HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey Report - Franklin County.pdf2011 Pennsylvania
Youth Survey Report
Franklin County
Conducted by
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
Table of Contents
Section 1: The Survey ....................................................................................................................1
Introduction.........................................................................................................................1
Summary of Results ............................................................................................................2
Exploring PAYS Results Online via SmartTrackTM ............................................................3
Survey Methodology .........................................................................................................3
Demographic Profile of Surveyed Youth........................................................................6
Section 2: School Climate and Safety.........................................................................................9
Introduction.........................................................................................................................9
Bullying at School and Internet Safety............................................................................9
Violence and Drugs on School Property ......................................................................11
Gang Involvement...........................................................................................................11
Other Antisocial Behaviors..............................................................................................12
Section 3: Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use ...................................................................15
Measurement ...................................................................................................................15
Results Summary...............................................................................................................15
Item-Level Results .............................................................................................................20
Prescription Drugs.............................................................................................................28
Risk of Harm.......................................................................................................................31
Disapproval of Drug Use .................................................................................................32
Social Norms about ATOD Use.......................................................................................33
Parental Disapproval of Drug Use .................................................................................34
Frequency of Drug Use....................................................................................................35
Section 4: Special Topics ............................................................................................................39
Introduction.......................................................................................................................39
Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behavior.......................................39
Driving after Alcohol or Marijuana Use .........................................................................40
Willingness to Try or Use ATODs ......................................................................................41
Gambling ..........................................................................................................................42
Symptoms of Depression.................................................................................................42
Section 5: Risk and Protective Factors.......................................................................................45
Introduction.......................................................................................................................45
Results Summary...............................................................................................................47
Protective Factors ............................................................................................................52
Risk Factors ........................................................................................................................56
Appendix A: Historical Data .......................................................................................................69
Introduction.......................................................................................................................69
Demographic Trends.......................................................................................................69ATOD Results, 2007 and 2009 .........................................................................................70
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
Other Antisocial Behavior Results, 2007 and 2009 ......................................................72
Risk and Protective Results, 2007 and 2009 .................................................................73
Appendix B: Risk and Protective Factor Scale Construction Summary ................................75
Appendix C: List of Tables and Graphs ....................................................................................89
Appendix D: Other Resources ...................................................................................................93
Web Sites ..........................................................................................................................93
Prevention Program Guides...........................................................................................93
Prevention Planning ........................................................................................................93
References ..................................................................................................................................95
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-1 -
Section 1: The Survey
Introduction
Since 1989, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has conducted a survey of secondary school students on
their behavior, attitudes and knowledge concerning alcohol, tobacco, other drugs and violence. The
Pennsylvania Youth Survey (PAYS)of 6th,8th,10th and 12th grade public school students is conducted every
two years. The findings from the PAYS build upon the data gathered during the five previous waves of the
survey in 2001,2003,2005,2007 and 2009,as well as the Generation at Risk survey, a biennial study of
drug use prevalence rates that was conducted from 1989 through 1997.
This survey was sponsored by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD). The
PCCD contracted with SmartTrack, Inc., to conduct the survey, which was administered in fall of 2011.
This report was prepared by Rothenbach Research and Consulting, LLC.
The data gathered in the PAYS serve two primary needs. First, the survey results provide an important
benchmark for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use and delinquent behavior among young
Pennsylvanians, and help indicate whether prevention and treatment programs are achieving their intended
results. Second, the survey assesses risk factors that are related to these behaviors and the protective
factors that guard against them. This information allows community leaders and school administrators to
direct prevention resources to areas where they are likely to have the greatest impact.
The Communities That Care Youth Survey (CTCYS)was adopted as the basis for the PAYS. Based on the
work of Dr. J. David Hawkins and Dr. Richard F. Catalano, the CTCYS is designed to identify the levels of
risk factors related to problem behaviors such as ATOD use—and to identify the levels of protective
factors that help guard against those behaviors. In addition to measuring risk and protective factors, the
CTCYS also measures the actual prevalence of drug use, violence and other antisocial behaviors among
surveyed students.Three articles (Pollard, Hawkins & Arthur, 1999; Arthur, Hawkins, Pollard, Catalano &
Baglioni, 2002;Glaser, Van Horn, Arthur, Hawkins & Catalano, 2005)describe the CTCYS, its uses and
its ongoing development.
By administering the PAYS,Franklin County has assessed the risk and protective factors its young people
face. This report identifies the risk and protective factors most in need of attention in the community. This
Section 1
The Survey
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-2 -
information can be used to guide prevention efforts, to help address existing problems, and to promote
healthy and positive youth development.
Of course, the survey would not have been possible without the support and cooperation of school
superintendents, parents and students throughout the Commonwealth. The PCCD would like to take this
opportunity to thank these individuals for supporting this valuable and worthwhile endeavor.
All together, 2,107 students in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 participated in the survey.
Summary of Results
This report presents findings on a number of topics, including ATOD use and risk and protective factors.
A brief summary of the findings from each of these sections is presented here. A more detailed summary is
presented at the start of each section, followed by an item-by-item discussion of the results.
Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug Use
Franklin County students recorded the highest lifetime prevalence-of-use rates for alcohol (40.9%),
cigarettes (25.1%), marijuana (15.1%), smokeless tobacco (14.0%) and inhalants (11.8%). Other lifetime
prevalence rates ranged from 0.2% for heroin to 2.5% for hallucinogens. The rate of illicit drug useexcluding marijuana is summarized by the indicator “any illicit drug (other than marijuana),” with 13.9%
of surveyed students reporting use of these drugs in their lifetimes. Franklin County students reported the
highest past-30-day prevalence-of-use rates for alcohol (19.5%), cigarettes (10.3%), smokeless tobacco
(7.9%), marijuana (7.6%) and inhalants (6.6%). Other past-30-day prevalence rates ranged from 0.1% for
heroin to 1.0% for hallucinogens. Overall, 8.0% of Franklin County students reported the use of any illicit
drug (other than marijuana) in the past 30 days.
National data from the Monitoring the Future survey provide a valuable reference point for evaluating the
severity of drug use behavior. Compared to their national counterparts, Franklin County students reported
higher average levels of lifetime smokeless tobacco, cigarette and inhalant use and lower average levels of
lifetime marijuana, Ecstasy and hallucinogen use. For past-30-day ATOD use, students reported higher
average levels of smokeless tobacco, inhalant and cigarette use than their national counterparts and a lower
average level of marijuana use.
Risk and Protective Factor Profile
For the overall sample of 6th,8th, 10th and 12th graders in Franklin County, percentile scores across the nine
protective factor scales range from a low of 35 to a high of 67, with an average score of 54, which is four
points higher than the normative average of 50. The three lowest overall scores were for the following
protective factor scales:Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement (35),Religiosity (48) and
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement (50). Franklin County students reported the three highest
overall scores for the following protective factor scales:School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement (67),
Belief in the Moral Order (65) and School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement (62).
Overall percentile scores across the 23 risk factor scales range from a low of 39 to a high of 68, with an
average score of 47, which is three points lower than the normative average of 50. Franklin County
students reported the three highest overall scores for the following risk factor scales:Community
Disorganization (68),Perceived Availability of Handguns (59) and Parental Attitudes Favorable toward
Antisocial Behavior (55). The three lowest overall scores were for the following risk factor scales:Early
Initiation of Drug Use (39),Friends’ Use of Drugs (40) and Rebelliousness (40).
While policies that target any risk or protective factor could potentially be an important resource for
students in Franklin County, focusing prevention planning in high risk and low protection areas could be
especially beneficial. Similarly, factors with low risk or high protection represent strengths that Franklin
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-3 -
County can build on. These objective data, in conjunction with a review of community-specific issues and
resources, can help direct prevention efforts for Franklin County. It is important to keep in mind, however,
that overall scores can mask problems within individual grades. Section 5 of this report provides grade-
level results that will enable prevention planners to more precisely target opportunities for intervention.
Exploring PAYS Results Online via SmartTrackTM
This report includes a detailed review of findings from each content area of the PAYS questionnaire.Some
counties and schools, however, may wish to go beyond these key metrics.In order to facilitate this
process,all 2011 survey participants will have the ability to review their results using the SmartTrackTM
online data browsing system.
SmartTrack’s internet-based reporting tools allow for instant presentation of various reports, ranging from
frequency distributions to crosstabulations. Data can be viewed in both table and graph formats (via
Excel), and users can review results for any appropriate aggregation or subsample.
Here is an example of an Excel chart generated using SmartTrack.In this report, an educator is examining
student perception of the risk associated with smoking cigarettes.
How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they:
No risk Slight risk Moderate risk Great risk Skips Totals
Smoke one or more packs of
cigarettes per day?07.22%05.60%27.15%59.23%0.80%100%
SmartTrack online access will be available to authorized users beginning in late January and will continue
through the end of the 2012-2013 school year.For more information on accessing your results, or any
other questions about SmartTrack, you can visit the website at www.thesmarttrack.com,email
info@thesmarttrack.com,or call (866) 714-8080.
Survey Methodology
The CTCYS was developed to provide scientifically sound information to communities. It measures a
variety of risk and protective factors by using groups of survey items, which are called scales. Please note
that some of the risk factors are measured with more than one scale.
The CTCYS was developed from research funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This research supported the development of a student
survey to measure the following items:
■risk and protective factors that predict alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, delinquency
and other problem behaviors in adolescents.
■the prevalence and frequency of drug use.
■the prevalence and frequency of antisocial behaviors.
This survey instrument became the CTCYS.The original research involved data collection in five states:
Kansas, Maine, Oregon, South Carolina and Washington. Over 72,000 students participated in these
statewide surveys, and analysis of the collected data contributed to the development of the CTCYS.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-4 -
The PAYS Questionnaire
Participating school districts are offered two versions of the PAYS questionnaire. The standard version
includes the full set of survey items for school climate and safety,ATOD use, and risk and protective
factors. The alternative version omits the items used to calculate the family domain risk and protective
factors.
The 2011 PAYS questionnaires are identical to the ones used in 2009. Please note, however, that the
following questionnaire changes were introduced in the 2009 survey cycle:
■Items from the 2007 questionnaire assessing the abuse of prescription drugs were replaced with
six new questions designed to measure prevalence-of-use rates across the three prescription drug
categories: pain relievers, stimulants and tranquilizers.
■The risk factor scale Laws and Norms Favorable to Handguns was dropped from the
questionnaire. All other risk and protective factor scales from the 2007 questionnaire were
retained in full.
■The 2009 questionnaire included six items addressing student experiences with gambling. Two of
the six gambling questions—the past-12-months and past-30-days gambling for “money oranything of value” items—are identical to questions used on the 2005 and 2007 surveys. The
sports betting, lottery ticket, and table gaming questions are similar to questions used in the 2007
survey.
■Starting in 2009, the PAYS asked students a series of eight questions about bullying at school and
internet safety.
■The ordering of items throughout the 2009 questionnaire was changed so that data points most
critical to the prevention planning process would be collected in first sections of the survey. This
change improves the response rate for these key items.
■For some survey items,the layout of the question and response options was changed in order to
improve readability.
Administration
The survey was administered in the classroom and required approximately one class period to complete.
Each teacher received an appropriate number of surveys and survey collection envelopes. The teachers
reviewed the instructions with their students and asked the students to complete the survey. The
instructions informed the students that there were no right or wrong answers. The instructions also
explained the proper way to mark the answers.In some schools, some or all of the student respondents
completed the survey in a computer lab using an internet-based survey administration system.The
contractor,SmartTrack, Inc.,managed the internet administration.Please see the statewide 2011 PAYS
report for more information on this system.
