partnership meeting october 20, 2011 amanda deming, m.s. 2010 prevention needs assessment (pna)...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Partnership Partnership MeetingMeeting
October 20, 2011October 20, 2011
Amanda Deming, M.S.
2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey:Data, Trends, and Implications
![Page 2: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OverviewOverview• Basic information about the data and Basic information about the data and
analysesanalyses
• 2010 Survey Results2010 Survey Results– Substance UseSubstance Use
•Prescription Drug UsePrescription Drug Use
– Antisocial BehaviorsAntisocial Behaviors– Risk FactorsRisk Factors– Protective FactorsProtective Factors
• Discussion: Where do we go from here?Discussion: Where do we go from here?
![Page 3: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
How should we be thinking How should we be thinking about the data?about the data?
2000 2025
2010
![Page 4: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Administration and Administration and Validity of Survey Validity of Survey
ResultsResults• Administration detailsAdministration details
• Honesty ScaleHonesty Scale– Response patternsResponse patterns– Survey question: “How Survey question: “How
honest were you in honest were you in filling out this survey?”filling out this survey?”
• 5,873 out of 6,622 5,873 out of 6,622 (~89%) students (~89%) students reported answering reported answering the survey honestlythe survey honestly
![Page 5: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Significance AnalysesSignificance Analyses
• Normal fluctuationNormal fluctuation
• Significance Significance analyses:analyses:– Statistically Statistically
significantsignificant– Non-significantNon-significant– Conducted for both Conducted for both
percentage change percentage change from 2002 to 2010 from 2002 to 2010 and and 2008 to 20102008 to 2010
• Significance Significance analyses conducted analyses conducted for selected for selected variables:variables:– Top 3 substances + Top 3 substances +
chewing tobacco (for chewing tobacco (for both lifetime and past both lifetime and past 30-day use)30-day use)
– Prescription drug usePrescription drug use– Highest and lowest 3 Highest and lowest 3
antisocial behaviorsantisocial behaviors– Highest and lowest 3 risk Highest and lowest 3 risk
and protectiveand protective
![Page 6: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Monitoring the Future Monitoring the Future (MTF) & Bach-Harrison (BH) (MTF) & Bach-Harrison (BH)
NormsNorms• MTFMTF
– Ongoing study of the behaviors, attitudes and Ongoing study of the behaviors, attitudes and values of American secondary & college values of American secondary & college students and young adultsstudents and young adults
• BH NormBH Norm– Created by Bach-Harrison, L.L.C.Created by Bach-Harrison, L.L.C.– Provides states & communities with the ability Provides states & communities with the ability
to compare their results on risk, protection & to compare their results on risk, protection & antisocial measures with national measures antisocial measures with national measures
– Updated approximately every two yearsUpdated approximately every two years
![Page 7: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2010 PNA Survey 2010 PNA Survey Results: SubstancesResults: Substances
• AlcoholAlcohol• TobaccoTobacco
– Chewing TobaccoChewing Tobacco• MarijuanaMarijuana• Prescription DrugsPrescription Drugs
– Narcotics Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers)(Opiates/Painkillers)
– StimulantsStimulants– CNS DepressantsCNS Depressants
NOTE: NOTE: * = indicates statistically significant increase/decrease; teal text indicates a positive change; orange text indicates a negative change
![Page 8: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Lifetime Alcohol UseLifetime Alcohol Use2010: 46.8% (2748/5873)2008: 57.0%*57.0%* (3306/5800)2002: 60.1%*60.1%* (1311/2181)
National comparison:•Middle school: ~7% lower•High school: ~1 – 2% lower
![Page 9: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Past 30-Day Alcohol UsePast 30-Day Alcohol Use2010: 26.2% (1539/5873)2008: 34.9%*34.9%* (2024/5800)2002: 33.7%*33.7%* (735/2181)
National comparison:•Middle school: ~2% higher•High school: ~2 – 4% lower
![Page 10: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Binge DrinkingBinge Drinking2010: 14.3% (840/5873)2008: 22.1%*22.1%* (1282/5873)2002: 16.3%*16.3%* (356/2181)
