florida youth substance abuse survey volusia county report€¦ · florida youth substance abuse...

Florida Youth Substance Abuse SurveyVolusia County Report

Sponsored by

The Department of Children and FamiliesSubstance Abuse Program Office

in conjunction with

Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.

(c) 2000 Florida Department of Children & Families Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey 2000 Volusia County Report

Table of Contents

The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey......................................................................................1 The Participating Youth.................................................................................................................2 Survey Norms and Comparative Data............................................................................................3

Confidence Intervals..................................................................................................................4 The Validity of the Survey Data .....................................................................................................4 Demographics...............................................................................................................................5 Use of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Inhalants........................................................................7

Analysis by Sex.......................................................................................................................10 Analysis by Race/Ethnicity.......................................................................................................10

Use of Illicit Drugs.......................................................................................................................11 Prevalence of Antisocial Behavior................................................................................................12

Analysis by Sex.......................................................................................................................13 Risk and Protective Factor Profile................................................................................................13

Risk and Protective Factor Scale Scores..................................................................................14 Understanding the Graphs........................................................................................................15 State of Florida Risk and Protective Factor Profile ...................................................................16 Volusia County Risk and Protective Factor Profile ...................................................................17

Implications.................................................................................................................................20 Appendix A: Florida Youth Survey 2000 Sampling Methodology.....................................................21 Appendix B: Risk and Protective Factors and Selected Associated Survey Items..............................23 Appendix C: Confidence Interval Calculation...................................................................................26 Appendix D: References..................................................................................................................28


List of Tables and Graphs

Table 1. Major demographic characteristics of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth........................................................................................................... 30

Table 2a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by grade cohorts.................................. 31

Table 2b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by age cohorts..................................... 32

Table 2c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by sex................................................. 33

Table 3a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in the past 30-days, by grade cohorts .......................... 34

Table 3b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in the past 30-days, by age cohorts.............................. 35

Table 3c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported having used various drugs in the past 30-days, by sex.......................................... 36

Table 4a. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth, by grade cohorts................................................................................ 37

Table 4b. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth, by age cohorts ................................................................................... 38

Table 4c. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth, by sex................................................................................................ 39

Table 5a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months, by grade cohorts .................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 5b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months, by age cohorts .................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 5c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months, by sex........................ 42

Table 6a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being "cool," and harm, by grade cohorts............................... 43

Table 6b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being "cool," and harm, by age cohorts.................................. 44

Table 6c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=477) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being "cool," and harm, by sex.............................................. 45

Table 7. Protective factor information for Florida (N=62,146), Volusia County (n=477), and counties like Volusia County across the Community, Family, School and Individual-Peer Domains .......................................................................................................... 46

Table 8. Risk factor information for Florida (N=62,146), Volusia County (n=477), and counties like Volusia County across the Community, Family, School and Individual-Peer Domains .......................................................................................................................... 47


Table 9. Behavioral outcomes indices for Florida (N=62,146), Volusia County (n=477), and counties like Volusia County.............................................................................................. 48

Graph 1. Protective factor scores for Volusia County (n=477) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages. .................................................................................... 49

Graph 2a. Risk factor scores for Volusia County (n=477) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages: Community, School and Family Domains ...................... 50

Graph 2b. Risk factors scores for Volusia County (n=477) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages in the Individual-Peer Domain, and, behavioral outcomes indices...................................................................................................................... 51


1

Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey 2000 Volusia County Report

This report is one in a series of reports that describes the

administration, state-level findings, and county-level findings from the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey 2000 (FYSAS). As part of the Florida Youth Survey 2000 effort, the FYSAS was administered to select Florida youth jointly with the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey between December 1999 and February 2000. (Details of the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey can be obtained from the Florida Department of Health's Bureau of Epidemiology at (850) 245-4444.)

The Florida Youth Survey effort was a collaboration among Florida departments of Health, Education, Children and Families, and Juvenile Justice, and the Florida Office of Drug Control. The Department of Children and Families contracted with Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., to conduct the survey.

A report on state-level findings has been produced and is available online at www.state.fl.us/cf_web/adm/, under "Publications & Reports." Findings specific to Volusia County are provided in this report following discussion of the survey administration and methodology.

Every attempt was made to achieve a statistically valid sample of the 6th to 12th grade student population in Volusia County. The minimum criteria for a sample to be considered valid are: (1) at least 50 valid surveys returned from respondents in each grade 6th to 12th, and (2) participation rates of at least 50%. That is, there is a requirement for the minimum number of cases for an acceptable sample, and a minimum proportion of the selected sample must have participated in the data collection process. Volusia County did not meet both of these criteria. Consequently, the data reported here should not be considered as generalizable to Volusia County as a whole but rather should be considered simply a summary of those students for whom valid surveys were returned.

The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey (FYSAS) was

based on the Communities That Care (CTC) Youth Survey, developed by Developmental Research & Programs, Inc. The CTC

The Florida Youth Survey effort was a collaboration among Florida departments of Health, Education, Children and Families, and Juvenile Justice, and the Florida Office of Drug Control. The Department of Children and Families contracted with Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., to conduct the survey. The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey (FYSAS) provides scientifically sound information to communities on the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and risk and protective factors among youth.


2

Youth Survey provides scientifically sound information to communities on the prevalence of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and risk and protective factors among youth. This information is essential to support effective substance abuse needs-assessment and service planning, and to measure performance outcomes at local and state levels.

Risk and protective factors are characteristics of the community, school, and family environments, and individual and peer characteristics of the youth themselves that are known to predict alcohol and other drug use, delinquency, and gang involvement among youth (Hawkins, Catalano & Miller, 1992). Besides measuring risk and protective factors, the CTC Youth Survey also assesses the current prevalence of these problem behaviors in the community.

There are eighteen risk factors and ten protective factors measured by the CTC Youth Survey. Some of the risk factors are broad enough that they require two separate scales for adequate measurement. As a result, 24 separate risk-factor scales are used. Appendix B provides a complete list of the risk and protective factors, the corresponding risk-factor and protective-factor scales in the survey, and selected survey items associated with the factors.

The CTC Youth Survey was developed from normative data collected between 1994 and 1997 from over 72,000 6th through 12th grade students participating in statewide surveys in Kansas, Maine, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington. An average of four survey items is used to measure each risk and protective factor scale. Reliability for the constructs was good. The average value for Cronbach's was alpha = .79. The survey, its uses, and its ongoing development, were described in two recently published articles that provide a complete report on the survey's development and its psychometric properties (Pollard, Catalano, Hawkins, & Arthur, 1998; Pollard & Lofquist, 1998).

The Participating Youth The Florida Youth Survey 2000 used a two-stage cluster sample

design to obtain a representative sample of youth in public middle and high schools. The sampling frame for this survey consisted of all public schools with grades 6 through 12 in any combination, and was built on the sampling frame used by the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey. The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey and the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey were simultaneously administered as part of the Florida Youth Survey 2000 effort. Because counties in Florida vary so widely in size, sample selection methodology varied. Five hundred

Appendix B provides a complete list of the risk and protective factors, the corresponding risk-factor and protective- factor scales in the survey, and selected survey items associated with the factors. Five hundred eighty schools in 64 counties participated in the survey. A total of 65,246 surveys were processed.


3

eighty schools in 64 counties participated in the survey. A total of 65,246 surveys were processed.

All data reported herein are based on analyses of a valid sub-set of these cases. The validation procedures are described below. For state-level estimates, cases were weighted by county and grade so as to reflect the population distribution in Florida. In the analyses, some cases were weighted more heavily, and some less heavily, so that overall statewide estimates were less biased by the response rate, and population size, within a given county. For county-level estimates, cases were weighted by grade, unless otherwise indicated.

Three counties that did participate in the survey administration are excluded from all statewide estimates; however, all counties that participated in the survey will be provided with county-level reports. In Baker, Franklin, and Glade counties, an insufficient number of surveys were available to make accurate and stable weighted-estimates for inclusion in the state-level report. Thus, the total number of surveys from these counties did not reach the criteria for inclusion in the statewide sample. Consequently, 61 counties are represented in all of the statewide estimates presented herein. The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey State Report contains extensive details of both survey findings and administration. Find the report online at www.state.fl.us/cf_web/adm/, under "Publications & Reports."

Survey Norms and Comparative Data Comparison data and survey norms for assessing the relative

meaning of the youth survey at the county level came from the state-level findings and an additional national survey of adolescent behavior. Comparisons for prevalence information came directly from the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey State Report. Comparison data for risk and protective factors were drawn from the CTC Six-State Study. The Six-State Study was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, during the years 1993-1997. This project supported the development of a student survey instrument measuring substance abuse prevalence as well as risk and protective factors predictive of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, delinquency, gang involvement, and other problem behaviors in adolescents. School survey data were collected in five states: Kansas, Maine, Oregon, South Carolina, and Washington. One other state, Utah, participated in the CTC project, but school survey data were not collected in Utah. Normative data on risk and protective factor prevalence are drawn from the CTC Six-State Study.

The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey State Report contains extensive details of both survey findings and administration. Find the report online at www.state.fl.us/cf_web/adm/, under "Publications & Reports." Comparisons for prevalence information come directly from the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey State Report. Comparison data for risk and protective factors are drawn from the CTC Six-State Study. The Six-State Study was funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, during the years 1993-1997.


4

Confidence Intervals

Confidence intervals provide a range of values within which the "true" population value can be found. A primer on confidence intervals, their calculation and interpretation, is presented in Appendix C. While confidence intervals are not provided for every estimate contained in this report, we do provide information that, along with the method described in Appendix C, would allow the reader to calculate an approximate confidence interval for each estimate.