Students were asked to complete the survey but were also told that participation is voluntary. Furthermore,
students were told that they could skip any question that they were not comfortable answering. Both the
teacher and the written instructions on the front of the survey form assured students that the survey was
anonymous and confidential.
Survey Validation
Four strategies were used to assess the validity of the surveys. The first two strategies eliminated the
surveys of students who appeared to exaggerate their drug use and other antisocial behavior. The third
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-5 -
strategy eliminated students who reported use of a fictitious drug. The fourth strategy eliminated the
surveys of students who repeatedly reported logically inconsistent patterns of drug use.
■In the first strategy, surveys from students who reported an average of four or more daily uses of
the following drugs—inhalants, cocaine,hallucinogens, Ecstasy, methamphetamine and heroin—
were eliminated from the survey data set. This strategy removes from the analysis any student who
did not take it seriously.
■The second strategy supplements the drug use exaggeration test by examining the frequency of
four other antisocial behaviors:Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm,Attempting to Steal a
Vehicle,Being Arrested, and Getting Suspended. Respondents who reported an unrealistically high
frequency of these behaviors—more than 80 instances within the past year—were removed from
the analysis.
■In the third strategy, students were asked if they had used a fictitious drug in the past 30 days or in
their lifetimes. If students reported any use of the fictitious drug, their surveys were not included
in the analysis of the findings.
■The fourth strategy was used to detect logical inconsistencies among responses to the drug-related
questions. Students were identified as inconsistent responders in the following circumstances only:
(1) if they were inconsistent on two or more of the following drugs: alcohol, cigarettes, smokeless
tobacco and marijuana/hashish; or (2) if they were inconsistent on two or more of the remaining
drugs. An example of an inconsistent response would be if a student reported that he or she had
used alcohol three to five times in the past 30 days but had never used alcohol in his or her
lifetime.
Franklin County students were cooperative—all but 93 students (4.2%) completed valid surveys. Of the 93
surveys identified and eliminated by one or more of the four strategies described above, 32 exaggerated
drug use (strategy 1), 23 exaggerated other antisocial behavior (strategy 2), 63 reported the use of the
fictitious drug (strategy 3) and 44 responded in a logically inconsistent way (strategy 4). The elimination
total produced by these four strategies equals more than 93 because some surveys were identified by more
than one strategy.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-6 -
Sample Analysis
When reviewing survey results people often ask, “What is the margin of error?” This is referred to as the
“confidence interval,” and it reflects the precision of a statistical estimate. For example, a confidence
interval of ±3.0 points for a drug use prevalence rate of 50.0% means that there is a 95% chance that the
true score is between 47.0% and 53.0%.
For school-based survey research, confidence intervals are determined by the size of the sample relative tothe school’s enrollment. The higher the percentage of a school’s total enrollment that is included in the
sample, the smaller the confidence interval and the more precise the results. Table 1 presents confidence
intervals for both grade-level and overall estimates. Note that these confidence intervals are for prevalence
rates of 50%. For less prevalent behaviors, such as heroin use and bringing a weapon to school, the
confidence interval narrows substantially.
Table 1. Confidence Intervals for Sample
Enrollment Sample ConfidenceIntervalGradeNumberPercentageNumberPercentage
6th 1,783 26.2%576 27.3%±3.4%
7th ----------
8th 1,724 25.3%647 30.7%±3.0%
9th ----------
10th 1,720 25.3%512 24.3%±3.6%
11th ----------
12th 1,582 23.2%372 17.7%±4.4%
Totals 6,809 100.0%2,107 100.0%±1.8%
Note: Rounding can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The total sample size in this table does not include respondents who did not report their grade level.
Demographic Profile of Surveyed Youth
The survey measures a variety of demographic characteristics. Table 2 shows selected characteristics of
surveyed youth: sex, ethnicity and the primary language spoken at home. The primary language spoken at
home refers to the primary language the student speaks at home (rather than what the parents speak at
home).
A higher percentage of surveyed Franklin County students were female (50.4% female versus 44.4%
male). A majority of students identified themselves as White (82.9%). The largest minority group is
African American (3.3%), followed by Latino (2.3%), Asian (1.3%) and American Indian (0.9%). Note
that while the “Other/Multiple” category listed on all tables includes students who selected “Other” as
their primary ethnicity, this category also includes those students who selected multiple ethnicities.
Therefore, for example, students who reported both African American and Latino ethnicity would beclassified in the “Other/Multiple” category for the purposes of this report.
Nearly all of the surveyed students (97.2%) reported English as the language they most often speak at
home.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-7 -
Table 2.Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Youth
Number of Students Percentage of Students
Overall Valid Surveys 2,107 100.0%
Sex
Male 936 44.4%
Female 1,061 50.4%
Did not respond 110 5.2%
Ethnicity
White 1,746 82.9%
Black or African American 69 3.3%
Spanish/Hispanic/Latino 49 2.3%
American Indian/Native American, Eskimo or Aleut 19 0.9%
Asian or Pacific Islander 27 1.3%
Other/Multiple 183 8.7%
Did not respond 14 0.7%
Primary Language Spoken at Home
English 2,047 97.2%
Spanish 23 1.1%
Other Language 20 0.9%
Did not respond 17 0.8%
Note: Rounding can produce totals that do not equal 100%.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-9 -
Section 2: School Climate and Safety
Introduction
Over the last 15 years, many youth survey programs, including PAYS,have moved to incorporate risk and
protective factor data alongside more traditional health behavior assessments. As this approach has
evolved, school climate and safety have emerged as focal points for prevention programming and policy
planning.
Over the last several survey cycles,PAYS has responded to this shift by adding a number of new items. In
previous years,response data from these climate and safety questions were presented in the Other
Antisocial Behavior,Special Topics, and Additional Prevention Planning Data sections of PAYS county
and district reports.To better meet the needs of PAYS data users, this year’s report has been reorganized,
with key school climate and safety data being aggregated in this new section.
Bullying at School and Internet Safety
While bullying is not a new phenomenon, the growing awareness that bullying has serious consequences
for both schools and students is new.Bullying behavior contributes to lower attendance rates, lower
student achievement, low self-esteem and depression, as well as higher rates of both juvenile and adult
crime (Banks, 1997). While the problem of bullying is receiving increased public attention, actual
incidences of bullying often go undetected by both teachers and parents (Skiba and Fontanini, 2000).
Adults often fail to both identify bullying incidences and understand the dynamics of the behavior.
Without adequate training adults may actually endorse the bullying behavior, either by sending childrenthe message that bullying is “part of growing up” or by simply ignoring the behavior (U.S. Department of
Education, 1998).
The most effective means of addressing bullying is through comprehensive, school-wide programs (Atlas
and Pepler, 1998; Garrity et al., 1997; Skiba and Fontanini, 2000). A student survey is one of the most
common methods for identifying a potential bullying problem in a school (Leff, Power, and Goldstein,
2004).Starting in 2009, the PAYS asked students a series of eight questions about bullying at school and
internet safety. These include past-12-month prevalence measures for: (1) being “hit, kicked, pushed,
shoved around, or locked indoors,” (2) being “called names, made fun of, or teased in a hurtful way,” (3)being “left out of things on purpose by other students,” (4) other students telling lies or spreading false
Section 2
School Climate and Safety
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-10 -
rumors, (5) other students taking money or damaging your things, (6) other students threatening or forcing
“you to do things you do not want to do,” (7) other students using “the internet or a cell phone to threaten
or embarrass you,” and (8) someone on the internet trying “to get you to talk online about sex, look at
sexual pictures, or do something else sexual when you did not want to.”
Results for Franklin County students are presented in Table 3, and comparison data from the statewide
survey are presented in Table 4.(Please note that throughout this report tables that include statewide
results are shaded orange, while tables that include county or district results are shaded blue.)As they are
throughout the majority of this report, survey results for this topic are presented as prevalence rates. Each
data point shows the percentage of students who reported being bullied or sexually harassed on one or
more occasions within the past year.
Table 3. Percentage of Youth Reporting Bullying at School or Sexual Harassment on theInternet in the Past Year,Franklin County 2011
Female Male 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
%%%%%%%%%%
Been hit, kicked, pushed, or shoved around 14.4 23.6 23.9 --21.7 --15.6 --12.0 19.1
Been called names, made fun of, or teased 46.4 40.6 44.1 --48.9 --43.7 --33.1 43.6
Been left out of things on purpose 36.7 27.2 34.8 --37.8 --26.7 --27.2 32.4
Other students telling lies or spreading falserumors 53.8 45.7 48.4 --53.3 --49.8 --47.1 50.0
Other students taking money or damaging yourthings 17.1 21.3 16.6 --23.6 --16.5 --17.3 18.9
Other students threatening or forcing you to dothings 13.2 12.0 12.8 --15.6 --11.5 --9.0 12.7
Other students using the internet or a cell phoneto threaten or embarrass you 16.9 9.6 8.5 --14.8 --13.8 --17.6 13.4
Sexual harassment on the internet 19.6 10.5 7.1 --16.8 --20.0 --18.8 15.4
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 4. Percentage of Youth Reporting Bullying at School or Sexual Harassment on the
Internet in the Past Year, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
Female Male 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
%%%%%%%%%%
Been hit, kicked, pushed, or shoved around 12.5 19.5 20.0 --21.5 --13.2 --9.4 15.9
Been called names, made fun of, or teased 43.7 39.8 39.1 --48.4 --43.2 --35.9 41.7
Been left out of things on purpose 38.2 27.7 30.4 --36.2 --33.4 --31.5 32.9
Other students telling lies or spreading falserumors 54.6 45.8 45.3 --55.7 --50.9 --48.8 50.3
Other students taking money or damaging yourthings 18.7 20.9 16.3 --23.6 --20.3 --18.6 19.8
Other students threatening or forcing you to dothings 11.4 11.9 11.4 --15.0 --11.5 --8.9 11.7
Other students using the internet or a cell phoneto threaten or embarrass you 15.6 8.6 7.3 --14.7 --13.3 --13.0 12.1
Sexual harassment on the internet 15.5 9.0 6.1 --13.9 --15.0 --13.4 12.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-11 -
Violence and Drugs on School Property
Pennsylvania students were also surveyed regarding the frequency with which they have been threatened
or attacked on school property within the past year, and whether they were offered, given, or sold illegal
drugs on school property within the past year. Results for Franklin County students are presented in Table
5, and comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 6.
Table 5. Percentage of Youth Reporting Violence or Drugs on School Property in the Past Year,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Threatened to be hit or beaten up 17.9 --25.7 --26.6 --14.9 21.9
Attacked or beaten up 10.6 --10.4 --7.8 --4.9 8.9
Threatened with a weapon 3.5 --3.6 --3.3 --1.5 3.1
Attacked with a weapon 0.7 --1.6 --1.6 --0.6 1.2
Been offered, given, or sold an illegaldrug 1.9 --9.4 --12.7 --16.0 9.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 6.Percentage of Youth Reporting Violence or Drugs on School Property in the Past Year,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Threatened to be hit or beaten up 16.0 --21.6 --17.5 --12.9 17.0
Attacked or beaten up 8.2 --8.3 --6.4 --4.6 6.8
Threatened with a weapon 2.6 --2.9 --2.9 --1.9 2.6
Attacked with a weapon 1.0 --0.9 --1.0 --0.9 0.9
Been offered, given, or sold an illegaldrug 1.5 --7.2 --15.0 --18.3 10.8
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Gang Involvement
Gangs have long been associated with crime, violence and other antisocial behaviors. Evidence suggests
that gangs contribute to antisocial behavior beyond simple association with delinquent peers. Table 7
presents the percentage of surveyed youth indicating gang involvement. Comparison data from the
statewide survey are presented in Table 8.