National comparison:•Middle and high school: ~2% higher
![Page 11: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Lifetime Tobacco (Cigarette) Lifetime Tobacco (Cigarette) UseUse
2010: 23.3% (1368/5873)2008: 26.4%*26.4%* (1531/5800)2002: 35.9%*35.9%* (783/2181)
National comparison:•Middle and high school: ~5 – 8% lower
![Page 12: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Past 30-Day Tobacco (Cigarette) UsePast 30-Day Tobacco (Cigarette) Use2010: 9.7% (570/5873)2008: 11.6%*11.6%* (673/5800)2002: 13.4%*13.4%* (292/2181)
National comparison:•Middle and high school: ~5% lower
![Page 13: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Continuing Trend of Interest: Continuing Trend of Interest: Rise – and Fall - in Chewing TobaccoRise – and Fall - in Chewing Tobacco2010: 14.0% (822/5873)2008: 15.6%*15.6%* (905/5800)2002: 13.2% (288/2181)
National comparison:•Middle school: ~Equal•High school: ~3% higher
![Page 14: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Continuing Trend of Interest: Continuing Trend of Interest: Rise – and Fall - in Chewing TobaccoRise – and Fall - in Chewing Tobacco2010: 6.6% (388/5873)2008: 7.6%*7.6%* (446/5800)2002: 4.2%*4.2%* (92/2181)
National comparison:•Middle school: ~Equal•High school: ~2% higher
![Page 15: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Lifetime Marijuana UseLifetime Marijuana Use2010: 21.7% (1274/5873)2008: 23.1% (1340/5800)2002: 28.0%*28.0%* (611/2181)
National comparison:•Middle school: ~7% lower•High school: ~3 – 5% lower
![Page 16: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Past 30-Day Marijuana UsePast 30-Day Marijuana Use2010: 12.7% (746/5873)2008: 12.8% (742/5800)2002: 15.2%*15.2%* (332/2181)
National comparison:•Middle and high school: ~Equal
![Page 17: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Lifetime Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) Lifetime Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) UseUse
2010: 6.4% (376/5873)2008: 7.5%*7.5%* (435/5800)2004: 11.9%*11.9%* (621/5219)
National comparison:•Middle school: ~3.0% lower•High school: ~Equal
![Page 18: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Past 30-Day Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) Past 30-Day Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) UseUse
2010: 2.8% (164/5873)2008: 3.5%*3.5%* (203/5800)2004: 5.0%*5.0%* (261/5219)
National comparison:•Middle school: ~1.0% lower•High school: ~Equal
![Page 19: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Lifetime Stimulant (Amphetamine) Lifetime Stimulant (Amphetamine) UseUse
2010: 5.9% (347/5873)2008: 5.5% (319/5800)2004: 5.3% (277/5219)
National comparison:•Middle school & younger high school: ~3.0% lower•High school seniors: ~1.0% higher
ATOD USE PROFILE: Lifetime Amphetamine Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All Grades
Pe
rce
nta
ge
s (
%)
2004 Broome County 2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF
![Page 20: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Past 30-Day Stimulant (Amphetamine) Past 30-Day Stimulant (Amphetamine) UseUse
2010: 2.7% (159/5873)2008: 2.6% (151/5800)2004: 1.9%*1.9%* (99/5219)
National comparison:•Middle school and younger high school: ~Equal•High school: ~2.0% higher
ATOD USE PROFILE: 30 Day Stimulant (Amphetamine) Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All Grades
Pe
rce
nta
ge
s (
%)
2004 Broome County 2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF
![Page 21: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Lifetime CNS Depressant (Sedative) Lifetime CNS Depressant (Sedative) UseUse
2010: 5.4% (317/5873)2008: 7.2%*7.2%* (417/5800)2006: 7.5%*7.5%* (371/4953)
National comparison:•Across all students: ~5% lower
ATOD USE PROFILE: Lifetime Sedative Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All Grades
Perc
en
tag
es (
%)
2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF
![Page 22: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Sedative) Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Sedative) UseUse
2010: 2.3% (135/5873)2008: 2.9%*2.9%* (168/5800)2006: 2.8% (138/4953)
National comparison:•Across all students: ~1% lower
ATOD USE PROFILE: 30 Day Sedative Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All Grades
Perc
en
tag
es (
%)
2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF
