaviors.

Risk factors are characteristics of school, communityand family environments, and of students and theirpeer groups known to predict increased likelihood of drug use, delinquency, school dropout, and violentbehaviors among youth. For example, children wholive in disorganized, crime-ridden neighborhoods aremore likely to become involved in crime and drug use

than children who live in safe neighborhoods.The chart below shows the links between the 19 riskfactors and five problem behaviors. The check marksindicate where at least two well designed, publishedresearch studies have shown a link between the riskfactor and the problem behavior.

Protective factors exert a positive influence andbuffer against the negative influence of risk, thusreducing the likelihood that adolescents will engage inproblem behaviors. Protective factors identifiedthrough research include strong bonding to family,school, community and peers, and healthy beliefs and

clear standards for behavior. Protective bondingdepends on three conditions: • Opportunities for young people to actively

contribute

• Skills to be able to successfully contribute

• Consistent recognition or reinforcement fortheir efforts and accomplishments

SOURCE: COMMUNITIES THAT CARE (CTC) PREVENTION MODEL, CENTER FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION (CSAP), SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION(SAMSHA)

Community Family School Peer / Individual

C o m m u n i t y L a w s &

N o r m s

F a v o r a b l e T o w a r d D r u g

U s e ,

F i r e a r m s & C r i m e

A v a i l a b i l i t y o f D r u g

s &

F i r e a r m s

T r a n s i t i o n s & M o b i l i t y

L o w N e i g h b o r h o o d

A t t a c h m e n t

C o m m u n i t y

D i s o r g a n i z a t i o n

E x t r e m e E c o n o m i c

&

S o c i a l D e p r i v a t i o n

F a m i l y H i s t o r y o f t h e

P r o b l e m

B e h a v i o r


F a m i l y M a n a g e m e n

t

P r o b l e m s

F a v o r a b l e P a r e n t

A t t i t u d e s & I n v o l v e

m e n t

i n t h e P r o b l e m

B e h

a v i o r

A c a d e m i c F a i l u r e

L a c k o f C o m m i t m e n t t o

S c h o o l

E a r l y I n i t i a t i o n o f

D r u g U s e & O t h e r

P r o b l e m

B e h a v i o r

E a r l y & P e r s i s t e n t

A n t i s o c i a l B e h a v i o r

A l i e n a t i o n &


F r i e n d s W h o U s e

D r u g s & E n g a g e i n

P r o b l e m

B e h a v i o r s

F a v o r a b l e A t t i t u d e s

T o w a r d D r u g U s e &

O t h e r

P r o b l e m

B e h a v i o r s

G a n g I n v o l v e m e n t

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l F a c t

o r s

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

T T T T T T T T T T

T T T T T T T T T T T T

T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T

School Drop-Out

Violence

Risk

Factors

Substance Abuse

Delinquency

Teen Pregnancy

The Risk and Protective Factor Model



37

The PNA is an important data source for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration(SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). CSAPcreated the SPF model to guide states and communities in creating planned, data-driven, effective, andsustainable prevention programs. Each part represents an interdependent element of the ongoing process of prevention coordination.

Assessment: Profile Population Needs, Resources, and Readiness to Address the Problems and Gaps in

Service Delivery. The SPF begins with an assessment of the needs in the community that is based on data.The Utah State Epidemiological Outcomes Workgroup (SEOW) has compiled data from several sources to aidin the needs assessment process. One of the primary sources of needs assessment data is this Prevention Needs AssessmentSurvey (PNA). While planning prevention services,communities are urged to collect and use multiple data

sources, including archival and social indicators,

assessment of existing resources, key informant

interviews, and community readiness. The

PNA results presented in this Profile

Report will help you to identify

needs for prevention services.PNA data include adolescentsubstance use, anti-social

behavior, and many of therisk and protective factorsthat predict adolescentproblem behaviors.