Note that the confidence intervals calculated for the sample estimates at the state level are less than 1.0, indicating that the sample estimates are very close to the "true" population values. The high precision of the sample estimates is due to the following methodological conditions: (a) the final sample size of the survey effort, (b) survey interleaving as described in Appendix A, (c) occurrence of censuses in selected counties, and (d) the required levels of estimates, i.e., confidence intervals of less than 1.0. Based on these conditions, the state-level sample estimates have enough precision for use in policy-level decision making. For Volusia County, confidence intervals were not calculated, due to insufficient numbers of surveyed youth compared to the total county population of middle and high school students. Volusia County did not meet the criteria for an adequate sample. Consequently, all data reported here should not be considered as generalizable to Volusia County as a whole but rather should be considered simply a summary of those students for whom valid surveys were returned.

The Validity of the Survey Data Three separate strategies were used to assess the validity of the

youth self-report survey data. Two eliminated the data of surveyed youth who appeared to exaggerate their substance use. In the first strategy, surveyed youth who reported the extreme levels of use for every illicit drug (except marijuana) were eliminated from the survey data set. In the second strategy, surveyed youth were asked whether they ever used a fictitious drug, "Derbisol," in their lifetimes and in the past 30 days, as well as how old the surveyed youth were when they first, if ever, used Derbisol. If the surveyed youth reported the use of Derbisol on two of these three questions, his or her survey was eliminated.

The third strategy identified surveyed youth who repeatedly reported logically inconsistent patterns of substance use. If, for example, a surveyed youth reported 10 uses of alcohol in the past 30

Confidence intervals provide a range of values within which the "true" population value can be found. A primer on confidence intervals, their calculation and interpretation, is presented in Appendix C. For Volusia County, confidence intervals were not calculated, due to insufficient numbers of surveyed youth compared to the total county population of middle and high school students. Since Volusia County did not meet the minimum criteria for a successful survey, their results should be considered only as a summary of those students who returned valid surveys, as opposed to county level estimates.


5

days, but no use in their lifetime, that logical inconsistency was noted and assessed for the following conditions: (a) they were inconsistent on two out of four of the following substances: alcohol, cigarettes, chewing tobacco and marijuana; or (b) they were inconsistent on five or more of the nine remaining illicit substances. This approach did not eliminate surveyed youth who make occasional clerical mistakes.

These three strategies have been shown to consistently identify most surveys that were completed in a random fashion, those that were not taken seriously, and/or those that are not valid for other reasons.

In the statewide analysis, good cooperation was obtained from Florida youth selected for participation. A total of 62,146 youth (95.2% of 65,246) completed valid survey forms. This level of cooperation is typical of most survey efforts based on the CTC Youth Survey. Over three thousand youth (3,100, or 4.8%) were identified by one or more of the three strategies described above as providing invalid survey results and were excluded from further analysis. Of the surveyed youth eliminated, 1,280 exaggerated illicit drug use (strategy 1), 2,229 reported the use of Derbisol (strategy 2), and 2,076 were identified because of logical inconsistencies in their answers (strategy 3). The three strategies' elimination totals sum to more than 3,100 because many of these youth were identified by more than one strategy.

For Volusia County, above average cooperation was obtained. A total of 174 (3.5%) of the 5003 completed surveys was identified by one or more of the three strategies described above as not being valid. This level of cooperation is typical of most county-level survey efforts based on the CTC Youth Survey. Those responses identified as not valid were excluded from all further analysis. Of the eliminated surveys, 77 (1.5%) exaggerated illicit drug use (strategy 1), 116 (2.3%) reported the use of Derbisol (strategy 2), and 108 (2.2%) were excluded because of logical inconsistencies in their answers (strategy 3). Again, the three strategies' elimination totals sum to more than 174 because many surveys were identified by more than one strategy.

Demographics The demographics of the state and county student populations, as

estimated from the survey results, are presented in Table 1. Throughout this report, results are presented individually by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort. That is, grade-level results are aggregates for "Overall Middle School" and "Overall High School," and are sub-

In the statewide analysis, good cooperation was obtained from Florida youth selected for participation. A total of 62,146 youth (95.2% of 65,246) completed valid survey forms. For Volusia County, above average cooperation was obtained. A total of 174 (3.5%) of the 5003 completed forms was rejected. Throughout this report, results are presented individually by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort.


6

totals for grades 6-8 and 9-12, respectively. Similarly, age cohort are aggregated: ages 10-14 and 15-17 form the two groups.

For both the state-level survey and Volusia County's survey, a higher percentage of the respondents was female. The difference for the state as a whole was slightly larger than the difference in Volusia County.

The distribution of age and grade are consistent, with an increasingly smaller percentage of older students and students in later grades. This can be attributed to dropout rates as well as to the larger percentage of students in later grades with irregular attendance (e.g., split work/school schedule). Note that although some surveyed youth report their age as 10 or 19, proportions of these youth are markedly smaller relative to the other age groups. That is, at the state level, only 0.2% (n=108) of surveyed youth reported being 10 years old. Accurate and stable estimates are not possible with such relatively small numbers of surveyed youth. Consequently, the reported age cohorts are not truly representative of their intended cohort. There are too few 10 year- olds in the 10 to 14 year-old category. This cohort was defined this way in an effort to correspond to other data collected by the State of Florida.

It is important to note the age breakdown for the Volusia County sample. A large majority of the students surveyed indicated that they were between the ages of 10 to 14 years old. That is, approximately three-quarters of the surveyed population was fourteen or under. This factor should be taken into account when looking at the overall findings for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, since the large number of younger students will skew the overall rates considerably. Because involvement in problem behaviors generally increases with age, the overall findings may appear lower than expected. Therefore, more emphasis should be put on the findings for grade and age cohorts (Tables 2a, 2c, 3a, 3c, 5a, and 5c) than the overall rates.

Table 1 also shows the percentage estimates of the ethnic breakdown of Florida and Volusia County's surveyed population. For the state-level findings, the highest proportions of students were self-identified as White, non-Hispanic (49.5%), or African American (19.2%). Almost 17% identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino. Note that approximately 11% of surveyed youth were classified as "Other." This may include youth of Hispanic/Latino descent who identify as Latino/White or Latino/Black, or it may include other ethnic groups such as Haitians.

For the state-level findings, the highest proportions of students were self-identified as White, non-Hispanic (49.5%), or African American (19.2%). Almost 17% identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino.


7

The findings for Volusia County show an ethnic distribution that is slightly different from the state's. For Volusia County, White non-Hispanic students represent a notably larger majority. White non-Hispanic youth make up 63.6% of the surveyed population. African American youth were the next largest ethnic group that was represented in the county sample, with 11.4% of the surveyed population indicating they belong to this ethnic group. This proportion is smaller than the state's, in which 19.2% of the surveyed population is African American. In Volusia County, no other ethnic group makes up more than 10% of the surveyed population.

Use of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Inhalants Results for drug usage rates are presented for two prevalence

periods: lifetime and past 30 days. Lifetime prevalence is defined as any occurrence of use throughout the life of the respondent. Thirty-day prevalence is defined as any occurrence of use in the past 30 days. For any drug, the lifetime prevalence rate is the best measure of experimentation while 30-day prevalence rate is a good measure of current use.

As is typical for almost all adolescent populations, alcohol is the most widely used substance (see Tables 2a-2c and 3a-3c). Just over half (52.6%) of Florida's youth have used alcohol in their lifetime. For Florida, the lifetime prevalence rate for alcohol ranges from 38.6% in middle school to 68.9% in high school. Overall, Volusia County's lifetime prevalence rates of alcohol use appear similar to the state rates. In Volusia County, 36.2% of middle school students and 73.5% of high school students reported having used alcohol in their lifetimes. Overall, 46.4% of students in Volusia County reported alcohol use in their lifetimes.

Current alcohol use was also assessed (see Tables 3a to 3c). Almost one-third (31.0%) of Florida's youth have used alcohol in the past 30 days while, in Volusia County, a lower rate (23.3%) is found. This difference is consistent for middle school students, while Volusia County high school students are reporting slightly higher rates compared to the Florida rate. In general, when compared to the state findings, a smaller number of students in Volusia County reported past 30-day use of alcohol.

Finally, results from survey questions related to binge drinking (defined as consumption of five or more drinks in one sitting within the past two weeks) show that in Florida, 8.8% of middle school students and 23.3% of high school students have binged in the last two weeks.

As shown on Table 1, 63.6% of youth surveyed in Volusia County are White non-Hispanic, 11.4% are African American, and 7.0% are Hispanic/Latino. Lifetime prevalence is defined as any occurrence of use throughout the l ife of the respondent. Thirty-day prevalence is defined as any occurrence of use in the past 30 days. Almost one-third (31.0%) of Florida's youth have used alcohol in the past 30 days while, in Volusia County, a lower rate (23.3%) is found.


8

In Volusia County, the rates are higher than the state's rates for high school students, and lower for the younger students (see Table 3a). Regardless of the comparison to the state, however, the finding that 26.9% of Volusia County high school students have consumed five or more drinks in one sitting, in the last two weeks, should be given due attention.