![Page 23: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Lifetime CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) Lifetime CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) UseUse
2010: 2.6% (153/5873)2008: 3.6%*3.6%* (209/5800)2004: 2.7% (141/5219)
National comparison:•Across all students: ~3-4% lower
ATOD USE PROFILE: Lifetime Tranquilizer Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All Grades
Perc
en
tag
es (
%)
2004 Broome County 2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF
![Page 24: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) UseUse
2010: 1.1% (65/5873)2008: 1.4% (81/5800)2004: 1.3% (68/5219)
National comparison:•Across all students: ~0.5% lower
ATOD USE PROFILE: 30 Day Tranquilizer Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All Grades
Perc
en
tag
es (
%)
2004 Broome County 2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF
![Page 25: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
ANTISOCIAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIORSBEHAVIORS
(ASB)(ASB)
•Suspended from School
•Drunk or High at School
•Sold Illegal Drugs
•Stolen a Vehicle
•Been Arrested
•Attacked to Harm
•Carried a Handgun
• Handgun to School
![Page 26: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Antisocial Behaviors: Antisocial Behaviors: HighestHighest
• Drunk or High Drunk or High at Schoolat School
– 11.5% of students: 11.5% of students: 2010 (675/5873)2010 (675/5873)
– 13.8%*13.8%* of students: of students: 2008 (800/5800)2008 (800/5800)
– 13.1% of students: 13.1% of students: 2002 (286/2181)2002 (286/2181)
– MS students below MS students below BH norm; HS BH norm; HS students students approximately equal approximately equal to BH normto BH norm
• Attacked to HarmAttacked to Harm
– 10.0% of students: 2010 (587/5873)10.0% of students: 2010 (587/5873)– 12.4%*12.4%* of students: 2008 of students: 2008
(719/5873)(719/5873)– 14.6%*14.6%* of students: 2002 of students: 2002
(318/2181)(318/2181)– All grades below BH normAll grades below BH norm
• Suspended from SchoolSuspended from School
– 8.7% of students: 2010 (511/5873)8.7% of students: 2010 (511/5873)– 9.0% of students: 2008 (522/5800)9.0% of students: 2008 (522/5800)– 7.3%*7.3%* of students: 2002 of students: 2002
(159/2181)(159/2181)– All grades below BH normAll grades below BH norm
![Page 27: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Antisocial Behaviors: Antisocial Behaviors: LowestLowest
• Carried a HandgunCarried a Handgun
– 3.8% of students: 2010 (223/5873)3.8% of students: 2010 (223/5873)– 3.3% of students: 2008 (191/5800)3.3% of students: 2008 (191/5800)– 2.7%*2.7%* of students: 2002 (59/2181) of students: 2002 (59/2181)– All grades below BH normAll grades below BH norm
• Stolen a VehicleStolen a Vehicle
– 2.1% of students: 2010 (123/5873)2.1% of students: 2010 (123/5873)– 1.8% of students: 2008 (104/5800)1.8% of students: 2008 (104/5800)– 1.9% of students: 2002 (41/2181)1.9% of students: 2002 (41/2181)– All grades below BH normAll grades below BH norm
• Handgun to SchoolHandgun to School
– 1.1% of students: 1.1% of students: 2010 (65/5873)2010 (65/5873)
– 0.5%*0.5%* of students: of students: 2008 (35/5800)2008 (35/5800)
– 0.7%*0.7%* of students: of students: 2002 (9/2181)2002 (9/2181)
– All grades below BH All grades below BH normnorm
![Page 28: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
RISK FACTORSRISK FACTORS
• Low Neighborhood Attachment• Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use • Perceived Availability of Drugs
• Poor Family Management• Family Conflict
• Sibling Drug Use• Exposure to Adult ASB
• Parent Attitudes Favor ASB• Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use
• Academic Failure• Low Commitment to School
• Rebelliousness• Early Initiation of ASB
• Early Initiation of Drug Use
• Attitudes Favorable to ASB
• Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use
• Perceived Risk of Drug Use
• Interaction with Antisocial Peers• Friend’s Use of
Drugs• Rewards for ASB
• Depressive Symptoms
• Gang Involvement
![Page 29: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Risk Factors: HighestRisk Factors: Highest
• Rewards for ASBRewards for ASB
– 48.1% of students: 48.1% of students: 2010 (2824/5873)2010 (2824/5873)
– 48.0% of students: 48.0% of students: 2008 (2784/5800)2008 (2784/5800)
– 48.2% of students: 48.2% of students: 2002 (1051/2181)2002 (1051/2181)