Capacity: Mobilize and/orzzzzz Build Capacity to Addresszz Needs. Engagement of key

stakeholders at the State and communitylevels 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 tobuild coalitions, provide training, leverage

resources, and help sustain prevention

States and communities should develop a strategic plan that articulates not only a vision for theprevention activities, but also strategies for organizing and implementing prevention efforts. The

strategic plan should be based on the assessments conducted during Step 1. The Plan should address thepriority 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 monitoringactivities.

activities.

Planning: Develop a Comprehensive Strategic Plan.

Building a Strategic Prevention Framework



38

Implementation: Implement Evidence-based Prevention Programs and Infrastructure DevelopmentActivities. By measuring and identifying the risk factors and other causal factors that contribute to thetargeted problems specified in your strategic plan, programs can be implemented that will reduce theprioritized substance abuse problems. After completing Steps 1, 2, and 3, communities will be able to chooseprevention strategies that have been shown to be effective, are appropriate for the population served, can beimplemented with fidelity, are culturally appropriate, and can be sustained over time. One resource forevidence-based prevention practices is University Colorado at Boulder’s Blueprints For Healthy Youthhttp://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/.

Evaluation: Monitor Process, Evaluate Effectiveness, Sustain Effective Programs/Activities, andImprove or Replace Those That Fail: Finally, ongoing monitoring and evaluation are essential to determineif the desired outcomes are achieved, assess service delivery quality, identify successes, encourage neededimprovement, and promote sustainability of effective policies, programs, and practices. The PNA allowscommunities to monitor levels of ATOD use, antisocial behavior, risk, and protection.

Sustainability and Cultural Competence are at the core of the SPF model, indicating the key role they play

in each of the five elements. Incorporating principles of cultural competence and sustainability throughoutassessment, capacity appraisal, planning, implementation and evaluation helps ensure successful, long lastingprevention programs.

Sustainability: Sustainability is accomplished by utilizing a comprehensive approach. By buildingadaptive and flexible programs around a variety of resources, funding and organizations, states andcommunities will build sustainable programs and achieve sustainable outcomes. A strategic plan thatdynamically responds to changing issues, data, priorities, and resources is more likely to achieve longterm results.

Sharing information gathered during the evaluation stage with key stakeholders, forging partnershipsand encouraging creative collaboration all enhance sustainability.

Cultural Competence: Planners need to recognize the needs, styles, values and beliefs of therecipients of prevention efforts. Culturally competent prevention strategies use interventions,evaluations and communication strategies appropriate to their intended community. Cultural issuesreflect a range of influences and are not just a matter of ethnic or racial identity. Learning tocommunicate with audiences from diverse geographic, cultural, economic, social, and linguisticbackgrounds can increase program efficacy and ensure sustainable results.

Whether enlisting extended family networks as a prevention resource for single parent households, orensuring there are resources available to bridge language gaps, cultural competency will help yourecognize differences in prevention needs and tailor prevention approaches accordingly.

A one-size-fits-all program is less effective than a program that draws on community-based values,

traditions, and customs and works with knowledgeable people from the community to develop focusedinterventions, communication and support.

Building a Strategic Prevention Framework



39

What are the numbers telling you?

• Review the charts and data tables presented in this report. Note your findings as you discuss the followingquestions.

• Which 3-5 risk factors appear to be higher than you would want when compared to the Bach Harrison Norm?• Which 3-5 protective factors appear to be lower than you would want when compared to the Bach Harrison Norm?• Which levels of 30-day drug use are increasing and/or unacceptably high?

o Which substances are your students using the most?o At which grades do you see unacceptable usage levels?

• Which levels of antisocial behaviors are increasing and/or unacceptably high?o Which behaviors are your students exhibiting the most?o At which grades do you see unacceptable behavior levels?

How to identify high priority problem areas

• Look across the charts – which items stand out as either much higher or much lower than the other?• Compare your data with statewide, and/or national data – differences of 5% between local and other

data are probably significant.• Prioritize problems for your area – Make an assessment of the rates you’ve identified. Which can be

realistically addressed with the funding available to your community? Which problems fit best with theprevention resources at hand?