Table 7. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Gang Involvement,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Ever Belonged to a Gang 3.0 --6.1 --4.8 --4.0 4.6
Belonged to a Gang with a Name 2.6 --4.4 --4.8 --3.5 3.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-12 -
Table 8. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Gang Involvement, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Ever Belonged to a Gang 3.8 --5.2 --4.7 --4.0 4.4
Belonged to a Gang with a Name 2.9 --4.5 --4.6 --4.0 4.0
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Other Antisocial Behaviors
The PAYS measures a series of seven other problem, or antisocial, behaviors—that is, behaviors that run
counter to established norms of good behavior.For the first six other antisocial behaviors, prevalence rates
are presented for the incidence of behavior over the past 12 months. For Bringing a Weapon (Such as a
Gun, Knife or Club) to School, prevalence rates are reported for the past 30 days.Results for Franklin
County students are presented in Table 9, and comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in
Table 10.
Table 9. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 6.3 --10.3 --10.9 --11.8 9.6
Attempting to Steal a Vehicle 0.2 --1.4 --2.0 --1.8 1.3
Being Arrested 0.8 --3.4 --6.5 --5.4 3.8
Being Drunk or High at School 0.8 --6.3 --12.0 --15.0 7.7
Getting Suspended 3.5 --8.1 --10.3 --7.2 7.3
Selling Drugs 0.0 --1.0 --8.3 --8.8 3.9
Bringing a Weapon to School 0.9 --2.8 --3.2 --4.0 2.6
Average 1.8 --4.8 --7.6 --7.7 5.2
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 10. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 5.2 --8.8 --9.2 --8.6 8.0
Attempting to Steal a Vehicle 0.3 --1.2 --1.7 --1.8 1.3
Being Arrested 1.0 --3.0 --4.3 --4.8 3.4
Being Drunk or High at School 1.0 --4.7 --11.5 --15.9 8.5
Getting Suspended 5.1 --7.5 --7.9 --8.0 7.2
Selling Drugs 0.3 --1.7 --6.1 --9.8 4.6
Bringing a Weapon to School 1.0 --1.8 --2.1 --2.7 1.9
Average 2.0 --4.1 --6.1 --7.4 5.0
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-13 -
Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School
More detailed survey results for of bringing a weapon (such as a gun, knife or club) to school are
presented in Tables 11 and 12.These tables show the percentage of students who reported bringing a
weapon to school on a specific number of occasions in the past 30 days.
Table 11. Past-30-Day Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Never 99.1 --97.2 --96.8 --96.0 97.4
1 or 2 times 0.7 --1.9 --1.6 --2.3 1.6
3 to 5 times 0.0 --0.5 --0.6 --0.6 0.4
6 to 9 times 0.0 --0.2 --0.0 --0.3 0.1
10 to 19 times 0.2 --0.2 --0.4 --0.3 0.2
20 to 29 times 0.0 --0.0 --0.0 --0.3 0.0
30 to 39 times 0.0 --0.0 --0.2 --0.0 0.0
40+ times 0.0 --0.0 --0.4 --0.3 0.1
Note: Rounding can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available becausestudents were not surveyed.
Table 12. Past-30-Day Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School, Pennsylvania Statewide2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Never 99.0 --98.2 --97.9 --97.3 98.1
1 or 2 times 0.8 --1.3 --1.4 --1.3 1.2
3 to 5 times 0.1 --0.1 --0.1 --0.4 0.2
6 to 9 times 0.0 --0.1 --0.1 --0.2 0.1
10 to 19 times 0.0 --0.0 --0.1 --0.1 0.1
20 to 29 times 0.0 --0.0 --0.0 --0.1 0.1
30 to 39 times 0.0 --0.1 --0.0 --0.2 0.1
40+ times 0.1 --0.2 --0.3 --0.4 0.2
Note: Rounding can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-15 -
Section 3: Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use
Measurement
Alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use is measured in the PAYS by a set of 36 questions. The
questions are similar to those used in the Monitoring the Future study, a nationwide study of drug use by
middle and high school students. Consequently, national data as well as data from other similar surveys
can be easily compared to data from the PAYS.
Prevalence-of-use tables and graphs show the percentages of students who reported using ATODs. These
results are presented for both lifetime and past-30-day prevalence of use periods. Lifetime prevalence of
use (whether the student has ever used the drug) is a good measure of student experimentation. Past-30-
day prevalence of use (whether the student has used the drug within the last month) is a good measure of
current use. In addition to the standard lifetime and past-30-day prevalence rates for alcohol use, binge
drinking behavior (defined as a report of five or more drinks in a row within the past two weeks) is also
measured.
A multi-question indicator—“any illicit drug (other than marijuana)”—measures the use of one or more of
the following drugs: inhalants, cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, methamphetamine, Ecstasy
and steroids. The purpose of this drug combination rate is to provide prevention planners with an overall
gauge of so-called “hard” drug use (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman &Schulenberg,2011a).
The survey also includes six questions designed to measure nonmedical use of prescription drugs. The
questions cover three general categories of nonmedical prescription drug use:pain relievers,tranquilizers
and stimulants.
Results Summary
Overall Results
ATOD prevalence rates for the combined sample of 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th graders are presented in Graph 1,
and in the overall results column of Tables 13 and 14. As these results show, Franklin County students
recorded the highest lifetime prevalence-of-use rates for alcohol (40.9%), cigarettes (25.1%), marijuana
(15.1%), smokeless tobacco (14.0%) and inhalants (11.8%). Other lifetime prevalence rates ranged from
0.2% for heroin to 2.5% for hallucinogens. The rate of illicit drug use excluding marijuana is summarized
Section 3
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other
Drug Use
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-16 -
by the indicator “any illicit drug (other than marijuana),” with 13.9% of surveyed students reporting use of
these drugs in their lifetimes.
Franklin County students reported the highest past-30-day prevalence-of-use rates for alcohol (19.5%),
cigarettes (10.3%), smokeless tobacco (7.9%), marijuana (7.6%) and inhalants (6.6%). Other past-30-day
prevalence rates ranged from 0.1% for heroin to 1.0% for hallucinogens. Overall, 8.0% of Franklin County
students reported the use of any illicit drug (other than marijuana) in the past 30 days.
Graph 1. Overall Lifetime and Past-30-Day Prevalence of Alcohol, Tobacco and OtherDrugUse1
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-17 -
Grade-Level Results
ATOD prevalence rates for individual
grade levels are presented in Graph 2 and
Tables 13 and 14. Typically, prevalence
rates for the use of most substances
increase as students enter higher grades. In
many communities, however, inhalant use
provides an exception to this pattern, often
peaking during the late middle school or
early high school years. This may be
because inhalants are relatively easy for
younger students to obtain. Past-30-day
alcohol use in Franklin County ranges
from a low of 3.1% among 6th graders to a
high of 42.7% among 12th graders. Past-
30-day marijuana use ranges from a low
of 0.2% among 6th graders to a high of
17.6% among 12th graders. Past-30-day
cigarette use ranges from a low of 0.7%
among 6th graders to a high of 25.6% among 12th graders. Past-30-day inhalant use ranges from a low of
4.0% among 12th graders to a high of 10.5% among 8th graders.
Comparisons to National Results
Comparing and contrasting findings from a county-or school-district-level survey to relevant data from a
national survey provides a valuable perspective on local data. In this report, national comparisons for
ATOD use will be made to the 2011 Monitoring the Future study. The Monitoring the Future survey
project, which provides prevalence-of-use information for ATODs from a nationally representative sample
of 8th,10th and 12th graders, is conducted annually by the Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social
Research at the University of Michigan (see www.monitoringthefuture.org). For a review of the
methodology of this study, please see Johnston et al.(2011a).
In addition to a complete report of prevalence-of-use rates for each surveyed grade, Tables 13 and 14
present national results from the Monitoring the Future study. Across the three comparison grades (8th,
10th and 12th), students in Franklin County reported higher average levels of lifetime smokeless tobacco,
cigarette and inhalant use than their national counterparts and lower average levels of lifetime marijuana,
Ecstasy and hallucinogen use. The largest grade-level differences in lifetime substance use were for
smokeless tobacco in the 12th grade (27.3% versus 16.9% for Monitoring the Future), marijuana in the 12th
grade (34.8% versus 45.5% for Monitoring the Future) and cigarettes in the 12th grade (50.9% versus
40.0% for Monitoring the Future).
For past-30-day ATOD use, students in Franklin County reported higher average levels of smokeless
tobacco, inhalant and cigarette use than their national counterparts and a lower average level of marijuana
use. The largest grade-level differences in past-30-day substance use were for smokeless tobacco in the
12th grade (17.0% versus 8.3% for Monitoring the Future), inhalants in the 8th grade (10.5% versus 3.2%
for Monitoring the Future) and cigarettes in the 12th grade (25.6% versus 18.7% for Monitoring the
Future).
Graph 2. Past-30-Day Use of Selected ATODs
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-18 -
Table 13. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs
Franklin County 2011 Monitoring theFuture1
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall 8th 10th 12th
%%%%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 16.2 --38.2 --55.9 --63.7 40.9 33.1 56.0 70.0
Cigarettes 6.3 --19.3 --35.4 --50.9 25.1 18.4 30.4 40.0
Smokeless Tobacco 1.5 --11.5 --21.7 --27.3 14.0 9.7 15.6 16.9
Marijuana 0.8 --8.0 --26.0 --34.8 15.1 16.4 34.5 45.5
Inhalants 8.0 --15.7 --12.6 --9.6 11.8 13.1 10.1 8.1
Cocaine 0.0 --1.0 --1.3 --3.1 1.2 2.2 3.3 5.2
Crack Cocaine 0.0 --0.3 --0.4 --1.8 0.5 1.5 1.6 1.9
Heroin 0.0 --0.0 --0.2 --0.9 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.4
Hallucinogens 0.0 --1.1 --3.9 --5.3 2.5 3.3 6.0 8.3
Methamphetamine 0.2 --0.5 --0.4 --1.2 0.5 1.3 2.1 2.1
Ecstasy 0.0 --0.2 --2.2 --5.6 1.5 2.6 6.6 8.0
Steroids 0.6 --0.5 --0.6 --0.9 0.6 1.2 1.4 1.8
Any Illicit Drug (Otherthan Marijuana)8.3 --16.1 --15.5 --16.3 13.9 ------
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed, the drug was not included in the survey, or a comparableaggregate calculation was not available.Monitoring the Futuredataare only available for 8th,10th and 12th graders.
1 Johnston et al. (2011b).
Table 14. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs
Franklin County 2011 Monitoring theFuture1
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall 8th 10th 12th
%%%%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 3.1 --14.3 --27.6 --42.7 19.5 12.7 27.2 40.0
Binge Drinking 0.4 --5.3 --15.0 --23.7 9.5 6.4 14.7 21.6
Cigarettes 0.7 --7.5 --13.8 --25.6 10.3 6.1 11.8 18.7
Smokeless Tobacco 0.9 --5.7 --11.8 --17.0 7.9 3.5 6.6 8.3
Marijuana 0.2 --4.1 --13.0 --17.6 7.6 7.2 17.6 22.6
Inhalants 5.1 --10.5 --5.4 --4.0 6.6 3.2 1.7 1.0
Cocaine 0.0 --0.5 --0.0 --1.5 0.4 0.8 0.7 1.1
Crack Cocaine 0.0 --0.2 --0.2 --0.9 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5
Heroin 0.0 --0.0 --0.0 --0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4
Hallucinogens 0.0 --0.7 --1.9 --1.8 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.6
Methamphetamine 0.2 --0.2 --0.0 --0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6
Ecstasy 0.0 --0.2 --1.5 --1.5 0.7 0.6 1.6 2.3
Steroids 0.4 --0.5 --0.4 --1.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7
Any Illicit Drug (Otherthan Marijuana)5.2 --10.9 --7.5 --7.6 8.0 ------
Note: The symbol “--”indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed, the drug was not included in the survey, or a comparableaggregate calculation was not available.Monitoring the Futuredataare only available for 8th,10th and 12th graders.