– MS students ~equal MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS to BH norm; HS students ~ 5-10% students ~ 5-10% higher than BH higher than BH normnorm
• Perceived Minimal Risk of Drug UsePerceived Minimal Risk of Drug Use
– 45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873)45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873)– 41.5%*41.5%* of students: 2008 (2407/5800) of students: 2008 (2407/5800)– 40.3%*40.3%* of students: 2002 (879/2181)of students: 2002 (879/2181)– MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS
students ~ 5-10% higher than BH normstudents ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm
• Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASBParental Attitudes Favorable to ASB
– 45.3% of students: 2010 (2660/5873)45.3% of students: 2010 (2660/5873)– 53.6%*53.6%* of students: 2008 (3265/5800) of students: 2008 (3265/5800)– 56.9%*56.9%* of students: 2002 (1241/2181) of students: 2002 (1241/2181)– MS students ~5% higher than BH norm; MS students ~5% higher than BH norm;
HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH normnorm
![Page 30: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Risk Factors: LowestRisk Factors: Lowest
• Early Initiation of ASBEarly Initiation of ASB
– 25.2% of students: 2010 (1480/5873)25.2% of students: 2010 (1480/5873)– 24.6% of students: 2008 (1427/5800)24.6% of students: 2008 (1427/5800)– 26.9%*26.9%* of students: of students: 2002 (587/2181)2002 (587/2181)– All students ~10% lower than BH normAll students ~10% lower than BH norm
• Interaction with Antisocial PeersInteraction with Antisocial Peers
– 25.1% of students: 2010 (1474/5873)25.1% of students: 2010 (1474/5873)– 29.1%*29.1%* of students: 2008 (1688/5800) of students: 2008 (1688/5800)– 24.8% of students: 2002 (541/2181)24.8% of students: 2002 (541/2181)– All students ~ 5-10% lower than BH normAll students ~ 5-10% lower than BH norm
• Gang InvolvementGang Involvement
– 6.3% of students: 6.3% of students: 2010 (370/5873)2010 (370/5873)
– 7.6%*7.6%* of students: of students: 2008 (441/5800)2008 (441/5800)
– 6.2% of students: 6.2% of students: 2002 (135/2181)2002 (135/2181)
– MS students ~5% MS students ~5% lower than BH lower than BH norm; HS students norm; HS students ~ equal to BH norm~ equal to BH norm
![Page 31: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Where are the high risk Where are the high risk kids?kids?
Note: High risk = 8(M.S.)/9(H.S.) or more risk factors
![Page 32: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
PROTECTIVE FACTORSPROTECTIVE FACTORS
• Rewards for Prosocial Involvement•Family Attachment
•Family Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement• Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
• School Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement• School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
• Religiosity•Belief in the Moral Order
• Interaction with Prosocial Peers•Peer-Individual Prosocial Involvement
•Peer-Individual Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
![Page 33: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Protective Factors: HighestProtective Factors: Highest
• School Rewards for School Rewards for Prosocial Prosocial InvolvementInvolvement
– 67.2% of students: 67.2% of students: 2010 (3947/5873)2010 (3947/5873)
– 70.6%*70.6%* of students: of students: 2008 (4095/5800)2008 (4095/5800)
– 61.5%*61.5%* of students: of students: 2002 (1341/2181)2002 (1341/2181)
– MS students ~10% MS students ~10% higher than BH higher than BH norm; HS students ~ norm; HS students ~ equal to BH normequal to BH norm
• Peer-Individual Prosocial Peer-Individual Prosocial InvolvementInvolvement
– 66.5% of students: 2010 (3906/5873)66.5% of students: 2010 (3906/5873)– 64.2%*64.2%* of students: 2008 (3724/5800)of students: 2008 (3724/5800)– 63.8%*63.8%* of students: 2006* of students: 2006*
(3160/4953)(3160/4953)– All students ~ 5-10% higher than BH All students ~ 5-10% higher than BH
normnorm
• School Opportunities for Prosocial School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Involvement
– 66.1% of students: 2010 (3882/5873)66.1% of students: 2010 (3882/5873)– 67.5% of students: 2008 (3915/5800)67.5% of students: 2008 (3915/5800)– 69.3%*69.3%* of students: 2002 (1511/2181) of students: 2002 (1511/2181)– MS students ~10% higher than BH MS students ~10% higher than BH