• Determine the standards and values held within your community – For example: Is it acceptable in yourcommunity for a percentage of high school students to drink alcohol regularly as long as that percentage islower 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.• Additional survey data – use data on academic achievement, mental health and suicide, health and fitness,

gang involvement, seat belt use, and other areas to broaden your prevention approach. Find ways to sharethis data with other prevention planners in your community.

• Promising approaches – access resources listed on the last page of this report for ideas about programs thathave been proven effective in addressing the risk factors that are high in your community, and improvingthe rotective factors that are low.

6th grd Fav. Attitude toDrugs (Peer/Indiv. Scale)

@ 15% (8% > BH Norm.)

10th grd - Rewards forprosocial involvm. (School Domain)(down 10% from 2 yrs ago)

8th grd Binge Drinking@13%

(6% above state av.)

12th grd - Drunk/High at School @21% (same as

state, but still a priority.)

Priority Rate 3Priority Rate 2Priority Rate 1Sample

Risk

Factors

ProtectiveFactors

Antisocial

Behavior

AbuseSubstance30-day

School and Community Improvement Using Survey Data



40

1

Low Neighborhood Attachment Low neighborhood bonding is related to higher levels of juvenile crime and drug selling.

1

Laws and Norms Favorable

Toward Drug Use

Research has shown that legal restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use, such as raising the legal drinking age,

restricting smoking in public places, and increased taxation have been followed by decreases in consumption.

Moreover, national surveys of high school seniors have shown that shifts in normative attitudes toward drug usehave preceded changes in prevalence of use.

1

Perceived Availability of Drugs

and Handguns

The availability of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and other illegal drugs has been related to the use of these

substances by adolescents. The availability of handguns is also related to a higher risk of crime and substance use

by adolescents.

1

Rewards for Prosocial

Involvement

Rewards for positive participation in activities helps youth bond to the community, thus lowering their risk for

substance use.

1

Poor Family Management Parents’ use of inconsistent and/or unusually harsh or severe punishment with their children places them at higher

risk for substance use and other problem behaviors. Also, parents’ failure to provide clear expectations and to

monitor their children’s behavior makes it more likely that they will engage in drug abuse whether or not there

are family drug problems.

1

Family Conflict Children raised in families high in conflict, whether or not the child is directly involved in the conflict, appear at

risk for both delinquency and drug use.

1

Family History of Antisocial

Behavior

When children are raised in a family with a history of problem behaviors (e.g., violence or ATOD use), the

children are more likely to engage in these behaviors.

1

Parental Attitudes Favorable

Toward Antisocial Behavior &

Drugs

In families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of alcohol, or are tolerant of children’s use, children

are more likely to become drug abusers during adolescence. The risk is further increased if parents involve

children in their own drug (or alcohol) using behavior, for example, asking the child to light the parent’s cigarette

or get the parent a beer from the refrigerator.

1

Family Attachment Young people who feel that they are a valued part of their family are less likely to engage in substance use and

other problem behaviors.

1

Opportunities for Prosocial

Involvement

Young people who are exposed to more opportunities to participate meaningfully in the responsibilities and

activities of the family are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

1


Involvement

When parents, siblings, and other family members praise, encourage, and attend to things done well by their child,

children are less likely to engage in substance use and problem behaviors.

1

Academic Failure Beginning in the late elementary grades (grades 4-6) academic failure increases the risk of both drug abuse and

delinquency. It appears that the experience of failure itself, for whatever reasons, increases the risk of problem

behaviors.

1

Low Commitment to School Surveys of high school seniors have shown that the use of drugs is significantly lower among students who expect

to attend college than among those who do not. Factors such as liking school, spending time on homework, and

perceiving the coursework as relevant are also negatively related to drug use.

1

Opportunities for Prosocial

Involvement

When young people are given more opportunities to participate meaningfully in important activities at school,

they are less likely to engage in drug use and other problem behaviors.

1


Involvement

When young people are recognized and rewarded for their contributions at school, they are less likely to be

involved in substance use and other problem behaviors.