Tobacco (cigarettes and chewing tobacco) is usually the next most commonly used substance among adolescents at the national level; this is true in Florida and Volusia County as well (see Tables 2a-2c and 3a-3c). Overall, 39.7% of the Florida youth have used cigarettes sometime in their lifetimes, and 15.3% reported using cigarettes in the past 30 days. These figures are lower in Volusia County, where the lifetime prevalence of cigarette use is 34.3% and 30-day use is 12.9%. Note that both lifetime and 30-day cigarette use among Florida's surveyed youth is lower than the national rates reported by Monitoring the Future (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 2000). When examined by grade cohort the Florida, lifetime prevalence of cigarette use for surveyed youth ranges from 28.9% in middle school to 52.3% in high school. Volusia County high school students' cigarette use rates are higher than the rates for Florida. In Volusia County, 56.1% of high school students reported having smoked a cigarette in their lifetimes. Middle school students in Volusia County reported slightly lower levels of lifetime use of cigarettes than Florida middle school students (26.2% versus 28.9%). Similarly, while the Florida high school rates for 30-day use of cigarettes range from 9.8% in middle school to 21.7% in high school, Volusia County's rates are 8.3% and 25.2% for middle school and high school students, respectively.

For both the state of Florida and Volusia County, there is relatively low use of smokeless tobacco compared to cigarette use (see Tables 2a-2c and 3a-3c). This is often true of school-age populations. However, Volusia County high school students' smokeless tobacco use is elevated in comparison to the state's rates: 21.0% of Volusia County high school students reported the use of smokeless tobacco at least once in their lifetimes, compared to 15.4% of Florida high school youth. Current smokeless tobacco use is also slightly elevated for high school students in the county; with 6.5% of Volusia County students reporting that they had used smokeless tobacco during the past 30 days, compared to 5.7% of high school students at the state level.

Nationally, marijuana use has been rising or remaining stable over the last five years for middle and high school students (Johnston, O'Malley, & Bachman, 2000). In their lifetimes, about 22.3% of

While the Florida rates for 30-day use of cigarettes range from 9.8% in middle school to 21.7% in high school, Volusia County's rates are 8.3% and 25.2% for middle school and high school students, respectively.


9

Florida's youth have used marijuana, with use ranging from 10.0% in middle school to 36.6% in high school (see Table 2a). The prevalence rates for marijuana use for Volusia County fall just above the state rates for high school, where 37.2% of high school students indicated that they have used marijuana in their lifetimes. However, in middle school 10% of Florida students reported use of marijuana in their lifetimes, and only 8.4% of Volusia County middles school students reported lifetime use.

For Florida, 30-day use of marijuana is 11.2% across all grade levels with 5.1% of middle school students and 18.3% of high school students indicating past 30-day use. Across grade cohorts in Volusia County, current use of marijuana is slightly lower in comparison to the state rates (4.6% and 18.0%, for middle and high school students, respectively). Overall, for Florida, lifetime and the past 30-day use of marijuana is lower than use reported in the Monitoring the Future study. While many of Florida's youth are currently using marijuana (11.2% overall), the rate is lower than would be expected based on national trends. This is true for Volusia County as well.

As Table 2a illustrates, lifetime prevalence of inhalant use peaks slightly in the middle school years for surveyed youth in both Volusia County and Florida. This is a common pattern for inhalant use, which typically increases rapidly through middle school and then declines in high school. Comparing Florida and Volusia County in lifetime and 30-day prevalence rates for inhalant use reveals few differences. In general, Volusia County students indicated levels of inhalant use that are slightly higher than Florida's rates, for both prevalence periods.

Rates of the most commonly used substances in Volusia County--alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and inhalants--are at levels that reflect the current trends found at the statewide level.

Florida and Volusia County share a serious youth alcohol abuse problem with the rest of the nation. It is by far the most frequently abused substance sampled. By the 6th grade, 11.7% of Florida's youth reported past month use, increasing to over half (51.2%) of 12th grade youth (DCF, 2000). In Volusia County, 7.2% of middle school students and 26.9% of high school students reported an alcohol binge in the past two weeks. Furthermore, Volusia County high school students reported elevated rates of alcohol and cigarette use. These elevated rates may be influenced by the fairly small sample size of high school students in Volusia County. These findings highlight the need to target prevention of underage alcohol, tobacco and other drug use to elementary school youth as well as to middle and high school youth.

For Florida, thirty-day use of marijuana is 11.2% across all grades with 5.1% of middle school students and 18.3% of high school students indicating past 30-day use. In Volusia County, grade-level rates are slightly lower in comparison to the state rates, (4.6% and 18.0%, for middle and high school students, respectively). In Volusia County, 7.2% of middle school students and 26.9% of high school students reported an alcohol binge in the past two weeks.


10

Analysis by Sex

Findings for all drug use are also broken down by sex. For both Florida and Volusia County, few differences between males and females in alcohol involvement are apparent (see Tables 2b and 3b). Males were slightly more likely than females (17.4% versus 14.0% in Florida, and 12.9% versus 12.2% in Volusia County) to have engaged in binge drinking (i.e., had five or more drinks in one sitting in the last two weeks).

Rates of lifetime cigarette use are fairly consistent between males and females in Florida and Volusia County, although there is an elevation in the percentage of Volusia County females who have used cigarettes in the last 30-days. Lifetime use of smokeless tobacco was indicated by 18.1% of males and only 6.5% of females at the state-level and by 18.5% of males and 6.4% of females in Volusia County. Additionally, more males than females reported current use of smokeless tobacco at state (7.3% versus 2.4%) and county (6.2% versus 2.2%) levels (see Table 3b).

A larger proportion of males than females had tried marijuana in their lifetimes at the state (24.6% versus 20.2%) and county (18.0% versus 14.5%) levels (see Table 2b). A similar pattern can be seen in the 30-day prevalence rate for marijuana. In Florida, 13.0% of males and 9.6% of females indicated use in the past 30-days. In Volusia County, 9.6% of males and 7.1% of females reported past 30-day use of marijuana.

For lifetime and 30-day use of inhalants, males and females in the Florida and Volusia County samples reported involvement at approximately the same rates (see Tables 2b and 3b).

Analysis by Race/Ethnicity

County-level analysis of the data, by ethnicity, is not possible because the sample sizes are low and further aggregation makes the results less valuable. However, it is important to note that compared to any of the other national ethnic groups, African American youth have lower lifetime and past 30-day use for all substances sampled. At the state level, the lifetime prevalence rate for alcohol use among African American youth is 39.5%, while for White, non-Hispanic youth it is 58.7% (DCF, 2000). Those data are consistent with national trends that show that African American youth are among the least involved with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (Johnston, O'Malley & Bachman, 2000). As a result, it is important to consider ethnic distribution whenever drug use trends are examined. Given Volusia

At the state level, the lifetime prevalence rate for alcohol use among African American youth is 39.5%, while for White, non-Hispanic youth it is 58.7% (DCF, 2000). Those data are consistent with national trends that show that African American youth are among the least involved with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (Johnston, O'Malley & Bachman, 2000).

Males were slightly more likely than females (17.4% versus 14.0% in Florida, and 12.9% versus 12.2% in Volusia County) to have engaged in binge drinking (i.e., had five or more drinks in one sitting in the last two weeks).


11

County's demographics, rates that are higher than the state's are not surprising.

Use of Illicit Drugs Tables 2a-2c and 3a-3c also show the percentage of Florida

youth reporting the use of illicit drugs except marijuana and inhalants (hallucinogens, methamphetamines, cocaine, crack cocaine, steroids, heroin, other narcotics, depressants), by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort, respectively.

Given that use rates of specific drugs in this category are low, it is useful to consider them in aggregate. Lower levels of use for specific illicit drugs (10% or less) are typical of adolescent populations. Also, the use of illicit drugs (other than inhalants) tends to be concentrated in the upper grade levels. While the use rates of these drugs are low, it is critical to note that any use of these extremely dangerous drugs should be taken into consideration when planning and developing prevention and treatment programs.

Tables 2a-3c include prevalence rates listed for four distinct drug groupings. The any illicit drug rate is the prevalence rate for any use of any drug except alcohol and tobacco. Thus, if a student reports use of any one of these substances, regardless of use of any of the other drugs, he or she would be classified as having used any illicit drug. Another category provided on Tables 2a-3c, any illicit drug except marijuana, does not exclude marijuana users; rather, marijuana is simply not considered when calculating the prevalence rates. This rate is similar to any illicit drug, except marijuana is excluded from the calculation. Thus, these rates represent the use of specific illicit drugs over and above the use of marijuana. Consequently, rates are much lower. The difference in these two rates reflects the percentage of students who use marijuana exclusively. The alcohol only rate is the prevalence of the use of alcohol without the use of any other drug. Finally, the alcohol only or any illicit drug rate is an indication of the use of any drug or alcohol. As with previous data, usage is reported for two time periods: lifetime (see Tables 2a-2c) and in the past 30 days (see Tables 3a-3c) and grouped by grade cohort, sex and age cohort.

A variety of important findings can be seen in the aggregate drug rates. The percentage of surveyed youth in Florida reporting the lifetime use of any illicit drug (the rate that includes marijuana) rises from 20.6% in middle school to 41.5% in high school. Overall, 30.2% of Florida youth reported the use of at least one illicit drug in their

The any illicit drug rate is the prevalence rate for any use of any drug except alcohol and tobacco. Another category provided on Tables 2a-3c, any illicit drug use except marijuana, does not exclude marijuana users; rather, marijuana is simply not considered when calculating the prevalence rates. The alcohol only rate is the prevalence of the use of alcohol without the use of any other drug. Finally, the alcohol only or any illicit drug rate is an indication of the use of any drug or alcohol. Overall, 30.2% of Florida youth reported the use of at least one illicit drug in their lifetime. In Volusia County, as much as 25.3% of students (18.9% of middle school students and 42.3% of high school students) indicated lifetime use of an illicit substance.