norm; HS students ~ equal to BH normnorm; HS students ~ equal to BH norm*NOTE: 2002 and 2004 survey did not measure this component
![Page 34: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Protective Factors: LowestProtective Factors: Lowest• Peer-Individual Rewards for Peer-Individual Rewards for
Prosocial InvolvementProsocial Involvement
– 45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873)45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873)– 47.3% of students: 2008 (2743/5800)47.3% of students: 2008 (2743/5800)– 52.7%*52.7%* of students: 2006* (2610/4953) of students: 2006* (2610/4953)– MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS
students ~ 5-10% higher than BH normstudents ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm
• Community Rewards for Prosocial Community Rewards for Prosocial InvolvementInvolvement
– 43.3% of students: 2010 (2543/5873)43.3% of students: 2010 (2543/5873)– 41.9% of students: 2008 (2430/5800)41.9% of students: 2008 (2430/5800)– 40.7%*40.7%* of students: 2002 (888/2181) of students: 2002 (888/2181)– MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS
students ~ 5-10% higher than BH normstudents ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm
• ReligiosityReligiosity– 38.6% of students : 38.6% of students :
2010 (2267/5873)2010 (2267/5873)– 39.8%* of students: 39.8%* of students:
2008 (2308/5800)2008 (2308/5800)– 45.7%*45.7%* of students: of students:
2002 (997/2181)2002 (997/2181)– MS students ~5% MS students ~5%
higher than BH higher than BH norm; HS students ~ norm; HS students ~ 5-10% higher than 5-10% higher than BH normBH norm
*NOTE: 2002 and 2004 survey did not measure this component
![Page 35: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
How many kids are How many kids are endorsing high protection?endorsing high protection?
Note: High protection = 5 or more protective factors
![Page 36: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
NEW AREAS OF INTERESTNEW AREAS OF INTEREST
![Page 37: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Obtaining AlcoholObtaining AlcoholWhere did you get the alcohol?
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
I bought itmyself from
a store
I got it at aparty
I gavesomeone
else moneyto buy it for
me
I got it fromsomeone Iknow age
21 or older
I got it fromsomeone I
know underage 21
I got it froma familymember/relative
other thanmy parents
I got it fromhome with
my parent'spermission
I got it fromhome
without myparent's
permission
I got itanotherway.
Per
cen
tag
es
PNA 2010 - All Grades NSDUH 2009
![Page 38: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Consuming AlcoholConsuming Alcohol
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%
Party - NPP
My house or friend's - NPP
Friend's home - NPP
Friend's home - PP
Party at a remote location
Party - parents home
Events
Home
Bar/club
Car
Parking lot
At school
Other
Percentage endorsing location
Century Council 2003 NSDUH 2009 PNA 2010 - All Grades
![Page 39: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Driving and AlcoholDriving and Alcohol
In the past 30 days, did you DRIVE after drinking?
0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%
10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%20.00%
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total
Perc
enta
ges
Broome County PNA BH Norm YRBS 2009 NY - YRBS 2009
![Page 40: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Driving and AlcoholDriving and Alcohol
In the past 30 days, did you RIDE with somone who had been drinking?
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total
Per
cen
tag
es (
%)
Broome County PNA BH Norm YRBS 2009
![Page 41: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Bullying: PrevalenceBullying: Prevalence
In the past year, have you been bullied or picked on?
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All
Grade
PNA 2010 YRBS 2009
![Page 42: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Bullying: Relative FrequenciesBullying: Relative Frequencies
PNA 2010 - Past 12 Months: Occasional vs. Persistent Bullying
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All
Grade
1 - 5 days 6 or more days
![Page 43: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Bullying & Perceived SafetyBullying & Perceived Safety
Past 30 days: Missed school because felt unsafe at or on the way to school?