Community Domain Protective Factors

Family Domain Risk Factors

Family Domain Protective Factors

School Domain Risk Factors

School Domain Protective Factors

Table 2. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles

Community Domain Risk Factors

Risk and Protective Scale Definitions



41

1

Rebelliousness Young people who do not feel part of society, are not bound by rules, don’t believe in trying to be successful or

responsible, or who take an active rebellious stance toward society, are at higher risk of abusingdrugs. In addition,

high tolerance for deviance, a strong need for independence and normlessness have all been linked with drug use.

1

Early Initiation of Antisocial Behavior and Drug Use

Early onset of drug use predicts misuse of drugs. The earlier the onset of any drug use, the greater theinvolvement in other drug use and the greater frequency of use. Onset of drug use prior to the age of 15 is a

consistent predictor of drug abuse, and a later age of onset of drug use has been shown to predict lower drug

involvement and a greater probability of discontinuation of use.

1

Attitudes Favorable Toward

Antisocial Behavior and Drug

Use

During the elementary school years, most children express anti-drug, anti-crime, and pro-social attitudes and have

difficulty imagining why people use drugs or engage in antisocial behaviors. However, in middle school, as more

youth are exposed to others who use drugs and engage in antisocial behavior, their attitudes often shift toward

greater acceptance of these behaviors. Youth who express positive attitudes toward drug use and antisocial

behavior are more likely to engage in a variety of problem behaviors, including drug use.

1

Perceived Risk of Drug Use Young people who do not perceive drug use to be risky are far more likely to engage in drug use.

1

Interaction with Antisocial

Peers

Young people who associate with peers who engage in problem behaviors are at higher risk for engaging in

antisocial behavior themselves.

1

Friends' Use of Drugs Young people who associate with peers who engage in alcohol or substance abuse are much more likely to engage

in the same behavior. Peer drug use has consistently been found to be among the strongest predictors of substance

use among youth. Even when young people come from well-managed families and do not experience other risk

factors, spending time with friends who use drugs greatly increases the risk of that problem developing.

1

Rewards for Antisocial Behavior Young people who receive rewards for their antisocial behavior are at higher risk for engaging further in antisocial

behavior and substance use.

1

Depressive Symptoms Young people who are depressed are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and are more likely to use

drugs. Survey research and other studies have shown a link between depression and other youth problem

behaviors.

1

Gang Involvement Youth who belong to gangs are more at risk for antisocial behavior and drug use.

1

Belief in the Moral Order Young people who have a belief in what is “right” or “wrong” are less likely to use drugs.

1

Religiosity Young people who regularly attend religious services are less likely to engage in problem behaviors.

1

Interaction with Prosocial Peers Young people who associate with peers who engage in prosocial behavior are more protected from engaging in

antisocial behavior and substance use.

1

Prosocial Involvement Participation in positive school and community activities helps provide protection for youth.

1


Involvement

Young people who are rewarded for working hard in school and the community are less likely to engage in

problem behavior.

Peer-Individual Protective Factors

Peer-Individual Risk Factors

Table 2. Scales that Measure the Risk and Protective Factors Shown in the Profiles (cont'd)

Risk and Protective Scale Definitions



44

Data Tables

Table 5. Percentage of Students With Problem Substance Use and Treatment Needs

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

Stat

201

Binge Drinking*How many times have youhad 5 or more alcoholic

drinks in a row in the past

2 weeks? (One or more times)

1.6 1.8 1.4 4.3 5.1 3.4 7.8 8.2 6.1 11.2 12

1/2 Pack of

Cigarettes/Day

During the past 30 days, how

many cigarettes did you smoke

per day? (11 to 20 cigarettes,

More than 20 cigarettes)

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.1 1

Drinking and

Driving

During the past 30 days, how many

times did you DRIVE a car or other

vehicle when you had been

drinking alcohol?

0.4 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.8 2.1 4.3 3

Riding with a

Drinking Driver

During the past 30 days, how many

times did you RIDE in a car or other

vehicle driven by someone who had

been drinking alcohol?