12

lifetime. For Volusia County, these rates are generally lower: 25.3% of students (18.9% of middle school students and 42.3% of high school students) indicated lifetime use of any illicit drug.

In Florida, 8.9% of students have used any illicit drug except marijuana in the last 30 days: 7.7% of middle school students and 10.4% of high school students (see Tables 3a). In Volusia County, the percentages of students who reported using any illicit drug except marijuana in the last 30 days are 7.5% and 8.8% of middle school and high school students, respectively, and 7.8% of all students. Thus, 8.8% of Volusia County's high school students have used inhalants, hashish, LSD, methamphetamines, cocaine, crack cocaine, steroids, heroin, other narcotics or barbiturates in the last 30 days. Including marijuana use in this drug grouping brings the aggregate use rate up to 21.2% for high school students (see Table 3a) in Volusia County.

Tables 2a-2c also show the lifetime and current use prevalence of alcohol only, and alcohol or any illicit drug use. These rates are categorized by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort. Just over 14.2% of all youth surveyed in Florida reported using only alcohol--no other drugs--in the past 30 days. A considerably lower percentage (9.8%) of Volusia County youth reported using alcohol only in the past 30 days. Alcohol or any illicit drug use is defined by assessing whether surveyed youth reported alcohol use and/or use of any one of the other drugs (e.g., marijuana, inhalants). In Volusia County, while 12.8% of the surveyed youth reported past 30-day use of any illicit drug (see Table 3a), that rate increases to 27.1% for surveyed youth who reported past 30-day use of alcohol or any illicit drug.

Prevalence of Antisocial Behavior Eight antisocial behaviors were assessed with the Florida Youth

Substance Abuse Survey. Information on antisocial behavior is only collected for one prevalence period, the past 12 months. See Tables 5a to 5c for specific findings by grade cohort, sex, and age cohort.

It is important to note that across the state, youth consistently reported that they have Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, have been Suspended from School, or have been Drunk or High at School in the last 12 months as their most common Antisocial Behaviors. In Florida, 15.3% of surveyed youth reported having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, 14.7% reported being Suspended from School and 12.2% reported having been Drunk or High at School. These three rates are also high in Volusia County where 14.0% of students reported having Attacked Someone with

In Volusia County, while 12.8% of surveyed youth reported past 30-day use of any illicit drug (see Table 3a), that rate increases to 27.1% for surveyed youth who reported past 30-day use of alcohol or any illicit drug. In Florida, 15.3% of surveyed youth reported having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, 14.7% reported being Suspended from School and 12.2% reporting having been Drunk or High at School. These three rates are also high in Volusia County where 14.0% of students reported having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm, 12.8% reported being Suspended from School and 9.7% reported having been Drunk or High at School.


13

Intent to Harm, 12.8% reported being Suspended from School and 9.7% reported having been Drunk or High at School.

It should be noted that school suspension rates are difficult to interpret because school suspension policies vary substantially from district to district, so these rates should be viewed with caution. However, the other two problem behaviors are legitimate targets for prevention and intervention efforts given their relatively high rates.

The 12-month prevalence of a variety of delinquent behaviors increases with grade and, consequently, age. In Volusia County, the percentage of adolescents who reported being Drunk or High at School (see Table 5a for rates by grade cohorts) is higher in high school (20.3%), than in middle school (5.8%). One of the delinquent behaviors that seems unrelated to age is Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm. This prevalence rate is stable across age and grade cohorts. However, it should be noted that the underlying definition of this behavior might change over time. What it means for a middle school student to attack another student with intent to harm is probably qualitatively different from what it means to a high school student. Regardless of its underlying definition, the fact that around 15% of Florida's youth--across grade levels--indicated that they have attacked another person with intent to harm in the past 12 months is an important finding (see Table 5a). In Volusia County the rate of having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm is only slightly higher in high school (15.5%) than in middle school (13.5%).

Analysis by Sex

There are substantial differences between the sexes among these delinquent behaviors. In fact, males were more likely to indicate that they had committed all eight anti-social behaviors. These results are not surprising. The literature on delinquency indicates that males are more involved in delinquent behavior than are females (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1995).

This difference was particularly pronounced for Carrying a Gun in the Neighborhood, Taking a Gun to School, and having been Arrested. In each case, for both the state of Florida and Volusia County, twice as many males as females reported these behaviors (see Table 5b).

Risk and Protective Factor Profile Research during the past 30 years supports the view that alcohol,

tobacco and other drug use, delinquency, school achievement, and

Regardless of its underlying definition, the fact that around 15% of Florida's youth--across grade levels--indicated that they had attacked another person with intent to harm in the past 12 months is an important finding. In Volusia County the rate of having Attacked Someone with Intent to Harm is only slightly higher in high school (15.5%) than in middle school (13.5%). .


14

other important outcomes in adolescence, are associated with specific aspects of the youth's community, school, family environments, and individual characteristics. For our purpose, these characteristics are called risk factors or protective factors. Risk factors are characteristics that are known to increase the likelihood that a youth will engage in one or more problem behaviors. For example, a risk factor in the community environment is the existence of Laws and Norms that are Favorable to Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use. In those communities where there is acceptance or tolerance of drug use, youth are more likely to engage in alcohol, tobacco and other drug use. Protective factors are characteristics in the youth's community, school, family, and individual environments that are known to decrease the likelihood that a youth will engage in problem behaviors. For example, strong positive attachment or bonding to parents reduces the risk of an adolescent engaging in problem behaviors. The analysis of risk and protective factors is the most powerful paradigm available for understanding the genesis of both positive and negative adolescent behavioral outcomes. This analysis can then lead to the successful design of adolescent prevention programs (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992).

A substantial amount of research shows that exposure of adolescents to a greater number of risk factors is associated with more substance use and delinquency. Research also shows that exposure to a number of protective factors is associated with lower prevalence of these problem behaviors (Bry, McKeon, & Pandina, 1982; Newcomb, Maddahian, & Skager, 1987; Newcomb & Felix-Ortiz, 1992; Newcomb, 1995; Pollard, et al., 1998; Pollard & Lofquist, 1998).

The aggregate levels of risk and protective factors in an adolescent population determine the levels of current and future negative and positive behaviors. However, it is specific risk or protective factors that are the targets for prevention programming. That is, the most effective prevention programs identify what risk factors are elevated in the student population, what protective factors are suppressed, and then implement prevention programming that specifically targets the identified risk or protective factors.

Risk and Protective Factor Scale Scores

To support this process, a risk-factor and protective-factor "profile" was developed for Florida surveyed youth by calculating the average value of each of the risk and protective factor scales. Tables 7, 8, and 9, and Graphs 1, 2a and 2b show the results for all risk-

Risk factors are characteristics that are known to increase the likelihood that a youth will engage in one or more problem behaviors. For example, a risk factor in the community environment is the existence of Laws and Norms Favorable to Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use. Protective factors are characteristics in the youth's community, school, family, and individual environments that are known to decrease the likelihood that a youth will engage in problem behaviors. For example, strong positive attachment or bonding to parents reduces the risk of an adolescent engaging in problem behaviors.


15

factor and protective-factor scale scores for Florida and Volusia County.

In each case, a risk-factor and protective-factor scale is measured on a 0-100 scale. A score of 50 represents the national average based on the CTC Six-State Study. This database is currently the best available data for adolescents in the United States. Scores above 50 indicate that youth (either youth in Florida or Volusia County) are, on average, elevated in the specific risk or protective factors when compared to norms established in the CTC Six-State Study. Scores below 50 indicate that Florida youth are, on average, lower than the norms established in the CTC Six-State Study for specific risk or protective factors. Ideally, because of their relationship with current and future behavioral outcomes, all risk factors would be below the CTC Six-State Study average, and all protective factors would be above the CTC Six-State Study average.

Appendix B provides a complete list of the risk and protective factors, the corresponding risk-factor and protective factor scales in the survey, and selected survey items associated with the factors.

Understanding the Graphs

Graphs 1, 2a, and 2b represent the risk and protective data graphically. These complex graphs are designed to convey multiple comparison groups for each risk-factor and protective-factor score that is estimated from the Volusia County data. Comparisons are critical to the understanding of risk-factor and protective-factor data as the scale scores alone contain little intrinsic meaning. This is true of many psychosocial measures. An intelligence score (IQ), for instance, has little meaning without the knowledge that "average intelligence" is represented by a score of 100. Comparison points for risk-factor and protective-factor information are much the same. Many comparison points are provided so that effective evaluation of a specific score's meaning can be better understood.

Five aspects of each risk-factor or protective-factor score are represented on each graph. First, the 50 mark refers to the national average. Second, the yellow dot refers to the county that is analyzed in this report (in this case, Volusia County). Next, the thin black line represents the average for Florida. Fourth, the gray, vertical, line represents the distribution of counties around the Florida average. Ninety-five percent of counties in Florida fall in the area covered by the gray line. Finally, the red 'X' represents counties that have been identified as "like" the county represented in the report in a single aspect: student population. Thus, for Volusia County, the red 'X'

Risk-factor and protective- factor scales are measured on a 0-100 scale. A score of 50 represents the national average based on the CTC Six-State Study. Appendix B provides a complete list of the risk and protective factors, the corresponding risk and protective factor scales in the survey, and selected survey items associated with the factors. Graphs 1, 2a, and 2b represent the risk and protective data graphically. These complex graphs are designed to convey multiple comparison groups for each risk-factor and protective-factor score that is estimated from the Volusia County data. Five aspects of each risk-factor or protective-factor score are represented on each graph: (1) the 50 mark refers to the national average, (2) the yellow dot refers to the county analyzed in this report, (3) the thin black line represents the average for Florida, (4) the gray, vertical line represents the distribution of counties around the Florida average, and, (5) the red 'X' represents counties "like" the county represented in the report in a single aspect: student population.