1 Johnston et al. (2011b).
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-19 -
Comparisons to Pennsylvania Statewide Results
Additional context for evaluating the pattern of ATOD use reported by Franklin County students is
provided by a comparison to statewide results from the 2011 PAYS. This comparison—as well as other
comparisons to statewide results throughout this report—focuses on results recorded for individual grade
levels. Comparisons of overall results can be valuable as well, but consideration should be given to how
differences in the composition of each sample across grade levels may impact the validity of the
comparison. For example, overall results from a school district that only surveyed students in grades 6 and
8 are not directly comparable to overall results from a statewide survey that included students in grades 6,
8, 10 and 12.
Lifetime and past-30-day prevalence rates for surveyed students in Pennsylvania are presented in Tables
15 and 16. Across the four comparison grades (6th, 8th, 10th and 12th), students in Franklin County reported
higher average levels of lifetime cigarette, smokeless tobacco and inhalant use than Pennsylvania
statewide. The largest grade-level differences in lifetime substance use were for smokeless tobacco in the
10th grade (21.7% versus 13.4% for Pennsylvania statewide) and cigarettes in the 10th and 12th grades
(35.4% and 50.9% versus 28.5% and 43.1% for Pennsylvania statewide).
For past-30-day ATOD use, students in Franklin County reported higher average levels of smokeless
tobacco and cigarette use than Pennsylvania statewide. The largest grade-level differences in past-30-day
substance use were for smokeless tobacco in the 10th and 12th grades (11.8% and 17.0% versus 7.3% and
11.4% for Pennsylvania statewide) and cigarettes in the 12th grade (25.6% versus 19.4% for Pennsylvania
statewide).
Table 15. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 14.9 --36.7 --53.2 --68.4 44.0
Cigarettes 4.2 --15.6 --28.5 --43.1 23.3
Smokeless Tobacco 1.7 --6.5 --13.4 --23.6 11.5
Marijuana 0.7 --7.9 --24.9 --40.5 19.0
Inhalants 6.6 --10.5 --8.7 --8.6 8.6
Cocaine 0.1 --0.5 --1.5 --4.0 1.6
Crack Cocaine 0.1 --0.5 --0.5 --1.2 0.6
Heroin 0.0 --0.2 --0.3 --1.0 0.4
Hallucinogens 0.1 --0.9 --3.2 --6.1 2.5
Methamphetamine 0.1 --0.3 --0.4 --1.1 0.5
Ecstasy 0.1 --0.7 --2.0 --5.5 2.1
Steroids 0.4 --0.5 --0.8 --1.4 0.8
Any Illicit Drug (Otherthan Marijuana)6.9 --11.3 --11.8 --15.4 11.4
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-20 -
Table 16. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 4.0 --14.1 --28.9 --44.2 23.3
Binge Drinking 1.5 --5.1 --15.0 --26.9 12.4
Cigarettes 0.7 --5.3 --11.7 --19.4 9.5
Smokeless Tobacco 0.5 --3.1 --7.3 --11.4 5.7
Marijuana 0.5 --4.5 --14.9 --21.9 10.7
Inhalants 4.7 --6.4 --4.0 --3.2 4.5
Cocaine 0.0 --0.4 --0.8 --1.4 0.7
Crack Cocaine 0.1 --0.5 --0.2 --0.5 0.3
Heroin 0.0 --0.1 --0.1 --0.6 0.2
Hallucinogens 0.0 --0.9 --1.7 --2.4 1.3
Methamphetamine 0.1 --0.2 --0.3 --0.5 0.3
Ecstasy 0.1 --0.5 --0.8 --2.4 1.0
Steroids 0.2 --0.6 --0.4 --0.9 0.5
Any Illicit Drug (Otherthan Marijuana)4.9 --7.3 --6.2 --6.8 6.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Item-Level Results
Alcohol
Alcohol, including beer, wine and hard liquor,
is the drug used most often by adolescents
today. Findings from the Monitoring the Future
study highlight the pervasiveness of alcohol in
middle and high schools today. In comparison,
cigarette use (the second most pervasive
category of ATOD use) is only about half as
prevalent as alcohol use. Given the national
pattern, it is not surprising that alcohol is the
most used drug among students in Franklin
County.
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of alcohol use ranges from a low of 16.2% for 6th graders to a high of
63.7% for 12th graders. Overall, 40.9% of Franklin County students have used alcohol at least
once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th graders reported a higher rate of lifetime alcohol use, 10th
graders reported a similar rate and 12th graders reported a lower rate of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were higher among 10th graders, lower among 12th graders and similar among 6th and
8th graders.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-21 -
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of alcohol use ranges from a low of 3.1% for 6th graders to a high of
42.7% for 12th graders. Overall, 19.5% of Franklin County students have used alcohol at least
once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th and 10th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
alcohol use and 12th graders reported a higher rate of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Binge drinking (defined as a report of five or
more drinks in a row within the past two weeks)
is extremely dangerous. Several studies have
shown that binge drinking is related to higher
probabilities of drinking and driving as well as
injury due to intoxication. As with alcohol use
in general, binge drinking tends to become more
pervasive as students grow older.
■Across grades, the prevalence rate of
binge drinking ranges from a low of
0.4% for 6th graders to a high of 23.7%
for 12th graders. Overall, 9.5% of Franklin County students have reported at least one episode
of binge drinking in the past two weeks.
■Compared to national findings, 8th and 10th graders reported similar rates of binge drinking
and 12th graders reported a higher rate of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of use that
were lower among 12th graders, the same among 10th graders and similar among 6th and 8th
graders.
Tobacco
Throughout the 1990s, tobacco (including
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) was the
second most commonly used drug among
adolescents. National smoking rates, however,
have declined substantially in recent years
(Johnston et al.,2011b).
Lifetime Cigarette Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of cigarette use
ranges from a low of 6.3% for 6th
graders to a high of 50.9% for 12th
graders. Overall, 25.1% of Franklin County students have used cigarettes at least once in their
lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th graders reported a similar rate of lifetime cigarette use and
10th and 12th graders reported higher rates of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were higher across all of the comparison grades.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-22 -
Past-30-Day Cigarette Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of cigarette use ranges from a low of 0.7% for 6th graders to a high of
25.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 10.3% of Franklin County students have used cigarettes at
least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th graders reported a similar rate of past-30-day cigarette use
and 10th and 12th graders reported higher rates of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were higher among 8th, 10th and 12th graders and the same among 6th graders.
Lifetime Smokeless Tobacco Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of smokeless
tobacco use ranges from a low of 1.5%
for 6th graders to a high of 27.3% for
12th graders. Overall, 14.0% of
Franklin County students have used
smokeless tobacco at least once in their
lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th
graders reported a similar rate of
lifetime smokeless tobacco use and 10th and 12th graders reported higher rates of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were higher among 8th, 10th and 12th graders and similar among 6th graders.
Past-30-Day Smokeless Tobacco Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of smokeless tobacco use ranges from a low of 0.9% for 6th graders to
a high of 17.0% for 12th graders. Overall, 7.9% of Franklin County students have used
smokeless tobacco at least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported higher rates of past-30-day
smokeless tobacco use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were higher among 8th, 10th and 12th graders and similar among 6th graders.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-23 -
Marijuana
During the 1990s, there were major changes in
trends of marijuana use throughout the United
States. Results from the Monitoring the Future
study show dramatic increases in both lifetime
and past-30-day prevalence rates through the
early and mid 1990s (Johnston et al., 2011b).
For 8th and 10th graders the past-30-day rates
more than doubled during this period. Since
1996 and 1997, when marijuana use peaked,
rates started a gradual decline that lasted
through the mid to late 2000s. Over the last two
years, however, this trend has reversed and the
prevalence of marijuana use has increased.
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use ranges from a low of 0.8% for 6th graders to a high of
34.8% for 12th graders. Overall, 15.1% of Franklin County students have used marijuana at
least once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported lower rates of lifetime
marijuana use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were lower among 12th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 10th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of marijuana use ranges from a low of 0.2% for 6th graders to a high
of 17.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 7.6% of Franklin County students have used marijuana at
least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported lower rates of past-30-day
marijuana use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were lower among 12th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 10th graders.
Inhalants
Inhalant use is more prevalent with younger
students, perhaps because inhalants are often the
easiest drugs for them to obtain. The health
consequences of inhalant use can be substantial,
including brain damage and heart failure.
Inhalant use was measured by the survey
question “On how many occasions (if any) have
you used inhalants (whippets, butane, paint
thinner, or glue to sniff, etc.)?” Comparisons
with the Monitoring the Future study (national
results) should be made carefully because there
are differences in survey questions for this class
of drugs.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-24 -
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of inhalant use ranges from a low of 8.0% for 6th graders to a high of
15.7% for 8th graders. Overall, 11.8% of Franklin County students have used inhalants at least
once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th and 10th graders reported higher rates of lifetime inhalant
use and 12th graders reported a similar rate of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were higher among 8th and 10th graders and similar among 6th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of inhalant use ranges from a low of 4.0% for 12th graders to a high of
10.5% for 8th graders. Overall, 6.6% of Franklin County students have used inhalants at least
once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported higher rates of past-30-day
inhalant use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were higher among 8th graders and similar among 6th, 10th and 12th graders.
Other Illicit Drugs
The PAYS also measures the prevalence of use for a variety of other drugs. This includes student use of the
following: cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, methamphetamine, Ecstasy and steroids. The
rates for prevalence of use of these other drugs are generally lower than the rates for alcohol, tobacco,
marijuana and inhalants. Additionally, use of these other drugs tends to be concentrated in the upper grade
levels.
Cocaine
Cocaine is a powerfully addictive stimulant that directly affects the brain. Users may develop tolerance
and need more and more of the drug to feel the same effects. Cocaine use can cause a variety of physical
problems, including chest pain, strokes, seizures and abnormal heart rhythm.
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of cocaine use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high of
3.1% for 12th graders. Overall, 1.2% of Franklin County students have used cocaine at least
once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th graders reported a similar rate of lifetime cocaine use and
10th and 12th graders reported lower rates of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of cocaine use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th and 10th graders to a
high of 1.5% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.4% of Franklin County students have used cocaine at
least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
cocaine use.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-25 -
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were the same among 6th graders and similar among 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
Crack Cocaine
“Crack” is the street name given to the freebase form of cocaine, which has been processed into a less
expensive, smokeable drug. Because crack is smoked, the user experiences a very quick, intense, but
short-term high. Smoking large quantities of crack can cause acute problems, including cough, shortness
of breath, and severe chest pains.
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of crack cocaine use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high
of 1.8% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.5% of Franklin County students have used crack cocaine
at least once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of lifetime
crack cocaine use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of crack cocaine use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a
high of 0.9% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.3% of Franklin County students have used crack
cocaine at least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
crack cocaine use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were the same among 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 12th graders.
Heroin
Heroin is a highly addictive drug with rapid effects. Processed from morphine, heroin is usually injected,
snorted or smoked. Physical dependence on the drug often develops among users. Long-term health
problems caused by heroin use include collapsed veins, kidney or liver disease and bacterial infections.
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of heroin use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th and 8th graders to a high
of 0.9% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.2% of Franklin County students have used heroin at least
once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of lifetime
heroin use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were the same among 6th graders and similar among 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of heroin use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th, 8th and 10th graders to
a high of 0.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.1% of Franklin County students have used heroin
at least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings,8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
heroin use.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-26 -
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were the same among 6th and 12th graders and similar among 8th and 10th graders.