9.2 5.0 6.7 12.4 8.4 7.8 13.0 10.1 9.3 12.5 10

Needs Alcohol

Treatment

Answered "Yes" to at least 3 alcohol

treatment questions and has used

alcohol on 10 or more occasions

0.2 0.2 0.1 1.5 1.6 1.0 4.6 3.9 3.1 6.4 6

Needs Drug

Treatment

Answered "Yes" to at least 3 drug

treatment questions and has used

any drug on 10 or more occasions

0.2 0.1 0.0 1.3 2.2 2.2 4.2 4.5 5.8 5.2 5

Alcohol or Drug

Treatment

Needs alcohol, drug or alcohol AND

drug treatment as per criteria above0.3 0.3 0.2 2.4 3.0 2.8 7.2 6.6 7.1 9.0 9

Needs Mental

Health Treatment

Scored 13 or more points on the K6

screening scale for psychological

distress. (See text for further

explanation.)

11.2 8.6 9.5 14.0 11.7 13.6 14.9 12.7 15.6 12.1 12

Considering

Suicide

Answered "Yes" to “During the past

12 months, did you ever seriously

consider attempting suicide?”

n/a 5.3 7.2 n/a 10.6 13.5 n/a 11.4 15.6 n/a 10

*

Grade 6 Grade 8 GradeGrade 10

Problem Use

Alcohol and Driving

Need for Treatment

Since not all students answer all questions, the percentage of students reporting binge drinking may be greater than the percentage reporting 30-day alcohol use.



45

Table 6. Percentage of Students With Antisocial Behavior

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

1.6 1.5 1.3 5.3 6.0 4.3 10.2 10.3 9.8 12.2 12.8

6.2 5.6 5.6 10.5 10.2 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.6 5.6 6.7

0.3 0.3 0.3 1.6 2.0 1.7 4.5 5.0 4.4 5.7 5.9

1.0 0.8 0.6 1.6 1.3 1.2 2.5 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.4

1.5 1.2 1.1 3.6 3.2 2.8 5.0 4.4 3.3 5.6 4.8

7.3 8.4 6.1 9.8 10.6 7.3 9.3 7.7 6.2 8.0 7.1

4.4 5.2 6.9 4.7 5.6 8.0 5.1 5.4 7.6 5.0 5.8

0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.7

Carried a Handgun

Sold Illegal Drugs

Attacked Someone with the Idea

of Seriously Hurting Them

Been Arrested

Stolen or Tried to Steal a Motor Vehicle

Been Drunk or High at School

Carried a Handgun to School

Grade 1

Been Suspended from School

How many times in the past year

(12 months) have you:

(One or more times)

Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10

Data Tables



48

Data Tables

Table 9. Percentage of Students Reporting Protection

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

60.3 51.3 63.5 64.4 57.9 66.0 65.1 56.9 61.5 64.6 57.5

67.7 66.2 70.4 66.7 65.2 69.1 69.1 68.4 71.3 72.1 68.1

69.0 62.7 68.4 69.5 66.3 73.0 66.0 62.8 67.6 70.1 62.8

63.0 59.5 65.5 55.5 53.5 59.0 61.2 61.0 64.5 62.8 59.3

52.7 59.4 59.9 66.7 68.3 70.7 72.7 74.9 74.4 73.3 74.7

64.3 66.8 68.7 56.2 57.8 58.3 68.4 69.6 68.8 56.2 56.7

59.1 57.1 55.7 71.3 67.9 69.7 68.8 66.4 66.4 68.7 65.8

70.2 69.4 70.4 73.1 69.1 73.7 63.0 59.9 62.2 62.0 58.7

61.6 67.1 54.0 67.4 68.5 66.1 71.4 73.2 70.0 70.0 70.3

56.8 63.0 55.7 59.3 61.6 59.0 61.3 62.8 61.2 61.7 64.251.4 58.4 61.6 58.1 59.0 64.4 70.8 73.7 74.6 75.2 77.1

Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

Family Domain


Belief in the Moral Order

School Domain

Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement

Interaction with Prosocial Peers

Prosocial Involvement


Religiosity

Peer-Individual Domain

Family Attachment

Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement


Grade 1

Protective Factor

Grade 8

Community Domain

Grade 10Grade 6



50

Data Tables

Table 11. Additional Data for Prevention Planning

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

State

2011

State

2013

State

2009

St

20

Safety

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 school?