16

represents the average risk-factor or protective-factor score for the larger counties in Florida. For Volusia County, the counties that are similar in terms of student population (25,000-49,999 students) are: Polk, Brevard, Seminole, and Lee.

State of Florida Risk and Protective Factor Profile

Tables 7, 8, and 9 display the risk-factor and protective-factor values for Volusia County and Florida. Across all risk and protective factors, for all Florida students, the average risk-factor score is 49 and the average protective-factor score is 50.

Elevated risk scores are found at the state level in the Community Domain: Low Neighborhood Attachment, and Personal Transitions and Mobility scored at the 56 and 59 marks, respectively. These two risk factor scales measure youth's feelings of positive bonding to their home community. For example, the Low Neighborhood Attachment scale is measured by questions such as: "I like my neighborhood," or: "If I had to move, I would miss the neighborhood I now live in." Bonding with the community works to reduce the likelihood that students will adopt antisocial norms, attitudes, or values. The risk factor Personal Transitions and Mobility measures specifically the number of times students have moved homes or schools in the past year and the past five years.

The elevation of these two scales indicates that Florida surveyed youth, in general, are not feeling a positive attachment towards their home communities. These two risk factors may be jointly elevated for several reasons. One reason is that Florida surveyed youth are reporting that they are moving significantly more often than youth in other states. Also, if a large number of families are moving in and out of communities, this can decrease the strength of emotional attachments in the community, and make the community feel less organized and cohesive. As always, at the local level, there may be factors specific to the community that serve to increase these risks.

On the other hand, surveyed youth did show suppressed levels of two other Community Domain risk factors: Laws & Norms Favorable to Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug (ATOD) Use, and Perceived Availability of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Substances. These two scales scored significantly below the 50 mark, showing scores of 43 and 42, respectively. In other words, Florida surveyed youth reported that their home communities were strongly opposed to alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and that they were less likely than youth in the CTC Six-State Study to know where they could get drugs

Elevated risk scores are found at the state level in the Community Domain: Low Neighborhood Attachment, and Personal Transitions and Mobility scored at the 56 and 59 marks, respectively. These two risk factor scales measure whether youth feel positively bonded to their home community. The elevation of these two scales indicates that Florida- surveyed youth, in general, are not feeling a positive attachment towards their home communities. Florida surveyed youth reported that their home communities were strongly opposed to alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and that they were less likely than youth in the CTC Six-State Study to know where they could get drugs if they wanted them.


17

if they wanted them. This suggests that Florida has a strong normative ethic opposing drug use.

Thus, taken as a whole, the set of Community Domain risk factors probably has counterbalancing effects, sometimes increasing alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, sometimes decreasing use. If the elevated risk factors in the Community Domain could be reduced, then this would improve the overall net impact of Community Domain variables, taking advantage of Florida's strong norms against drug use. Outside of the Community Domain, only one risk factor, School Academic Failure, was significantly elevated, showing a score of 60.

A handful of other risk factors were suppressed (see Table 8). These include: Rebelliousness; Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior; Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior; and Perceived Risks of Drug Use. For all of these scales, students reported attitudes clearly unfavorable to alcohol, tobacco and other drug use. Again, analyzing the risk factor profile as a whole, including the suppressed Community Domain risk factors, Florida surveyed youth have developed strong negative attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco and other drug use and antisocial behavior in general. This is a strong positive feature of Florida's overall risk and protective factor profile.

This summarizes the significant variation at the state level from established norms for the risk and protective factors. As noted earlier, much of the variation in risk and protective factor values occur at the local and community level; state-level profiles typically are not that informative. The county-level data provides significantly more information to local prevention planners, enabling them to both understand their communities better and to identify the most appropriate prevention strategies. It is expected that at the county level, general Florida trends will be reflected, with additional county-level variations apparent in the overall risk-factor and protective-factor profiles. Further analysis of the risk-factor and protective-factor scores and their relationship to alcohol, tobacco and other drug use is beyond the scope of this report.

Volusia County Risk and Protective Factor Profile

Tables 7, 8, and 9, and Graphs 1, 2a and 2b display the risk-factor and protective-factor values for Volusia County and Florida. Across all risk and protective factors for Volusia County, the average risk-factor score is 46 and the average protective-factor score is 53.

As seen on Graphs 1, 2a, and 2b, the Volusia County risk-factor and protective-factor profile distinguishes itself in some ways from the

Outside of the Community Domain, only one risk factor, Academic Failure, was significantly elevated, showing a score of 60. Analyzing the risk factor profile as a whole, including the suppressed Community Domain risk factors, Florida surveyed youth have developed strong negative attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco and other drug use and antisocial behavior in general. This is a strong positive feature of Florida's overall risk-factor and protective-factor profile. As seen on Graphs 1, 2a, and 2b, the Volusia County risk-factor and protective-factor profile distinguishes itself in some ways from the Florida statewide profile.


18

Florida statewide profile. Note that there are some risk and protective factors that show little variation from county-to-county. For example, 95% of counties fall between 47 and 53 on the risk factor Poor Family Supervision. Consequently, it should be noted that the Florida risk-factor and protective-factor profile is an important one to consider when assessing the profile for Volusia County. This section refers specifically to how the Volusia County risk-factor and protective-factor profile compares to Florida, like-counties, and the nation.

In the Community Domain (see Table 8 and Graph 2a), Volusia County falls above the state and like-county averages on three of the six risk factors: Low Neighborhood Attachment, Personal Transitions and Mobility, and Laws and Norms. Note that while Laws and Norms falls below the national average, it is still quite elevated compared to the state and like-county averages, as well as compared to most counties in Florida. Laws and Norms measures the students' perceptions of adult attitudes toward drug use in their communities. It is based on six items, such as: "How wrong would most adults in your neighborhood think it was for kids your age to drink alcohol?" or: "If a kid smoked marijuana in your neighborhood would he or she be caught by the police?" Volusia County's elevated score suggests that, compared to the average community in Florida, there are fewer regulations against adolescent problem behaviors in students' neighborhoods.

Within the Family Domain, Volusia County's profile is comparable to the state profile with one important exception. Volusia County students reported experiencing higher levels of the risk factors Parental Attitudes Favorable to ATOD Use and Parental Attitudes Favorable to Antisocial Behavior, than the average student in Florida reported. This risk factor is measured by items such as: "How wrong would your parents feel it would be for you to smoke cigarettes or steal anything worth more than $5?" Taken in combination with Volusia County's Laws and Norms score (see above), these elevated rates suggest that students in Volusia County are not receiving clear messages about involvement in antisocial behaviors from adults in their communities and homes.

Within the School Domain, Volusia County appears to fall below the state averages for the risk factors Academic Failure and Low School Commitment. However, both of these risk factor scores are elevated above the national average of 50. These risk factors measure students' feelings about their grades at school, as well as the school system as a whole. Survey items such as: "Putting them all together, what were your grades like last year?" and: "How important do you

In the Community Domain, Volusia County falls above the state averages on three of the six risk factors. They are Low Neighborhood Attachment, Personal Transitions and Mobility and Laws and Norms .


19

think the things you are learning in school are going to be for your later life?" construct these two scales. Elevated findings in this domain suggest that, compared to the average student in Florida, Volusia County students feel less attached to their classes and school environments.

Within the Individual-Peer Domain (see Graph 2b), the students of Volusia County reported higher levels of the risk factors associated with drug use and other problem behaviors. For example, the risk factors Friends' Delinquent Behavior and Friends' Use of Drugs show scores that are quite elevated compared to the state averages. Perceived Risks of Drug Use also appears above the state's level, and the averages for most counties in Florida (as shown by a score that falls above the "gray bar" on Graph 2b). Impulsiveness and Sensation Seeking are two of the most elevated Individual-Peer risk-factor scales, falling significantly above the Florida average and the findings for most counties in Florida. These scales are measured by items such as: "I often do things without thinking about what will happen," and: "How often have you done something dangerous because someone dared you to do it?" Volusia County students' elevated scores indicate that they may be participating in problem behaviors without thinking about the consequences.

The behavioral outcomes indices (see Table 9 and Graph 2b) are scale measures of current alcohol, tobacco and other drug use; current antisocial behavior; and gang involvement. Predictably, given the fairly consistent levels of involvement with alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, the Current Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use scale falls just above the state average. The remaining two outcome scales, Current Antisocial Behavior and Gang Involvement, are slightly higher than the state levels.

On most of the nine protective factor measures (see Table 7 and Graph 1), Volusia County's profile appears at, or higher than, the state averages. The protective factor that appears to be slightly suppressed compared to the Florida, like-county, and national averages is Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement. This protective factor is measured by survey questions such as: "My neighbors notice when I am doing a good job and let me know." Students in Volusia County, compared to other students in the state, feel less recognized for their accomplishments by people in their communities.

In terms of protective factors, Volusia County averages are similar compared to the state averages.


20

Implications The success of the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey is the

result of tremendous efforts undertaken by a variety of departments and agencies in the state of Florida. Cooperation among the various contractors, state agencies, and the Executive Office of the Governor was crucial to bringing this process to fruition. The cooperation at the local level, as measured by the rates of participation, is considered unprecedented for this sort of endeavor.

It is important to note that the Volusia County youth, while sharing many of the characteristics of youth in the rest of Florida, also show unique behavior traits.