Hallucinogens
Hallucinogenic drugs can have short-and long-term effects on perception and mood. For instance, users of
LSD, the most potent mood-and perception-altering drug, may have unpredictable experiences (known as
“trips”) ranging from pleasant hallucinations to terrifying thoughts and feelings. LSD can also cause
physical complications, including increased blood pressure and heart rate, dizziness, loss of appetite,
nausea and numbness. For the purposes of the PAYS,hallucinogens were defined as “hallucinogens (acid,
LSD, and ’shrooms).”
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of hallucinogen use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high
of 5.3% for 12th graders. Overall, 2.5% of Franklin County students have used hallucinogens
at least once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported lower rates of lifetime
hallucinogen use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of hallucinogen use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a
high of 1.9% for 10th graders. Overall, 1.0% of Franklin County students have used
hallucinogens at least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
hallucinogen use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were the same among 6th graders and similar among 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine is a highly addictive stimulant with effects similar to cocaine. Use of
methamphetamine can cause physical and psychological problems, such as rapid or irregular heart rate,
increased blood pressure, anxiety and insomnia.
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of methamphetamine use ranges from a low of 0.2% for 6th graders to a
high of 1.2% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.5% of Franklin County students have used
methamphetamine at least once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of lifetime
methamphetamine use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were the same among 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of methamphetamine use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 10th graders
to a high of 0.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.2% of Franklin County students have used
methamphetamine at least once in the last 30 days.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-27 -
■Compared to national findings, 8th and 10th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
methamphetamine use and 12th graders reported the same rate of use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were the same among 8th graders and similar among 6th, 10th and 12th graders.
Ecstasy
Ecstasy (also known as MDMA) has both stimulant and hallucinogenic effects. After showing an increase
in use nationwide from 1998 to 2001, use of Ecstasy appears to have declined in recent years, while the
proportion of young people perceiving it as dangerous has increased (Johnston et al.,2011b).
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of Ecstasy use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high of
5.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 1.5% of Franklin County students have used Ecstasy at least
once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported lower rates of lifetime
Ecstasy use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of Ecstasy use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high of
1.5% for 10th and 12th graders. Overall,0.7% of Franklin County students have used Ecstasy
at least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
Ecstasy use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Steroids
The primary use for steroids in humans is to raise inadequate levels of testosterone. However, some
athletes misuse the drug to “improve” their appearance or athletic performance. Improper use of steroids
can prematurely stop the lengthening of bones as well as cause infertility and liver tumors.
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of steroid use ranges from a low of 0.5% for 8th graders to a high of 0.9%
for 12th graders. Overall, 0.6% of Franklin County students have used steroids at least once in
their lifetimes.
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of lifetime
steroid use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were the same among 8th graders and similar among 6th, 10th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of steroid use ranges from a low of 0.4% for 6th and 10th graders to a
high of 1.2% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.6% of Franklin County students have used steroids at
least once in the last 30 days.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-28 -
■Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
steroid use.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were the same among 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 12th graders.
Any Illicit Drug (Other than Marijuana)
The final ATOD indicator reports on the use of
any illicit drug other than marijuana. This drug
combination rate—which includes use of one or
more of the following drugs: inhalants, cocaine,
crack cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens,
methamphetamine, Ecstasy and steroids—
provides prevention planners with an overall
indicator of so-called “hard” drug use.
Marijuana use is excluded from this index
because the higher prevalence of marijuana use
tends to obscure the presence or absence of the other drugs. In other words, an indicator of “Any Illicit
Drug Use (Including Marijuana)” primarily measures marijuana use. Direct comparisons to Monitoring the
Future results are not available for this measure.
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of any illicit drug (other than marijuana) use ranges from a low of 8.3%
for 6th graders to a high of 16.3% for 12th graders. Overall, 13.9% of Franklin County students
have used any illicit drug (other than marijuana) at least once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were higher among 8th and 10th graders and similar among 6th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of any illicit drug (other than marijuana) use ranges from a low of
5.2% for 6th graders to a high of 10.9% for 8th graders. Overall, 8.0% of Franklin County
students have used any illicit drug (other than marijuana) at least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were higher among 8th graders and similar among 6th, 10th and 12th graders.
Prescription Drugs
In recent years the nonmedical use of prescription drugs has emerged as a major public health issue. Both
the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, 2003) and the Monitoring the Future study (Johnston et al.,2011a), two major sources of
youth drug abuse prevalence data, have reported increases in the unauthorized use of prescription drugs.
This trend is particularly troubling given the adverse health consequences related to prescription drug
abuse, which include addiction, physical dependence and the possibility of overdose.
Despite these concerns, the research community is still in the early stages of developing survey methods
that can accurately measure the prevalence of prescription drug abuse. If anonymity is ensured, most
students will honestly and accurately report their use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and other easily
recognized categories of illicit drugs. The measurement of prescription drug use, however, is more
complex. There are many prescription medicines that are subject to abuse, making it impossible to present
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-29 -
an exhaustive list. Also, respondents may have difficulty identifying the names of prescription drugs they
have used, and they may have difficulty distinguishing between prescription and over-the-counter
medications.
With these challenges in mind, the 2009 PAYS added six questions designed to measure prevalence-of-use
rates across the three prescription drug categories that, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse,
are among the most likely to be abused: pain relievers, stimulants and tranquilizers. Each question includes
examples of some of the best known drugs within that category.Results for Franklin County are presented
in Tables 17 and 18, and results for Pennsylvania statewide are presented in Tables 19 and 20.
On how many occasions (if any) have you:
Used prescription pain relievers, such as Vicodin®, OxyContin®or Tylox®, without a doctor’s
orders, in your lifetime?
Used prescription pain relievers, such as Vicodin®, OxyContin®or Tylox®, without a doctor’s
orders, during the past 30 days?
Used prescription tranquilizers, such as Xanax®, Valium®or Ambien®, without a doctor’s orders,
in your lifetime?
Used prescription tranquilizers, such as Xanax®, Valium®or Ambien®, without a doctor’s orders,
during the past 30 days?
Used prescription stimulants, such as Ritalin®or Adderall®, without a doctor’s orders,in your
lifetime?
Used prescription stimulants, such as Ritalin®or Adderall®, without a doctor’s orders, during the
past 30 days?
Pain Relievers
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of prescription pain reliever use ranges from a low of 2.2% for 6th
graders to a high of 14.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 6.5% of Franklin County students have
used prescription pain relievers at least once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of prescription pain reliever use ranges from a low of 2.0% for 6th
graders to a high of 7.0% for 12th graders. Overall, 4.1% of Franklin County students have
used prescription pain relievers at least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Tranquilizers
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of tranquilizer use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high of
4.2% for 10th graders. Overall, 2.0% of Franklin County students have used tranquilizers at
least once in their lifetimes.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-30 -
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were lower among 12th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 10th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of tranquilizer use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high
of 3.1% for 12th graders. Overall, 1.3% of Franklin County students have used tranquilizers at
least once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Stimulants
Lifetime Use:
■Lifetime prevalence of stimulant use ranges from a low of 0.2% for 6th graders to a high of
6.5% for 12th graders. Overall, 3.4% of Franklin County students have used stimulants at least
once in their lifetimes.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were the same among 6th graders and similar among 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■Past-30-day prevalence of stimulant use ranges from a low of 0.6%for 6th graders to a high of
4.0% for 12th graders. Overall, 2.3% of Franklin County students have used stimulants at least
once in the last 30 days.
■Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Table 17.Lifetime Use of Prescription Drugs,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Pain Relievers 2.2 --3.1 --9.8 --14.6 6.5
Tranquilizers 0.0 --1.0 --4.2 --4.1 2.0
Stimulants 0.2 --2.1 --6.3 --6.5 3.4
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-31 -
Table 18.Past-30-Day Use of Prescription Drugs,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Pain Relievers 2.0 --2.9 --6.1 --7.0 4.1
Tranquilizers 0.0 --0.3 --2.6 --3.1 1.3
Stimulants 0.6 --1.7 --3.7 --4.0 2.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 19.Lifetime Use of Prescription Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Pain Relievers 1.1 --3.7 --8.1 --13.1 6.7
Tranquilizers 0.1 --1.1 --3.1 --6.1 2.7
Stimulants 0.2 --1.2 --4.4 --8.2 3.6
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 20.Past-30-Day Use of Prescription Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Pain Relievers 0.8 --3.3 --6.0 --7.9 4.6
Tranquilizers 0.1 --0.9 --2.0 --3.2 1.6
Stimulants 0.1 --1.1 --2.9 --4.9 2.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Risk of Harm
Perception of risk is an important determinant in the decision-making process young people go throughwhen deciding whether or not to use alcohol, tobacco or other drugs (Bachman, Johnston, O’Malley &
Humphrey, 1988). Data analysis across a range of Communities That Care Youth Survey communities
shows a consistent negative correlation between perception of risk and the level of reported ATOD use.
That is, generally when the perceived risk of harm is high, reported frequency of use is low. Evidence also
suggests that perceptions of the risks and benefits associated with drug use sometimes serve as a leadingindicator of future drug use patterns in a community (Bachman, Johnston, O’Malley &Humphrey, 1986).
Table 21 presents prevalence rates for surveyed youth assigning “great risk” of harm to four drug use
behaviors: regular use of alcohol (one or two drinks nearly every day), regular use of cigarettes (a pack or
more daily), trying marijuana once or twice, and regular use of marijuana. These four survey items form
the risk factor scale Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use (see Section 5).Comparison data from the statewide
survey are presented in Table 22.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-32 -
Table 21. Percentage of Youth Who Reported Perception of “Great Risk” of Harm,FranklinCounty2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 39.4 --30.0 --26.3 --21.1 30.1
Smoking Cigarettes Regularly 69.9 --64.4 --64.1 --57.9 64.7
Trying Marijuana Once or Twice 40.9 --33.8 --20.6 --19.9 30.1
Smoking Marijuana Regularly 80.6 --77.8 --54.3 --42.8 66.7
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 22. Percentage of Youth Who Reported Perception of “Great Risk” of Harm, PennsylvaniaStatewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 38.0 --33.7 --27.9 --27.4 31.6
Smoking Cigarettes Regularly 66.3 --70.4 --66.1 --65.5 67.1
Trying Marijuana Once or Twice 40.6 --36.2 --21.8 --17.5 28.7
Smoking Marijuana Regularly 76.6 --75.4 --53.5 --44.2 62.1
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Disapproval of Drug Use
Personal approval or disapproval is another key attitudinal construct that influences drug use behavior
(Bachman et al., 1988). Like risk of harm, disapproval is negatively correlated with the level of reported
ATOD use across a range of Communities That CareYouth Survey communities. Personal disapproval was
measured by asking surveyed youth how wrong it would be for someone their age to drink alcohol
regularly, smoke cigarettes, smoke marijuana, or use other illicit drugs (“LSD, cocaine, amphetamines or
another illegal drug”).The rates presented in Table 23 represent the percentages of surveyed youth who
thought it would be “wrong” or “very wrong” to use each drug. These four survey items form the risk
factor scale Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use (see Section 5). Comparison data from the statewide
survey are presented in Table 24.