One Or More

Days6.9 5.6 9.1 8.1 6.8 9.1 6.7 4.6 7.4 4.9

During the past 12 months, how often

have you been picked on or bullied by

a student ON SCHOOL PROPERTY?

More Than

Once22.2 18.4 28.5 18.1 17.7 26.4 11.2 10.6 17.3 6.4

Discipline

My teachers maintain good discipline

in the classroom.

Strongly Agree

or Agree92.7 92.4 92.9 87.5 87.9 89.4 87.0 89.2 89.1 88.6

The principle and assistant principal

maintain good discipline at my school.

Strongly Agree

or Agree90.1 88.9 89.3 86.9 86.1 87.1 85.8 87.1 87.8 84.9

Perceived vs. Actual ATOD UsePerceived Use 2.6 2.5 3.1 14.5 16.0 15.9 23.5 25.7 23.9 23.4 2

Actual Use 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.4 2.6 2.4 1.6 3.7

Perceived Use 3.9 3.3 3.9 20.7 21.4 20.1 34.9 35.5 33.8 38.5

Actual Use 1.3 1.4 1.0 6.6 6.0 4.2 12.9 11.2 9.4 17.1

Perceived Use 1.5 1.6 2.5 14.6 16.9 19.4 25.7 29.4 31.7 27.4

Actual Use 0.4 0.5 0.6 3.2 3.6 4.2 7.4 7.9 9.1 8.0 Used Marijuana in past 30 days

Grade 6 Grade 8 Grade 10

Smoke Cigarettes every day

Drank Alcohol in past 30 days

Gra



51

Table 12. Substance Use in Relation to Perceived Parental Acceptability (State 2013)

Alcohol At Least Once in Lifetime Alcohol At Least Once in Past 30 Days15.4 4.5

64.6 29.1

81.4 44.1

65.8 44.2

Marijuana At Least Once in Lifetime Marijuana At Least Once in Past 30 Days

7.7 3.7

42.4 25.9

68.0 46.5

70.9 53.6

Cigarettes At Least Once in Lifetime Cigarettes At Least Once in Past 30 Days

10.0 1.9

43.9 15.173.3 41.4

47.4 34.0

3.9 1.7

19.9 10.3

33.5 18.9

26.8 14.0

How wrong do your parents feel it

would be for YOU to: Student has used:

Wrong

Prescription Drugs

At Least Once in Past 30 Days

Not Wrong At All

Wrong

A Little Bit Wrong

smoke marijuana?

A Little Bit Wrong

A Little Bit Wrong

Not Wrong At All

use prescription drugs not

prescribed to you?

Prescription Drugs

At Least Once in Lifetime

Very Wrong

Not Wrong At All

drink beer, wine, or hard liquor regularly?Very Wrong

Very Wrong

Wrong

Not Wrong At All

smoke cigarettes?

Very Wrong

Wrong A Little Bit Wrong

When parents have favorable attitudes toward drugs,they influence the attitudes and behavior of theirchildren. For example, parental approval of moderatedrinking, even under parental supervision,substantially increases the risk of the young personusing alcohol. Further, in families where parentsinvolve children in their own drug or alcohol

behavior, for example, asking the child to light theparent’s cigarette or to get the parent a beer, there isan increased likelihood that their children will becomedrug users in adolescence.

In the Utah PNA Survey, students were asked howwrong their parents felt it was to use alcohol,marijuana, cigarettes, or prescription drugs notprescribed to them. The tables above display lifetimeand past 30 days use rates in relation to parents’

acceptance of alcohol, marijuana, cigarette, orprescription drug use.