One of the primary benefits of conducting the Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey is that the data can be used as the baseline from which future prevention and intervention efforts can be assessed. Repeated assessments of Florida's student population, at regular intervals, will make it possible to identify program successes and program areas that may need improvement. The measurement of changes over time in risk and protective factors, substance use, and delinquency will provide the State of Florida and Volusia County with a valuable management tool. The difficult task of developing and implementing effective prevention programming will reveal the value and usefulness of this management tool.


21

Appendix A: Florida Youth Survey 2000 Sampling Methodology

The Florida Youth Survey (FYS) 2000 was a self-administered, school-based survey of Florida public school students attending grades 6 through 12. Data were collected between November 28, 1999, and January 28, 2000. Students had 50 minutes in which to complete surveys. Out of 67 counties, 65 participated in the survey.

The survey sample was selected in a two-stage sampling process that built upon schools participating in the 1998 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (FYTS), conducted by the Florida Department of Health. The 1998 FYTS used a two-stage cluster sample design within each of seven geographic regions (i.e., selecting schools within regions and classrooms within schools) for public middle schools (grades 6-8) and for public high schools (grades 9-12) to obtain representative samples of middle and high school students. Within each school, classrooms were randomized to receive the survey or not, and all students within selected classrooms were surveyed. This sample of 266 schools, selected with probability proportionate to size within each region, was maintained for the FYTS and for the FYS. However, the sample was augmented for the FYS 2000 in order to obtain representative samples of students in each of Florida's 67 counties. Thus, a second stage of school selection occurred within each county, with probability of selection proportionate to size, where each original FYTS school had a probability of selection equal to 1.0.

Because Florida's counties vary widely in population, with the number of students enrolled in public schools varying from a low of 1,172 in Glades county to a high of 360,118 in Miami-Dade county, the school and within school sample selection methodology varied by county. In the smallest counties, all schools and all students were selected to complete the survey. In the largest counties, only a sample of schools and classrooms within schools were selected to participate. The goal of the FYS 2000 was to survey all students in counties with fewer than 2400 middle and high school students, approximately 2400 middle and high school students attending six middle and four high schools in counties with enrolled populations up to 50,000, and approximately 5,000 middle and high school students attending 14 middle schools and 10 high schools in counties with more than 50,000 students. In the largest county, 25 middle schools and 13 high schools were selected to participate.

The survey sample was selected in a two-stage sampling process that built upon schools participating in the 1998 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (FYTS), conducted by the Florida Department of Health. The 1998 FYTS used a two-stage cluster sample design within each of seven geographic regions to obtain representative samples of middle and high school students. Because Florida's counties vary widely in population, the school and within school sample selection methodology varied by county.


22

The FYS 2000 effort fielded two survey instruments: the Communities that Care® Youth Survey, and the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey. Within each selected classroom, students were randomized to receive one survey instrument or the other. Survey instruments had identical covers and an equal number of pages, so as to be indistinguishable as they were handed out in classrooms.

The survey response rate was calculated based on the school and student response rate. The number of schools in which students participated was divided by the total number of schools selected to calculate the school response rate. The number of students who completed a survey was divided by the total number of students selected (based on school reports of the number of students enrolled in the selected classes) to calculate the student response rate. The overall survey response rate is the product of the school and student response rates. These school, student and overall response rates were calculated for the entire statewide survey effort, for the regional data (based on the original 266 FYTS schools), and for each county.

The data were weighted to provide estimates that can be generalized to all public school students in grades 6-12 in the state, the 15 administrative districts, and the counties, and to account for survey non-response.

The FYS 2000 effort fielded two survey instruments: the Communities that Care® Youth Survey, and the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey.


23

Appendix B: Risk and Protective Factors and Selected Associated Survey Items

Domain Scale Selected survey items

Community Domain Protective Factors

Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement

Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your community? Sports teams, scouting, boys and girls clubs, 4-H clubs, service clubs.

Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

My neighbors notice when I am doing a good job and let me know.

Community Domain Risk Factors

Low Neighborhood Attachment and Community Disorganization

If I had to move, I would miss the neighborhood I now live in.

I feel safe in my neighborhood.

Personal Transitions & Mobility

Community Transitions & Mobility

How many times have you changed homes since kindergarten?

People move in and out of my neighborhood a lot.

Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use, Firearms, and Crime

If a kid drank some beer, wine or hard liquor in your neighborhood, would he or she be caught by the police?

About how many adults have you known personally who in the past year have gotten drunk or high?

Perceived Availability (of Drugs and Firearms)

If you wanted to get some beer, wine or hard liquor, how easy would it be for you to get some?

Family Domain Protective Factors

Family Attachment Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your mother?

Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your father?


24

Appendix B: Risk and Protective Factors and Selected Associated Survey Items (continued)


Family Domain Protective Factors

Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement

My parents give me lots of chances to do fun things with them.

Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

How often do your parents tell you they're proud of you for something you've done?

Family Domain Risk Factors

Discipline

Family Management

If you skipped school, would you be caught by your parents?

My parents ask if I've gotten my homework done.

Family History of Antisocial Behavior

Has anyone in your family ever had a severe alcohol or drug problem?

Parental Attitudes Favorable to Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use

How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to drink beer, wine or hard liquor?

School Domain Protective Factors

School Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement

There are lots of chances for students in my school to talk with a teacher one-on-one.

School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

My teachers praise me when I work hard in school.

School Domain Risk Factors

Academic Failure Putting them all together, what were your grades like last year?

Low School Commitment How interesting are most of your courses to you?

Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior

How old were you when you first smoked marijuana?


25

Appendix B: Risk and Protective Factors and Selected Associated Survey Items (continued)


Individual-Peer Protective Factors

Religiosity How often do you attend religious services or activities?

Social Skills Vignette about what the youth would do if she or he were handed an alcoholic beverage at a party.

Belief in the Moral Order It is important to be honest with your parents, even if they become upset or you get punished.

Individual-Peer Risk Factors

Rebelliousness I ignore rules that get in my way.

Friends' Delinquent Behavior Think of your four best friends. In the past year, how many of your best friends have dropped out of school?

Friends' Use of Drugs Think of your four best friends. In the past year, how many of your best friends have smoked cigarettes?

Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior

What are the chances you would be seen as cool if you carried a handgun?

Favorable Attitudes Toward Antisocial Behavior

How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to smoke marijuana?

Individual-Peer Risk Factors

Early Initiation of the Problem Behavior

How old were you when you first began drinking alcoholic beverages regularly, that is, at least once or twice a month?

Sensation Seeking

Impulsiveness

How many times have you done something dangerous because someone dared you to do it?


26

Appendix C: Confidence Interval Calculation Basic Concepts A sample is drawn to be representative of a population. Instead of collecting data from everybody in a population, it is often more efficient to collect data from a representative sample and then later generalize to the population. For the purposes of the FYSAS 2000, the population includes all students in grades 6 to 12. A representative sample was drawn such that estimates of behaviors and the predictors of behaviors could be made at the county level. In this case, an estimate is a guess, based on data, of some characteristic of a population. For instance, if we find that 25% of a sample reports that they have used marijuana in their lifetime, then we have an estimate of marijuana use in the population from which the sample was drawn. A confidence interval, commonly referred to as margin of error, reflects the degree of statistical certainty that a guess from the data can be generalized to the population. The purpose of this appendix is to provide the skills necessary for readers to evaluate the data presented within this report in terms of this type of certainty. There are two types of confidence intervals that are relevant to the data reported herein. These two map directly to the type of estimates that are made within this report. The two types of estimates included in this report are estimates of a proportion of the population and mean levels of a characteristic. Calculation To calculate the confidence interval of a proportion, use the following formula: Confidence Interval = p ± 1.96 x SQRT ( ( p x (1-p) ) / n)) x SQRT ( (N-n) / (N-1) ) Where p = the estimate in question (e.g. the 25% from above, expressed as a proportion, .25). n = the number of cases in the sample N = the number of cases in the population So, if a sample of 1,000 was drawn from a population of 10,000, and 44% of the sample reported that they had brown hair, then we could say that we were 95% certain that the actual proportion of the population with brown hair falls between 41.1% and 46.9% (1.96 x .016 x .949 = 2.9, and 44 + 2.9 = 46.9, and 44 – 2.9 = 41.1).


27

The confidence interval for a mean (mean age, or mean levels of a specific risk, or protective, factor) requires the standard deviation of the mean to calculate. For the calculation of the confidence interval of a mean, use the following formula. Confidence Interval = 1.96 x standard deviation / SQRT(n) x SQRT ( (N-n) / (N-1) ) Interpretation Again, the confidence interval provides the reader with a level of statistical certainty about a given estimate. This certainty (or lack thereof) is an important consideration when talking about generalizing from a sample to a population. Whenever a sample is drawn, there is always the chance that bias can occur. Confidence intervals are generated to directly measure this chance. There is no right or wrong answer to the question "how wide is too wide" when it comes to confidence intervals. In some instances, an error can be disastrous or costly; in other instances, errors may not be so problematic. For instance, while an error of ±7% may be fine for estimating the number of people who like one political candidate or another, it is definitely not acceptable for decisions regarding the incidence of a disease within a population. Confidence intervals are also useful when comparing two estimates. For instance, if the estimate for marijuana use by males is 24% and the estimate for marijuana use by females is 30%, we know only that the difference is 6%. However, if we knew that the confidence interval around these estimates was ±2%, then we would be 95% sure that between 22% and 26% of males, and between 28% and 32% of females have used marijuana. Conversely, if the confidence interval was ±8%, then the results would overlap (males 16% to 32%; females 22% to 38%) and we would not be sure that the use rates of males and females in the population were really different or different just by chance.