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
9.00%
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All
Grade
PNA 2010 YRBS 2009
![Page 44: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Bullying & Perceived Safety:Bullying & Perceived Safety:Relative FrequenciesRelative Frequencies
PNA 2010 - Past 30 Days: Number of days missed due to safety concerns
0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00%
10.00%
7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All
Grade
1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days
![Page 45: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
PARENT SURVEY 2010:PARENT SURVEY 2010:HIGHLIGHTSHIGHLIGHTS
![Page 46: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
KYDS Coalition Parent Survey KYDS Coalition Parent Survey 2010:2010:
OverviewOverview• 27 questions27 questions
• Variety of issues and attitudes relating to Variety of issues and attitudes relating to youth substance use, antisocial behavior, youth substance use, antisocial behavior, and family managementand family management
• Mailed to the homes of parents of middle and Mailed to the homes of parents of middle and high school students in the Chenango Forks, high school students in the Chenango Forks, Johnson City, Maine-Endwell, Susquehanna Johnson City, Maine-Endwell, Susquehanna Valley, Whitney Point, & Windsor school Valley, Whitney Point, & Windsor school districtsdistricts
• Total of 606 (~10%) surveys were completed Total of 606 (~10%) surveys were completed and analyzed by the KYDS Coalition and analyzed by the KYDS Coalition Information SpecialistInformation Specialist
• Notable findings, when examined in parallel Notable findings, when examined in parallel with PNAwith PNA, , reported here in briefreported here in brief
![Page 47: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Perceived Risk of HarmPerceived Risk of Harm
(People/Youth) are at moderate or great risk of harming themselves if they...
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Drink beer, w ine,or hard liquor
Smoke cigarettes Smoke marijuana
Per
cent
ages
Youth Parents
![Page 48: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Perceived vs. Reported Perceived vs. Reported Approval of Substance UseApproval of Substance Use
(My parents/I) believe it is very wrong for youth to...
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
95.00%
100.00%
Drink beer, w ine,or hard liquor
regularly
Smoke cigarettes Smoke marijuana
Perc
en
tag
es
Youth Parents
![Page 49: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Conversations: Conversations: Alcohol/Drug Use and RisksAlcohol/Drug Use and Risks
In the past 12 months, talked to about:
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Alcohol use Drugs (excluding Rx)
Per
cen
tag
es
Parents Youth
![Page 50: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Frequency of Talks: AlcoholFrequency of Talks: Alcohol
Number of times that I've talked to my child about alcohol abuse in the past 12 months:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Never Once 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-9 times 10 ormore
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 51: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Frequency of Talks: Frequency of Talks: DrugsDrugs
Number of times I've talked with my child about illegal drug use in the last 12 months:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Never Once 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-9 times 10 ormore
Perc
en
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 52: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Frequency of Talks: Rx Frequency of Talks: Rx DrugsDrugs
Number of times I've talked w ith my child about prescription and/or over-the-counter drug use in
the last 12 months:
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Never Once 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-9 times 10 ormore
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
![Page 53: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Concluding RemarksConcluding Remarks
• Value of the dataValue of the data– Importance of recognizing the local risk and Importance of recognizing the local risk and
protective factorsprotective factors– Note substances increasing in popularityNote substances increasing in popularity
• Positive trends of decrease: how do we Positive trends of decrease: how do we interpret?interpret?– Programs; opportunities; other?Programs; opportunities; other?
• Broader framework for changeBroader framework for change
![Page 54: Partnership Meeting October 20, 2011 Amanda Deming, M.S. 2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey: Data, Trends, and Implications](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051316/5697bfd71a28abf838cae7e6/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Acknowledgements Acknowledgements
• Katie Cusano, MA, CASACKatie Cusano, MA, CASAC
• Melinda Kmetz, BAMelinda Kmetz, BA
• Stephen Lisman, PhDStephen Lisman, PhD
• Melissa O’Connor, InternMelissa O’Connor, Intern
• Bach-Harrison, L.L.C.Bach-Harrison, L.L.C.
• Schools, Teachers, Administrators, Schools, Teachers, Administrators, StudentsStudents
For more information, visit us online: www.kydscoalition.org