As Table 12 shows, relatively few students (15.4%lifetime, 4.5% 30-day) use alcohol when their parentsthink it is “Very Wrong” to use it. In contrast, when astudent believes that their parents agree with usesomewhat (i.e. the parent only believes that it is

“Wrong,” not “Very Wrong”), alcohol use increases to64.6% for lifetime use and 29.1% for 30-day use.Similar findings can be observed regardingmarijuana, cigarette and prescription drug use.

Table 12 illustrates how even a small amount of perceived parental acceptability can lead to substanceuse. These results make a strong argument for theimportance of parents having strong and clearstandards and rules when it comes to ATOD use.

Even a Small Amount of Perceived ParentalAcceptability Can Lead to Substance Use

Substance Use and PerceivedParental Acceptability



52

As new issues come to the forefront and newprevention modalities are implemented, the SHARPPNA survey evolves to reflect these concerns.

Weighting procedures for 2013

During the analysis of SHARP survey data, BachHarrison analysts have applied weights to the data tomake the results more accurately reflect the totalpopulation of Utah students in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12.

Beginning in 2011, the State of Utah requested thatBach Harrison change the weighting procedure toaccount for the probability of a school participatingin the survey and the probability of inclusion of students in each grade and gender category in eachschool. This differed from the weighting procedureused with past SHARP surveys (2009 and earlier) that

was based upon school district enrollment in grades6, 8, 10, and 12.

Comparison of the weighting procedures (2011/2013vs. 2009 and earlier) produced comparable data.

Changes to ATOD Questions

For the 2013 SHARP PNA, lifetime use is calculatedfrom questions asking about age of first use; previousyears are based off of the number of occasions used.2013 lifetime use counts were obtained by generatinga count of students answering any response otherthan Never to the question "How old were you when

you first…" (used marijuana, smoked a cigarette etc.).In previous surveys, these data were obtained bycounting the number of students having indicatedone or more occasions of use of the substance in theirlifetime. Significant analysis was conducted prior tothe switch and Bach Harrison found that the twomethods gathered comparable data; however, reportreaders should keep this change in mind as theycompare 2013 data for lifetime use to previous years’data. The switch allowed removal of redundantquestions, freeing up survey space and reducing surveycompletion time without sacrificing lifetime use data.

An exception to this change is lifetime use of alcohol.Since several agencies track alcohol use, lifetime useof alcohol is still asked as a separate question toensure that the results continue to be directlycomparable from one administration to the next.

Prescription Drugs is a new measure calculated bycombining the responses of Prescription Stimulant,Prescription Sedative, Prescription Tranquilizer, andPrescription Narcotic Prescription Drugs.

Drug Free Communities measures were amended toconform to updated reporting requirements. Newquestions pertain to perceived risks, parentaldisapproval, and peer disapproval of alcohol, tobacco,marijuana, and prescription drug use.

New Health-Related QuestionsExtra tobacco and health department questions wereadded in 2013. These include questions about:

1) student seatbelt use

2) participation in muscle strengthening activities

3) type of alcohol students used

4) days of school missed due to asthma

5) whether students had an asthma plan

6) students who had ridden in a car with a driverwho was on a cell phone

7) exposure to tobacco advertisements

Changes to Alcohol Questions

In 2011, all questions related to the sources of obtaining alcohol were removed. These questionswere restored in 2013. The places of alcohol use werethe same as prior years. A question was also added toregarding parental permissiveness of drinking alcohol.

Other Survey Removals and Changes

The number of occasions of lifetime substance usequestions were removed (as noted above), with the

exception of lifetime alcohol use.

Other questions removed included questions about:

1) student consumption of sweetened drinks

2) hours of TV watched

3) use of flavored chewing tobacco

4) where students bought their last pack of cigarettes

5) if students were living with someone who usedchewing tobacco.

6) student entitlement (“I deserve more things in

life,” “Things should go my way.”)7) the police catching someone drinking and

driving in their neighborhood

8) Intention to Use risk factor scale was removed.