28

Appendix D: References Bry, B. H., McKeon, P., & Pandina, R. J. (1982). Extent of drug use as a function of number of risk

factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 273-279. Florida Department of Children & Families (DCF) (2000). The Florida Youth Substance Abuse

Survey 2000 Statewide Report. Florida Department of Children & Families. Tallahassee, FL. Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J.Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and

other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.

Johnston L., O'Malley P, & Bachman J. (1999). National survey results on drug use from the

Monitoring the Future Study: 1975-1997. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH Publication No. 98-4345).

Johnston L., O'Malley P, & Bachman J. (2000). National survey results on drug use from the

Monitoring the Future Study: 1975-1997. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH Publication No. 98-4345).

Newcomb, M., & Felix-Ortiz, M. (1992). Multiple protective and risk factors for drug use and

abuse: Cross-sectional and prospective findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 564-577.

Newcomb, M. (1995). Identifying high-risk youth: Prevalence and patterns of adolescent drug

abuse. In E. Rahdert & D. Czechowicz (Eds.) Adolescent drug abuse: Clinical assessment and therapeutic interventions, NIDA Research Monograph, 156.

Newcomb, M. D., Maddahian, E., & Skager, R. (1987). Substance abuse and psychosocial risk

factors among teenagers: Associations with sex, age, ethnicity, and type of school. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 13, 413-433.

Pollard, J.A & Lofquist, A. (1998-Under Review). The application of GIS technologies in drug and

delinquency prevention needs assessment. The Professional Geographer. Pollard, J.A., Catalano, R.F., Hawkins, J.D., & Arthur, M.A. (1999-Under Review). Development

of a school-based survey measuring risk and protective factors predictive of substance use in adolescent populations. Journal of School Health.

Pollard, J. A., Lofquist, A. L., Bates, S. C., & Steinman, L. E. (1999). The State of Louisiana Communities That Care Youth Survey, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.


29

Steffensmeier, D. J., & Allan, E. (1995). Criminal Behavior: Gender and Age. In Joseph F. Sheley (Ed.), Criminology: A Contemporary Handbook (2nd Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Volusia Florida

Table 1. Major Demographic Characteristics of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) Surveyed Youth.

Unweighted% of total n % of totaln

Unweighted Weighted Weighted

Sex Male 2,116 48.5 28,585 48.1 Female 2,247 51.5 30,838 51.9

Race/Ethnicity White, Non-Hispanic 2,775 63.6 28,789 49.5 African American 497 11.4 11,157 19.2 Hispanic/Latino 305 7.0 9,598 16.5 American Indian 83 1.9 776 1.3 Asian 50 1.1 1,343 2.3 Other/Multiple 650 14.9 6,505 11.2

Age 10 12 0.3 108 0.2 11 1,191 26.7 6,582 10.8 12 600 13.4 10,030 16.5 13 959 21.5 10,827 17.8 14 563 12.6 9,428 15.5 Age 10-14 3,325 74.5 36,975 60.8 15 457 10.2 8,064 13.2 16 266 6.0 7,057 11.6 17 292 6.5 6,135 10.1 Age 15-17 1,015 22.7 21,256 34.9 18 or above 125 2.8 2,710 4.3

Grade 6th 1,835 41.0 11,667 19.1 7th 3 0.1 10,307 16.9 8th 1,437 32.1 11,397 18.7 Middle School 3,275 73.2 33,371 54.7 9th 145 3.2 8,311 13.6 10th 612 13.7 7,619 12.5 11th 61 1.4 6,212 10.2 12th 379 8.5 5,532 9.1 High School 1,197 26.8 27,674 45.3

(c) 2000 Florida Department of Children and Families Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey 2000

Note: Breakdowns may not add up to total due to missing responses. State level data weighted by county and grade level; county-level data is unweighted for Table 1 and weighted by grade level for all subsequent tables.

Table 2a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by grade cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalMiddle High

TotalSchool SchoolMiddle HighSchool School

Alcohol 36.2 73.5 46.4 38.6 68.9 52.6

Cigarettes 26.2 56.1 34.3 28.9 52.3 39.7

Smokeless tobacco 8.8 21.0 12.1 9.2 15.4 12.0

Inhalants 12.7 11.5 12.4 12.9 10.6 11.8

Marijuana 8.4 37.2 16.3 10.0 36.6 22.3

Hallucinogens 2.0 9.7 4.1 2.2 10.4 6.0

Methamphetamines 1.2 4.6 2.1 1.3 5.1 3.0

Cocaine 1.8 5.3 2.8 1.9 6.5 4.0

Crack cocaine 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 2.4 1.9

Steroids 1.3 2.2 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.9

Heroin 1.0 3.2 1.6 1.0 2.6 1.7

Other narcotics 2.2 8.0 3.8 1.8 7.2 4.3

Depressants 1.7 6.8 3.1 1.7 7.0 4.1

Any illicit drug 18.9 42.3 25.3 20.6 41.5 30.2

Any illicit drug except Marijuana 15.3 21.8 17.1 15.8 22.2 18.7

Alcohol only 13.1 16.3 14.0 12.8 15.9 14.2

Alcohol or any illicit drug 41.7 76.7 51.3 43.3 72.3 56.7

Volusia County did not meet minimum criteria for a successful survey and so should be considered only as a summary of those students who returned valid surveys.


Table 2b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by sex.

Volusia Florida

Total TotalMale Female Male Female

Alcohol 46.5 46.2 46.4 52.8 52.4 52.6

Cigarettes 33.5 34.9 34.3 39.4 39.8 39.7


Inhalants 12.4 12.6 12.4 12.4 11.3 11.8

Marijuana 18.0 14.5 16.3 24.6 20.2 22.3

Hallucinogens 4.1 4.1 4.1 6.3 5.7 6.0


Cocaine 2.4 3.0 2.8 4.4 3.8 4.0

Crack cocaine 1.3 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.9 1.9

Steroids 2.1 1.2 1.6 2.8 1.2 1.9

Heroin 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7

Other narcotics 4.1 3.6 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.3

Depressants 2.9 3.1 3.1 4.2 4.1 4.1

Any illicit drug 26.8 23.9 25.3 32.4 28.1 30.2


Alcohol only 14.0 14.0 14.0 13.7 14.8 14.2




Table 2c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) youth who reported having used various drugs in their lifetime, by age cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalAges Ages

Total10-14 15-17Ages Ages10-14 15-17

Alcohol 36.2 76.2 46.4 41.0 69.5 52.6

Cigarettes 26.1 58.0 34.3 30.5 53.2 39.7


Inhalants 12.6 12.3 12.4 12.7 10.5 11.8

Marijuana 8.2 38.9 16.3 10.9 38.7 22.3

Hallucinogens 1.9 10.1 4.1 2.4 11.1 6.0


Cocaine 1.8 5.6 2.8 1.9 6.9 4.0

Crack cocaine 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.6 1.9

Steroids 1.2 2.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 1.9

Heroin 1.1 3.2 1.6 0.9 2.8 1.7

Other narcotics 2.2 8.3 3.8 2.0 7.5 4.3

Depressants 1.7 7.1 3.1 1.9 7.2 4.1

Any illicit drug 18.7 44.2 25.3 21.3 43.2 30.2


Alcohol only 13.3 16.3 14.0 13.5 15.2 14.2




Table 3a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) youth who reported having used various drugs in the last 30 days, by grade cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalMiddle High


Alcohol 15.1 45.2 23.3 20.4 43.4 31.0

Alcohol Binge* 7.2 26.9 12.6 8.8 23.3 15.6

Cigarettes 8.3 25.2 12.9 9.8 21.7 15.3


Inhalants 5.8 3.7 5.2 5.7 3.2 4.6

Marijuana 4.6 18.0 8.3 5.1 18.3 11.2

Hallucinogens 1.3 3.2 1.8 1.0 3.9 2.4


Cocaine 0.7 1.7 1.0 0.8 2.0 1.4

Crack cocaine 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6

Steroids 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8

Heroin 0.4 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.6

Other narcotics 1.2 4.4 2.1 0.8 3.6 2.1

Depressants 0.6 2.8 1.2 0.6 2.5 1.5

Any illicit drug 9.7 21.2 12.8 10.6 21.9 15.8


Alcohol only 6.8 17.8 9.8 10.2 18.7 14.2


*Had five or more drinks in one sitting in the last two weeks.



Table 3b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) youth who reported having used various drugs in the last 30 days, by sex.