Table 23. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Personal Disapproval of Drug Use,FranklinCounty2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Drinking Alcohol Regularly 98.4 --84.6 --64.2 --56.9 78.6
Smoking Cigarettes 98.6 --84.0 --73.0 --58.7 80.9
Smoking Marijuana 98.9 --90.8 --72.8 --68.6 84.8
Using Other Illicit Drugs 99.5 --96.9 --93.5 --91.6 95.8
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-33 -
Table 24. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Personal Disapproval of Drug Use, PennsylvaniaStatewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 97.1 --86.6 --66.2 --51.2 74.7
Smoking Cigarettes 97.7 --88.4 --76.3 --60.0 80.2
Smoking Marijuana 98.2 --89.8 --73.1 --61.4 80.1
Using Other Illicit Drugs 98.6 --96.5 --92.9 --90.6 94.6
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Social Norms about ATOD Use
In addition to students’ own attitudes, social norms—the written and unwritten rules and expectations
about what constitutes desirable behavior—shape drug use choices. Since drug-related attitudes and
behaviors are often acquired through peer group interactions, expectations of how one’s peer group might
react have an especially strong impact on whether or not young people choose to use drugs. The data
presented in Table 25 show the percentage of surveyed youth who said that there is a “pretty good” or
“very good” chance that they would be seen as cool if they smoked cigarettes, drank alcohol regularly
(once or twice a month) or smoked marijuana. These three survey items form part of the risk factor scale
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior (see Section 5). Comparison data from the statewide survey are
presented in Table 26.
Table 25. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Peer Approval of Drug Use,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Drinking Alcohol Regularly 0.7 --6.7 --16.2 --13.8 8.7
Smoking Cigarettes 0.5 --5.6 --8.8 --8.6 5.6
Smoking Marijuana 1.1 --7.5 --17.3 --13.6 9.2
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 26. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Peer Approval of Drug Use, PennsylvaniaStatewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Drinking Alcohol Regularly 1.1 --4.8 --14.1 --21.1 10.5
Smoking Cigarettes 1.0 --3.7 --6.0 --7.1 4.6
Smoking Marijuana 1.0 --4.7 --15.0 --17.8 9.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
In addition to peer attitudes, social norms toward drug use were measured by asking how most
neighborhood adults would view student alcohol, cigarette and marijuana use. Table 27 presents the
percentage of surveyed youth who thought other adults would feel it was “wrong” or “very wrong” to use
each drug. These three survey items form part of the risk factor scale Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug
Use (see Section 5).Comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 28.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-34 -
Table 27. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated “Other Adults” Disapprove of Drug Use,FranklinCounty2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Drinking Alcohol 91.8 --80.5 --72.5 --63.5 78.7
Smoking Cigarettes 90.0 --82.0 --76.1 --59.2 78.8
Smoking Marijuana 94.9 --91.6 --84.5 --79.8 88.7
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 28. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated “Other Adults” Disapprove of Drug Use,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Drinking Alcohol 91.2 --84.6 --72.4 --60.0 76.8
Smoking Cigarettes 91.8 --86.2 --77.1 --61.7 79.0
Smoking Marijuana 95.3 --91.9 --83.0 --75.9 86.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Parental Disapproval of Drug Use
Parental disapproval was measured by asking surveyed youth “how wrong do your parents feel it would be
for you to” drink alcohol regularly, smoke cigarettes, and smoke marijuana.The rates presented in Table
29 represent the percentages of surveyed youth who reported that their parents feel it would be “very
wrong” to use each drug. These three survey items form the risk factor scale Parental Attitudes Favorable
toward ATOD Use (see Section 5).Comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 30.
Table 29. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Parental Disapproval of Drug Use,FranklinCounty2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Drink Alcohol Regularly 93.9 --83.7 --69.5 --52.3 77.5
Smoke Cigarettes 95.1 --87.6 --76.3 --59.3 81.9
Smoke Marijuana 97.0 --93.0 --81.3 --74.9 88.0
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 30. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Parental Disapproval of Drug Use, PennsylvaniaStatewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Drinking Alcohol Regularly 93.6 --85.6 --70.3 --55.2 75.7
Smoke Cigarettes 95.2 --89.3 --79.9 --66.8 82.5
Smoke Marijuana 97.3 --92.2 --81.4 --74.1 86.0
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-35 -
Frequency of Drug Use
While prevalence rates are useful for determining how many students are currently using or have
experimented with a drug, they give no indication of the frequency or intensity of use. A respondent who
reports 1 or 2 occasions of use in the past 30 days is counted the same as one who reports 40 or more
occasions of use, even though the level of use is drastically different. Tables 31-38 present the past-30-day
frequency of use reported by surveyed youth for the following drugs: alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and
inhalants.
Table 31. Past-30-Day Frequency of Alcohol Use,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%0 occasions 96.9 --85.7 --72.4 --57.3 80.5
1 or 2 occasions 2.2 --10.4 --18.0 --24.6 12.5
3 to 5 occasions 0.7 --2.5 --5.4 --10.6 4.1
6 to 9 occasions 0.2 --0.6 --2.2 --5.9 1.8
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 --0.2 --0.8 --1.4 0.5
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 --0.3 --0.4 --0.3 0.2
40 or more occasions 0.0 --0.3 --0.8 --0.0 0.3
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students werenot surveyed.
Table 32. Past-30-Day Frequency of Alcohol Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%0 occasions 96.0 --85.9 --71.1 --55.8 76.7
1 or 2 occasions 3.3 --10.3 --18.3 --24.9 14.4
3 to 5 occasions 0.5 --2.6 --6.5 --10.7 5.2
6 to 9 occasions 0.1 --0.6 --2.0 --4.9 1.9
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 --0.4 --1.1 --2.7 1.1
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 --0.1 --0.4 --0.4 0.2
40 or more occasions 0.0 --0.2 --0.5 --0.6 0.3
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were
not surveyed.
Table 33. Past-30-Day Frequency of Cigarette Use,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Not at all 99.3 --92.5 --86.2 --74.4 89.7
Less than one cigarette per day 0.5 --4.1 --6.0 --10.1 4.6
One to five cigarettes per day 0.0 --3.1 --4.8 --6.2 3.2
About one-half pack per day 0.0 --0.3 --1.2 --4.8 1.2
About one pack per day 0.0 --0.0 --0.8 --3.4 0.8
About one and one-half packs per day 0.2 --0.0 --0.6 --0.8 0.3
Two packs or more per day 0.0 --0.0 --0.4 --0.3 0.1
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students werenot surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-36 -
Table 34. Past-30-Day Frequency of Cigarette Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Not at all 99.3 --94.7 --88.3 --80.6 90.5
Less than one cigarette per day 0.6 --3.0 --5.4 --7.1 4.1
One to five cigarettes per day 0.1 --1.4 --3.7 --6.0 2.9
About one-half pack per day 0.0 --0.4 --1.3 --3.8 1.4
About one pack per day 0.0 --0.2 --0.6 --1.7 0.6
About one and one-half packs per day 0.0 --0.1 --0.2 --0.5 0.2
Two packs or more per day 0.0 --0.2 --0.5 --0.3 0.3
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were
not surveyed.
Table 35. Past-30-Day Frequency of Marijuana Use,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%0 occasions 99.8 --95.9 --87.0 --82.4 92.4
1 or 2 occasions 0.2 --2.0 --5.2 --6.4 3.1
3 to 5 occasions 0.0 --0.9 --1.6 --3.1 1.2
6 to 9 occasions 0.0 --0.5 --2.0 --0.8 0.8
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 --0.2 --2.2 --3.1 1.1
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 --0.2 --0.4 --1.4 0.4
40 or more occasions 0.0 --0.3 --1.6 --2.8 1.0
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students werenot surveyed.
Table 36. Past-30-Day Frequency of Marijuana Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%0 occasions 99.5 --95.5 --85.1 --78.1 89.3
1 or 2 occasions 0.3 --2.2 --5.7 --7.8 4.1
3 to 5 occasions 0.1 --0.8 --2.5 --3.1 1.7
6 to 9 occasions 0.0 --0.5 --1.6 --2.1 1.1
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 --0.4 --1.7 --2.8 1.3
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 --0.1 --1.6 --2.5 1.1
40 or more occasions 0.1 --0.3 --1.7 --3.7 1.5
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students werenot surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-37 -
Table 37. Past-30-Day Frequency of Inhalant Use,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%0 occasions 94.9 --89.5 --94.6 --96.0 93.4
1 or 2 occasions 4.1 --6.7 --4.3 --1.5 4.5
3 to 5 occasions 0.8 --2.2 --0.9 --0.9 1.3
6 to 9 occasions 0.0 --0.7 --0.2 --0.6 0.4
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 --0.5 --0.0 --0.6 0.3
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 --0.2 --0.0 --0.3 0.1
40 or more occasions 0.2 --0.2 --0.0 --0.0 0.1
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students werenot surveyed.
Table 38. Past-30-Day Frequency of Inhalant Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%0 occasions 95.3 --93.6 --96.0 --96.8 95.5
1 or 2 occasions 3.6 --4.5 --2.7 --1.8 3.1
3 to 5 occasions 0.5 --1.2 --0.8 --0.8 0.8
6 to 9 occasions 0.2 --0.4 --0.1 --0.3 0.3
10 to 19 occasions 0.1 --0.1 --0.2 --0.1 0.1
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 --0.1 --0.0 --0.0 0.1
40 or more occasions 0.2 --0.1 --0.1 --0.1 0.1
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were
not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-39 -
Section 4: Special Topics
Introduction
The PAYS included questions on the following special topics: age of onset of ATOD use and other
antisocial behavior, driving under the influence of alcohol or marijuana, willingness to try or use ATODs,
gambling, symptoms of depression,and the frequency of having been threatened or attacked at school.
Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behavior
Using age-of-initiation data to coordinate the timing of prevention efforts can be an important tool for
maximizing program effectiveness. For example, programs delivered after the majority of potential drug
users have already initiated the behavior may have limited impact. Alternatively, very early intervention
might prove less effective because it is not close enough to the critical initiation period.
Franklin County students were asked nine questions about the age at which they first used ATODs and
participated in other antisocial behaviors. The topics covered include: trying alcohol (“more than a sip or
two”), drinking alcohol regularly (“at least once or twice a month”), smoking cigarettes, smoking
marijuana, being suspended from school, being arrested, carrying a handgun, attacking someone with
intent to harm,and belonging to a gang.Results for Franklin County students are presented in Table 39,
and comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 40.
While the average age of onset is typically lower in the earlier grades than it is in the later ones, this
should not be interpreted as indicating that the younger cohorts are initiating substance use at an earlier
age than the older cohorts did. Rather, the average age for each cohort increases as its members progress
through school and more of them initiate experimentation with ATODs and engage in other antisocial
behaviors. For this reason, the question “When do students first start using alcohol?” is best answered by
examining the responses of students in the highest grade level surveyed because they can best reflect on
their high school and/or middle school experiences and accurately report the age they first started using
drugs or engaging in other antisocial behaviors.
Section 4
Special Topics
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-40 -
Table 39. Average Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behaviors,Franklin County2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
Trying Alcohol 10.4 --11.6 --13.2 --14.2 12.7
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 11.6 --12.3 --14.3 --15.6 14.5
Smoking Cigarettes 10.4 --11.5 --12.9 --13.7 12.7
Smoking Marijuana 12.3 --12.4 --13.7 --14.5 13.8
Being Suspended from School 10.3 --11.7 --12.5 --13.6 12.4
Being Arrested 10.1 --12.0 --13.2 --14.4 13.1
Carrying a Handgun 10.4 --11.4 --12.1 --12.6 11.7
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 10.3 --11.5 --12.5 --12.5 11.8
Belonging to a Gang 10.6 --12.0 --12.7 --12.2 11.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 40. Average Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behaviors, PennsylvaniaStatewide2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
Trying Alcohol 10.5 --11.7 --13.3 --14.5 13.2
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 11.5 --12.5 --14.2 --15.7 14.8
Smoking Cigarettes 10.7 --11.7 --13.0 --14.1 13.2
Smoking Marijuana 12.0 --12.3 --13.6 --14.9 14.1
Being Suspended from School 10.4 --11.4 --12.6 --13.5 12.4
Being Arrested 10.7 --12.0 --13.1 --14.7 13.4
Carrying a Handgun 10.5 --11.3 --12.5 --13.1 12.0
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 10.4 --11.3 --12.4 --13.2 12.1
Belonging to a Gang 10.7 --11.8 --12.6 --13.4 12.2
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Driving after Alcohol or Marijuana Use
Driving a car requires clear thinking and good hand-eye coordination. Operating a vehicle after using
alcohol or marijuana may impair driving skills, making the driver a hazard on any roadway. The impact of
ATOD usage on automobile safety is assessed with two items: (1) “How often have you driven a car while
or shortly after drinking?” and (2) “How often have you driven a car while or shortly after smoking pot?”