Finally, modifications were made in the order andinclusion of some questions on one or both forms inorder to keep the form at a length suitable foradministration during a 50 minute class period.

Appendix: Changes in the 2013 PNA



53

National Contacts

National Institute on AlcoholAbuse and Alcoholismhttp://www.niaaa.nih.gov

National Clearinghouse forAlcohol and Drug Informationhttp://store.samhsa.gov/

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)Drugs of Abuse Information Clearinghousehttp://www.nida.nih.gov/DrugPages.html

Center for Substance Abuse Preventionhttp://www.samhsa.gov/prevention/

Monitoring the Future

http://monitoringthefuture.org

National Survey on Drug Use and Healthhttp://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh.htm

State Contacts

Utah Division of Substance Abuseand Mental Health120 North 200 West, #209Salt Lake City, Utah 84103http://dsamh.utah.gov/

Craig L. PoVey, Program Administrator801-538-4354Email: [email protected]

Ben Reaves, Program Manager801-538-3946Email: [email protected]

Brenda Ahlemann, Research Consultant801-538-9868Email: [email protected]

Susannah Burt, Program Manager801-538-4388Email: [email protected]

Utah State Office of EducationVerne LarsenCoordinator, At Risk Services250 East 500 SouthSalt Lake City, Utah 84111801-538-7583Email: [email protected]

Utah Department of Health Janae DuncanTobacco Prevention and Control Program801 538-9273288 North 1460 WestSalt Lake City, UT 84116Email: [email protected]

Regional Contacts

Bear River Planning DistrictBilly ReamerBear River Health Department655 East 1300 NorthLogan, UT 84341435-792-6529E-Mail: [email protected]

Central Planning DistrictSharon Lopez

Central Utah Counseling Center255 South MainRichfield, UT 84701435-896-8236E-Mail: [email protected]

Davis Planning DistrictDebi ToddDavis Behavioral Health2250 N. 1700 W.Layton, UT 84041801-447-8459

E-Mail: [email protected]

Contacts for Prevention



Regional Contacts (Cont.)

Four Corners Planning DistrictMeranda SaccomanoFour Corners Behavioral Health575 West 100 NorthPrice, UT 84501435-637-2358, ext 220E-Mail: [email protected]

Northeastern Planning District Robin Hatch (Vice Chair)Northeastern Counseling Center285 W. 800 S.Roosevelt, UT 84066435-725-6334E-Mail: [email protected]

Salt Lake Planning District Jeff Smart & Kitt CurtisSalt Lake County Government Center2001 S. State Suite S-2300Salt Lake City, UT 84190801-468-2042 (Jeff) /801-468-2031 (Kitt)E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

San Juan Planning DistrictLeslie WojcikSan Juan Counseling

356 S. MainBlanding, UT 84511435-678-3262E-Mail: [email protected]

Southwest Planning DistrictAllen SainSouthwest Center245 East 680 SouthCedar City, UT 84720435-867-7622E-Mail: [email protected]

Summit Planning DistrictPamella BelloValley Mental Health1753 Sidewinder Drive

Tooele Planning District Julie SpindlerValley Mental Health100 South 1000 West

Tooele, UT 84074435-843-3538E-Mail: [email protected]

Utah County Planning DistrictPat BirdUtah County Dept of Drug & Alcohol Prevention& Treatment151 South University Avenue Suite 3200Provo, UT 84601801-851-7126E-Mail: [email protected]

Wasatch Planning DistrictColleen OshierWasatch Mental Health55 South 500 EastHeber, UT 84032435-654-3003E-Mail: [email protected]

Weber Planning District Jennifer HoggeWeber Human Services

237 26th StreetOgden, UT 84401801-625-3679E-Mail: [email protected]

This Report Was Preparedfor the State of Utah byby Bach Harrison LLChttp://www.bach-harrison.com R. Steven Harrison, Ph.D.R. Paris Bach-Harrison, B.F.A.Taylor C. Bryant, B.A.

Mary VanLeeuwen Johnstun, M.A.

Contacts for Prevention

2013 state of utah profile report

Documents