Volusia Florida


Alcohol 22.6 24.0 23.3 31.2 30.7 31.0

Alcohol Binge* 12.9 12.2 12.6 17.4 14.0 15.6

Cigarettes 11.7 14.0 12.9 15.2 15.3 15.3


Inhalants 5.6 4.9 5.2 4.8 4.3 4.6

Marijuana 9.6 7.1 8.3 13.0 9.6 11.2

Hallucinogens 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.1 2.4


Cocaine 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.6 1.2 1.4

Crack cocaine 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Steroids 0.9 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.8

Heroin 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6

Other narcotics 2.6 1.6 2.1 2.2 2.0 2.1

Depressants 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.5

Any illicit drug 14.2 11.5 12.8 17.6 14.1 15.8


Alcohol only 9.0 10.6 9.8 13.2 15.0 14.2





Table 3c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) youth who reported having used various drugs in the last 30 days, by age cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalAges Ages

Total10-14 15-17Ages Ages10-14 15-17

Alcohol 15.0 47.2 23.3 21.9 44.0 31.0

Alcohol Binge* 7.0 27.8 12.6 9.3 24.1 15.6

Cigarettes 8.1 26.8 12.9 10.3 22.3 15.3


Inhalants 5.6 4.3 5.2 5.5 3.2 4.6

Marijuana 4.4 18.9 8.3 5.4 19.6 11.2

Hallucinogens 1.2 3.5 1.8 1.1 4.2 2.4


Cocaine 0.7 1.7 1.0 0.8 2.1 1.4

Crack cocaine 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6

Steroids 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8

Heroin 0.5 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.6

Other narcotics 1.2 4.8 2.1 1.0 3.6 2.1

Depressants 0.6 3.0 1.2 0.6 2.5 1.5

Any illicit drug 9.3 22.9 12.8 10.8 23.1 15.8


Alcohol only 6.8 18.6 9.8 11.2 18.5 14.2





Table 4a. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth, by grade cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalMiddle High


More than a sip of alcohol 11.0 13.1 11.8 11.1 12.9 12.1

Drinking at least once a month 11.8 14.6 13.6 11.9 14.4 13.8

Tobacco 11.0 12.3 11.6 11.0 12.4 11.9

Marijuana 11.9 13.7 13.1 11.9 13.7 13.2



Table 4b. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth, by sex.

Volusia Florida




Tobacco 11.4 11.7 11.6 11.7 12.0 11.9

Marijuana 13.0 13.2 13.1 13.1 13.4 13.2



Table 4c. Mean age of first substance use among Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth, by age cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalAges Ages

Total10-14 15-17Ages Ages10-14 15-17



Tobacco 11.0 12.2 11.6 11.1 12.4 11.9

Marijuana 11.9 13.6 13.1 12.0 13.6 13.2



Table 5a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months by grade cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalMiddle High


Carried handgun 3.3 5.6 3.9 3.6 5.1 4.3

Sold illegal drugs 2.1 8.2 3.7 2.6 9.2 5.6

Stole/attempted to steal a vehicle 2.7 4.0 3.0 2.7 3.8 3.2

Was arrested 3.7 5.9 4.3 5.1 8.0 6.4

Taken a handgun to school 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.1

Been suspended from school 12.4 13.6 12.8 14.5 15.1 14.7

Attacked someone with intent to harm 13.5 15.5 14.0 14.6 16.1 15.3

Was drunk or high at school 5.8 20.3 9.7 6.9 18.6 12.2



Table 5b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months by sex.

Volusia Florida


Carried handgun 6.6 1.4 3.9 7.1 1.5 4.3



Was arrested 5.8 2.9 4.3 9.1 3.9 6.4







Table 5c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth who reported engaging in delinquent behavior within the past 12 months by age cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalAges Ages

Total10-14 15-17Ages Ages10-14 15-17

Carried handgun 3.3 5.4 3.9 3.3 5.5 4.3



Was arrested 3.3 7.2 4.3 4.7 9.0 6.4







Table 6a. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being 'cool' and harm by grade cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalMiddle High


Perceive great risk of harm if ...

One or more drinks every day 42.7 37.0 41.1 41.8 42.0 41.9Smoke a pack or more every day 67.1 70.2 68.0 63.7 68.9 66.1Smoke marijuana regularly 74.7 55.1 69.3 71.4 55.9 64.3Try marijuana once or twice 42.3 21.5 36.6 40.1 25.1 33.2

Seen as cool if ....

Drink alcohol regularly 6.3 4.9 5.9 7.5 5.9 6.7Smoke cigarettes 5.4 10.8 6.8 6.9 11.2 8.9Smoke marijuana 6.2 9.5 7.1 8.2 11.9 9.9

Think it wrong if ...

Smoke cigarettes 88.3 59.7 80.6 85.9 65.4 76.6Drink alcohol regularly 85.8 50.1 76.3 82.0 54.7 69.6Smoke marijuana 93.4 70.5 87.2 92.0 71.8 82.8Use other illicit drugs 97.4 91.7 95.8 96.6 91.2 94.2



Table 6b. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being 'cool' and harm by sex.

Volusia Florida










Table 6c. Percentage of Florida (N=62,146) and Volusia County (n=4,829) surveyed youth who reported perceptions of risk, being 'cool' and harm by age cohorts.

Volusia Florida

TotalAges Ages

Total10-14 15-17Ages Ages10-14 15-17









Like Counties FloridaProtective factor scores

Table 7. Protective factor information for Florida (N=62,146), Volusia County (n=4,829), and counties like Volusia, across the Community, Family, School and Individual-Peer Domains.

Volusia County

Community Domain

Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 50 48 48

Family Domain

Family Attachment 54 51 51Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 56 53 53Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 56 52 52

School Domain

School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 51 50 50School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 49 45 45

Individua-Peer Domain

Religiosity 48 48 48Social Skills 56 52 53Belief in the Moral Order 59 53 53

Note: A score of 50 represents the national average based on the CTC Six-State Study. Scores above 50 indicate that Florida students are, on average, elevated in the specific risk or protective factor when compared to the norms established by the CTC Six-State Study and scores below 50 indicate that Florida students are lower than the norms established by the CTC Six-State Study on the specific risk or protective factors. "Like counties" are defined as counties with similar 6th - 12th grade student population.

53 50 50Average Protective Factor


Like Counties FloridaRisk factor scores

Table 8. Risk factor information for Florida (N=62,146), Volusia County (n=4,829), and counties like Volusia, across the Community, Family, School and Individual-Peer Domains.

Volusia County

Community Domain

Low Neighborhood Attachment 54 56 56Community Disorganization 49 51 53Personal Transitions and Mobility 58 60 59Community Transitions and Mobility 51 52 52Laws and Norms 39 45 43Perceived Availability 38 44 42

Family Domain

Poor Family Supervision 46 50 50Poor Family Discipline 46 52 53Family History of Antisocial Behavior 46 49 47Parental Attitudes Favorable to ATOD Use 45 48 46Parental Att. Favorable to Antisocial Behavior 47 49 48

School Domain

Academic Failure 55 58 60Low School Commitment 48 53 51

Individua-Peer Domain

Perceived Risks of Drug Use 37 40 39Early Initiation 45 49 49Impulsiveness 52 55 53Sensation Seeking 48 51 48Rebelliousness 41 44 43Friends' Delinquent Behavior 53 56 55Friends' Use of Drugs 42 49 47Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior 38 41 41Favorable Attitudes Towards Antisocial Behavior 34 38 37Favorable Attitudes to ATOD Use 41 48 46


46 49 49 Average Risk Factor


Like Counties FloridaOutcome factor scores

Table 9. Behavioral outcome indices for Florida (N=62,146), Volusia County (n=4,829), and counties like Volusia.

Volusia County

Outcomes

Current Alcohol, Tobacco and Drug Use 44 49 48Current Antisocial Behavior 49 51 51Gang Involvement 46 47 47



Graph 1. Protective factor scores for Volusia County (n=4,829) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages.

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Com

m. Rew

ards f

or Pros

ocial

Inv.

Fam

ily A

ttach

ment

Fam

ily O

pp. fo

r Pros

ocial

Invo

lvemen

t

Fam

ily R

eward

s for

Prosoc

ial In

v.

Sch

ool O

pp. fo

r Pros

ocial

Inv.

Sch

ool R

eward

s for

Prosoc

ial In

v.

Reli

giosit

y

Soc

ial Skil

ls

Beli

ef in

the M

oral o

rder

VolusiaLike County AverageState Average

Note: A score of 50 represents the national average based on the CTC Six-State Study. Scores above 50 indicate that Florida students are, on average, elevated in the specific risk or protective factor when compared to national norms and scores below 50 indicate that Florida students are lower than the national norms on the specific risk or protective factors. "Like Counties" are defined as counties with similar 6th - 12th grade student population.

(c) 2000 Department of Children and Families Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey 2000

Graph 2a. Risk factor scores for Volusia County (n=4,829) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages: Community, School and Family Domains.

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Low

Neig

hborh

ood A

ttach

ment

Com

munity

Diso

rganiz

ation

Pers

onal

Transit

ions a

nd M

obilit

y

Com

munity

Tran

sition

s and

Mob

ility

Law

s and

Norm

s

Perc

eived

Ava

ilabil

ity P

oor F

amily

Superv

ision

Poo

r Fam

ily D

iscipl

ine

Fam

ily H

istory

of A

ntiso

cial B

ehav

ior

Pare

ntal A

tt. Fav

orable

to A

TOD use

Par.

Att.

Fav. to

Anti

socia

l Beh

avior

Aca

demic

Failure

Low

Schoo

l Com

mitmen

t

Volusia

Like County Average

State Average

Community Domain Family Domain School Domain



Graph 2b. Risk factor scores for Volusia County (n=4,829) compared to National, State (N=62,146), and like-county averages in the Individual/Peer Domain, and behavioral outcomes indices.

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Reb

elliou

sness

Frie

nds' D

elinq

uent

Behav

ior

Frie

nds' U

se of

Drugs

Pee

r Rew

ards f

or Anti

socia

l Beh

avior

Fav

. Att.

Toward

s Anti

socia

l Beh

avior

Fav

. Att.

Toward

s ATOD us

e

Perc

eived

Risk

s Drug

Use

Earl

y Init

iation

Impu

lsive

ness

Sen

sation

Seekin

g

Curren

t ATOD us

e

Curren

t Anti

socia

l Beh

avior

Gang I

nvolv

emen

t

VolusiaLike County AverageState Average

Outcome Behavior IndexIndividual-Peer Domain



florida youth substance abuse survey volusia county report€¦ · florida youth substance abuse...

Documents