Results for Franklin County students are presented in Table 41, and comparison data from the statewide
survey are presented in Table 42.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-41 -
Table 41. Percentage of Youth Reporting Any Occasion of Driving Under the Influence,FranklinCounty2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Driving after Alcohol Use 0.4 --1.6 --3.2 --14.2 3.9
Driving after Marijuana Use 0.2 --1.2 --4.9 --17.9 4.8
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 42. Percentage of Youth Reporting Any Occasion of Driving Under the Influence,
Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Driving after Alcohol Use 0.5 --1.3 --2.8 --16.2 5.4
Driving after Marijuana Use 0.2 --0.9 --3.5 --18.4 5.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Willingness to Try or Use ATODs
Along with perceptions of risk and level of disapproval (Bachman et al., 1988), willingness to try or use
ATODs may be viewed as one of the attitudinal constructs that facilitates drug use. Pennsylvania students
were questioned regarding their willingness to try or use alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens and
inhalants. Results for Franklin County students are presented in Table 43, and comparison data from the
statewide survey are presented in Table 44.
Table 43. Percentage of Youth Reporting Willingness to Try Selected ATODs,Franklin County2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%Alcohol 16.9 --41.6 --59.0 --65.3 43.3
Marijuana 1.9 --12.8 --30.5 --28.9 17.0
Cocaine 0.8 --3.7 --2.2 --3.6 2.5
Hallucinogens 1.0 --5.0 --7.2 --8.8 5.1
Inhalants 0.8 --4.5 --3.3 --4.3 3.1
Note: The percentages reported in this table represent the percentage of students who indicated “would use it any chance I got,” “would like to try it or use it”or “not sure whether or not I would use it.” Students who indicated “probably wouldn’t use it” or “would never use it” were considered to be unwilling to try thesubstance.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 44. Percentage of Youth Reporting Willingness to Try Selected ATODs, PennsylvaniaStatewide2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 14.5 --35.7 --57.3 --73.3 46.0
Marijuana 1.8 --11.4 --28.8 --37.5 20.4
Cocaine 1.1 --2.1 --3.5 --4.8 2.9
Hallucinogens 0.7 --2.9 --8.5 --11.6 6.1
Inhalants 0.9 --2.5 --3.3 --3.6 2.6
Note: The percentages reported in this table represent the percentage of students who indicated “would use it any chance I got,” “would like totry it or use it”or “not sure whether or not I would use it.” Students who indicated “probably wouldn’t use it” or “would never use it” were considered to be unwilling to try thesubstance.The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-42 -
Gambling
The 2011 PAYS asks students a series of six questions about their experiences with gambling.These
include past-12-month prevalence measures for: gambling for “money or anything of value,” betting“money or anything of value on sporting events,”buying “lottery tickets,”betting “money using the
internet,” and betting “money or anything of value on table games like poker or other card games, dice,
backgammon, or dominoes.”A question about gambling for “money or anything of value” in the past 30
days is also asked. Results for Franklin County students are presented in Table 45, and comparison data
from the statewide survey are presented in Table 46.
Please note that two of the six gambling questions—the past-12-months and past-30-days gambling for“money or anything of value” items—have been in use since the 2005 survey. The sports betting, lottery
ticket, and table gaming questions were introduced in 2007 and modified in 2009.
Table 45.Percentage of Youth Reporting Gambling or Gambling-Related Problems,FranklinCounty2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Gambled for money in the past year 7.9 --15.0 --18.4 --23.1 15.3
Gambled for money in the past 30 days 3.8 --8.4 --11.0 --14.7 8.9
Bet on sporting events in the past year 11.2 --20.2 --23.7 --24.2 19.3
Bought lottery tickets in the past year 8.3 --8.7 --10.9 --16.2 10.4
Bet money using the internet in the past year 2.2 --3.0 --4.3 --5.2 3.5
Bet money on table games in the past year 8.1 --12.8 --13.4 --16.6 12.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 46.Percentage of Youth Reporting Gambling or Gambling-Related Problems,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
%%%%%%%%Gambled for money in the past year 7.9 --13.9 --17.6 --20.8 15.3
Gambled for money in the past 30 days 4.9 --7.9 --9.5 --12.6 8.8
Bet on sporting events in the past year 13.5 --20.1 --23.0 --25.0 20.6
Bought lottery tickets in the past year 10.9 --11.9 --13.2 --20.1 14.1
Bet money using the internet in the past year 2.7 --3.7 --3.7 --3.7 3.5
Bet money on table games in the past year 8.1 --12.2 --13.4 --15.6 12.5
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Symptoms of Depression
A number of scientific studies have identified a link between mental health problems, such as depression,
and the use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs during adolescence. The PAYS includes four questions that
asks students about feelings—sadness, hopelessness and worthlessness—that can be symptoms of
depression. Results for Franklin County students are presented in Table 47, and comparison data from the
statewide survey are presented in Table 48.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-43 -
Table 47.Percentage of Youth Reporting Symptoms of Depression,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
%%%%%%%%
In the past year, felt depressed or sad most days 29.9 --31.9 --32.8 --35.1 32.1
Sometimes I think that life is not worth it 15.6 --24.2 --20.1 --20.9 20.3
At times I think I am no good at all 28.1 --31.5 --27.6 --29.9 29.3
All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure 13.3 --18.4 --14.1 --17.2 15.8
Note: The numbers reported in this table represent the percentage of students who answered either “yes” or “Yes!” to each question.The symbol “--” indicatesthat data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 48.Percentage of Youth Reporting Symptoms of Depression,Pennsylvania Statewide2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
%%%%%%%%In the past year, felt depressed or sad most days 27.6 --30.1 --32.8 --33.4 31.1
Sometimes I think that life is not worth it 15.0 --20.2 --21.7 --20.4 19.4
At times I think I am no good at all 23.0 --27.3 --31.2 --29.6 28.0
All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure 10.2 --13.0 --14.1 --13.7 12.9
Note: The numbers reported in this table represent the percentage of students who answered either “yes” or “Yes!” to each question.The symbol “--” indicatesthat data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-45 -
Section 5: Risk and Protective Factors
Introduction
Just as eating a high-fat diet is a risk factor for heart disease and getting regular exercise is a protective
factor for heart disease and other health problems, there are factors that can help protect youth from, or put
them at risk for, drug use and other problem behaviors.
Protective factors,also known as “assets,” are conditions that buffer children and youth from exposure to
risk by either reducing the impact of the risks or changing the way that young people respond to risks.
Protective factors identified through research include strong bonding to family, school, community and
peers. These groups support the development of healthy behaviors for children by setting and
communicating healthy beliefs and clear standards for children’s behavior. Young people are more likely
to follow the standards for behavior set by these groups if the bonds are strong. Strong bonds are
encouraged by providing young people with opportunities to make meaningful contributions, by teaching
them the skills they need to be successful in these new opportunities, and by recognizing their
contributions.
Risk factors are conditions that increase the likelihood of a young person becoming involved in drug use,
delinquency, school dropout and/or violence. For example, children living in families with poor parental
monitoring are more likely to become involved in these problems.
Research during the past 30 years supports the view that delinquency; alcohol, tobacco and other drug use;
school achievement; and other important outcomes in adolescence are associated with specific
characteristics in the student’s community, school and family environments, as well as with characteristics
of the individual (Hawkins, Catalano &Miller, 1992). In fact, these characteristics have been shown to be
more important in understanding these behaviors than ethnicity, income or family structure (Blum et al.,
2000).
There is a substantial amount of research showing that adolescents’ exposure to a greater number of risk
factors is associated with more drug use and delinquency. There is also evidence 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., 1999).
Section 5
Risk and Protective Factors
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-46 -
The analysis of risk and protective factors is the most powerful tool available for understanding what
promotes both positive and negative adolescent behavior and for helping design successful prevention
programs for young people. To promote positive development and prevent problem behavior, it is
necessary to address the factors that predict these outcomes. By measuring these risk and protective
factors, specific factors that are elevated should be prioritized in the community. This process also helps in
selecting targeted tested-effective prevention programming shown to address those elevated factors and
consequently provide the greatest likelihood for success.
This system of risk and protective factors is organized into a strategy that families can use to help children
develop healthy behaviors—the Social Development Strategy (Hawkins,Catalano & Associates,1992).
The Social Development Strategy is a theoretical framework that organizes risk and protective factors for
adolescent problem behavior prevention.
Measurement
The Communities That Care Youth Survey, the survey upon which the PAYS was based, provides the most
comprehensive measurement of risk and protective factors currently available for 6th to 12th graders. Risk
and protective factors are measured by sets of survey items called scales.All together, the PAYS assesses
22 risk factor and nine protective factor scales across four domains: Community Domain, Family Domain,
School Domain, and Peer and Individual Domain.Please see Appendix B for a list of the survey items
used to form each scale.
Risk and protective factor scales are scored against the Communities That Care normative database. Like
the scoring systems used by many national testing programs—such as the SAT®and ACT™—this method
generates percentile scores ranging from 0 to 100. A score of 50, which matches the normative median,
indicates that 50% of the respondents in the normative sample reported a score that is lower than the
average for Franklin County and 50% reported a score that is higher. Similarly, a score of 75 indicates that
75% of the normative sample reported a lower score and 25% reported a higher score. Because risk is
associated with negative behavioral outcomes, it is better to have lower risk factor scale scores, not higher.
Conversely, because protective factors are associated with better behavioral outcomes, it is better to have
higher protective factor scale scores, not lower.
The Communities That Care normative database contains survey responses from over 280,000 students in
grades 6 through 12. It compiled by combining the results of selected Communities That Care Youth
Survey efforts conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2002. To enhance representativeness, statistical weights were
applied to adjust the sample to exactly match the population of U.S.public school students on four key
demographic variables: ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic status and urbanicity. Information on the U.S. public
school student population was obtained from the Common Core of Data program at the U.S. Department
of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics.
The risk and protective factor measurement and scoring model employed in the 2011 PAYS is identical to
the 2009 model and nearly identical to the 2007 model, with the only difference being that the risk factor
scale Laws and Norms Favorable to Handguns is not included in this year's survey.Please note that a
number of changes to the model were introduced in 2007. Please see your 2007 report for a description of
these changes.Also note that some school districts elected to administer a secondary version of the PAYS
that excluded questions measuring risk and protective factors within the family. In these cases, scale scores
for the Family Domain risk and protective factors are not available.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-47 -
Results Summary
Overall Results
Overall risk and protective factor scale scores are presented in Graphs 3 and 4. These results provide a
general description of the prevention needs of Franklin County 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th graders as a whole.
As Graph 3 shows, overall percentile scores across the nine protective factor scales range from a low of 35
to a high of 67, with an average score of 54, which is four points higher than the normative average of 50.
The three lowest overall scores were for the following protective factor scales:Community Opportunities
for Prosocial Involvement (35),Religiosity (48) and Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement (50).
While policies that target any protective factor could potentially be an important resource for students in
Franklin County, focusing prevention planning in these areas could be especially beneficial. Franklin
County students reported the three highest overall scores for the following protective factor scales:School
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement (67),Belief in the Moral Order (65) and School Opportunities for
Prosocial Involvement (62). The higher scores reported by students in these areas represent strengths that
Franklin County can build on.
As Graph 4 shows, overall scores across the 23 risk factor scales range from a low of 39 to a high of 68,
with an average score of 47, which is three points lower than the normative average of 50. The three
highest risk factor scales are Community Disorganization (68),Perceived Availability of Handguns (59)
and Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior (55). Once again, while policies that target
any risk factor could potentially be an important resource for students in Franklin County, directing
prevention programming in these areas is likely to be especially beneficial. The three lowest risk factor
scales are Early Initiation of Drug Use (39),Friends’ Use of Drugs (40) and Rebelliousness (40). The
lower scores reported by students in these areas represent strengths that Franklin County can build on.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-48 -
Graph 3. Overall Protective Factor Scale Scores, 2011
Graph 4. Overall Risk Factor Scale Scores, 2011
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-49 -
Grade-Level Results
While overall scores provide a general picture of the risk and protective factor profile for Franklin County,
they can mask problems within individual grades.Tables 49 and 50 present individual-grade data for risk
and protective factor scale scores.This detailed information provides prevention planners with a snapshot
revealing which risk and protective factor scales are of greatest concern by grade. It allows those
prevention planners to focus on the most appropriate points in youth development for preventive
intervention action—and to target their prevention efforts as precisely as possible.
For example, younger students tend to report different factors than older students as being the most
elevated or suppressed. Franklin County 6th graders reported their four highest levels of risk for
Community Disorganization (74),Perceived Availability of Handguns (57),Parental Attitudes Favorable
toward Antisocial Behavior (54) and Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use (51). Franklin County 12th
graders reported their four highest levels of risk for Community Disorganization (70),Low Perceived Risks
of Drug Use (60),Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior (59) and Perceived
Availability of Handguns (58).
Comparisons to Pennsylvania Statewide
Additional insight into the protective factor profile for Franklin County can be gained through a
comparison to results from Pennsylvania statewide. Table 51 presents protective factor scale scores for
Pennsylvania statewide. The differences between profiles from Franklin County and Pennsylvania
statewide can be summarized by comparing the average protective factor scale score within each grade
level. As the bottom rows of Tables 49 and 51 show, there is no clear pattern of grade-level differences in
average protection between students in Franklin County and Pennsylvania statewide as a whole. Across
the nine protective factor scales, the most pronounced differences in average levels of protection were for
the following three scales:Religiosity,Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement and Belief in the
Moral Order.
Table 52 presents grade-level risk factor scale scores for Pennsylvania statewide. Like the protective
factors, the differences between Franklin County and Pennsylvania statewide are best summarized by
comparing the average risk factor scale score within each grade level. As the bottom rows of Tables 50
and 52 show, students in Franklin County reported an average level of risk that is not markedly different
than students in Pennsylvania statewide as a whole. Across the 21 risk factor scales, the most pronounced
differences in average levels of risk were for the following three scales:Perceived Availability of
Handguns,Sensation Seeking and Lack of Commitment to School.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-50 -
Table 49.Protective Factor Scale Scores,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
CommunityDomain Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 31 --39 --35 --33 35
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 48 --52 --51 --46 50
FamilyDomain Family Attachment 60 --57 --53 --48 55
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 55 --55 --51 --46 52
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54 --55 --53 --47 53
SchoolDomain School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 64 --64 --59 --59 62
School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 67 --66 --69 --65 67
Peer andIndividualDomain
Religiosity 45 --48 --50 --48 48
Belief in the Moral Order 67 --67 --63 --62 65
Average 55 --56 --54 --50 54
Table 50.Risk Factor Scale Scores,Franklin County 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
CommunityDomain Low Neighborhood Attachment 44 --46 --48 --46 46
Community Disorganization 74 --62 --68 --70 68
Transitions and Mobility 47 --51 --48 --48 49
Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use 51 --51 --49 --55 51
Perceived Availability of Drugs 50 --56 --49 --50 52
Perceived Availability of Handguns 57 --63 --56 --58 59
FamilyDomain Poor Family Management 40 --40 --45 --48 42
Family Conflict 50 --52 --48 --49 50
Family History of Antisocial Behavior 42 --43 --40 --44 42
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use 44 --44 --48 --52 47
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward AntisocialBehavior 54 --52 --55 --59 55
SchoolDomain Poor Academic Performance 40 --38 --45 --47 42
Lack of Commitment to School 42 --49 --51 --49 48
Peer andIndividualDomain
Rebelliousness 34 --41 --42 --42 40
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior 40 --41 --42 --40 41
Friends’ Use of Drugs 42 --41 --38 --38 40
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior 41 --47 --48 --48 46
Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior 41 --44 --45 --44 43
Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use 41 --43 --47 --42 44
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use 50 --49 --54 --60 52
Early Initiation of Drug Use 39 --38 --39 --40 39
Sensation Seeking 45 --46 --44 --47 45
Average 46 --47 --48 --#49 47
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-51 -
Table 51.Protective Factor Scale Scores,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
CommunityDomain Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 31 --38 --40 --40 37
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 51 --52 --54 --53 53
FamilyDomain Family Attachment 59 --57 --57 --53 56
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 54 --54 --54 --52 54
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 54 --55 --55 --52 54
SchoolDomain School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 62 --63 --61 --59 61
School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 63 --64 --67 --64 64
Peer andIndividualDomain
Religiosity 40 --44 --45 --43 43
Belief in the Moral Order 63 --63 --62 --59 62
Average 53 --54 --55 --53 54
Table 52.Risk Factor Scale Scores,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
CommunityDomain Low Neighborhood Attachment 43 --45 --45 --44 44
Community Disorganization 75 --64 --66 --70 69
Transitions and Mobility 44 --47 --44 --48 46
Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use 47 --45 --49 --53 49
Perceived Availability of Drugs 51 --51 --48 --49 49
Perceived Availability of Handguns 57 --56 --51 --49 53
FamilyDomain Poor Family Management 43 --43 --44 --45 44
Family Conflict 47 --51 --50 --53 50
Family History of Antisocial Behavior 39 --43 --39 --44 41
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use 45 --44 --47 --48 46
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward AntisocialBehavior 55 --52 --54 --58 55
SchoolDomain Poor Academic Performance 41 --38 --41 --41 40
Lack of Commitment to School 43 --43 --46 --45 44
Peer andIndividualDomain
Rebelliousness 35 --37 --40 --41 38
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior 41 --40 --41 --42 41
Friends’ Use of Drugs 42 --38 --38 --40 39
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior 42 --40 --47 --54 46
Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior 44 --42 --44 --43 43
Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use 44 --42 --45 --46 44
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use 51 --47 --53 --55 52
Early Initiation of Drug Use 38 --35 --34 --36 36
Sensation Seeking 42 --42 --41 --42 42
Average 46 --45 --46 --#48 46
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-52 -
Protective Factors
Protective factors are characteristics that are known to decrease the likelihood that a student will engage in
problem behaviors. For example, bonding to parents reduces the risk of an adolescent engaging in problem
behaviors.
The Social Development Strategy organizes the research on protective factors. Protective factors can
buffer young people from risks and promote positive youth development. To develop these healthy
positive behaviors, young people must be immersed in environments that consistently communicate
healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior; that foster the development of strong bonds to members
of their family, school and community; and that recognize the individual characteristics of each young
person.
Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
When young people become involved in their communities by
participating in activities and organizations that foster healthy
development, they are more likely to form connections with
prosocial peers. Community involvement also provides the
opportunity to bond with adult role models—such as neighbors,
police, clergy and other community leaders—who can give moral
guidance and emotional support. This protective factor ismeasured by survey items such as “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?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 35 on the Community
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, 15 points lower than the normative average of
50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Community Opportunities for Prosocial
Involvement range from a low of 31 among 6th graders to a high of 39 among 8th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 35 on the Community
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, two points lower than the statewide score of
37.
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Young people experience bonding as feeling valued and being
seen as an asset. Students who feel recognized and rewarded by
their community are less likely to engage in negative behaviors,
because that recognition helps increase a student’s self-esteem and
the feeling of bondedness to that community.Community Rewards
for Prosocial Involvement is measured by such items as “There
are people in my neighborhood who are proud of me when I dosomething well.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 50 on the Community Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement scale, equaling the normative average of 50.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-53 -
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
range from a low of 46 among 12th graders to a high of 52 among 8th graders.
■Overall,Franklin County students received a percentile score of 50 on the Community
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement scale, three points lower than the statewide score of 53.
Family Attachment
One of the most effective ways to buffer children against risk
factors is to strengthen their bonds with family members who
embody healthy beliefs and clear standards. If children are
attached to their parents and want to please them, they will be less
likely to threaten that connection by doing things that their parents
strongly disapprove of. This protective factor is measured by such
items on the survey as “Do you share your thoughts and feelingswith your mother?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 55 on the Family Attachment scale, five points
higher than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Family Attachment range from a low of 48 among
12th graders to a high of 60 among 6th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 55 on the Family Attachment
scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 56.
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
When students have the opportunity to make meaningful
contributions to their families, they feel closer to their family
members and are less likely to get involved in risky behaviors.
These opportunities for involvement reinforce family bonds and
cause students to more easily adopt the norms projected by their
families. For instance, children whose parents have high
expectations for their school success and achievement are less
likely to drop out of school. This protective factor is surveyed bysuch items as “My parents ask me what I think before most familydecisions affecting me are made.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 52 on the Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, two points higher
than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
range from a low of 46 among 12th graders to a high of 55 among 6th and 8th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 52 on the Family
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, two points lower than the statewide score of
54.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-54 -
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
When family members reward their children for positive
participation in activities, it further strengthens the bonds the
children feel to their families, and helps promote clear standards
for behavior. This protective factor is measured by such survey
items as “How often do your parents tell you they’re proud of youfor something you’ve done?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 53 on the Family Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement scale, three points higher than the normative
average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement range
from a low of 47 among 12th graders to a high of 55 among 8th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 53 on the Family Rewards
for Prosocial Involvement scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 54.
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Giving students opportunities to participate in important activities
at school helps to create a feeling of personal investment in their
school. This results in greater bonding and adoption of the
school’s standards of behavior, reducing the likelihood that they
will become involved in problem behaviors. This protective factoris measured by survey items such as “In my school, students have
lots of chances to help decide things like class activities and
rules.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 62 on the School Opportunities for Prosocial
Involvement scale, 12 points higher than the normative
average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
range from a low of 59 among 10th and 12th graders to a high of 64 among 6th and 8th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 62 on the School
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, one point higher than the statewide score of
61.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-55 -
School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Making students feel appreciated and rewarded for their
involvement at school further strengthens school bonding, and
helps to reduce the likelihood of their involvement in drug use and
other problem behaviors. This protective factor is measured by
such statements as “The school lets my parents know when I havedone something well.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 67 on the School Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement scale, 17 points higher than the normative
average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement range
from a low of 65 among 12th graders to a high of 69 among 10th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 67 on the School Rewards for
Prosocial Involvement scale, three points higher than the statewide score of 64.
Religiosity
Religious institutions can help students develop firm prosocial
beliefs. Students who have preconceived ideas about certain
activities are less vulnerable to becoming involved with antisocial
behaviors because they have already adopted a social norm
against those activities.Religiosity is measured by the question“How often do you attend religious services or activities?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 48 on the Religiosity scale, two points lower
than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Religiosity
range from a low of 45 among 6th graders to a high of 50 among 10th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 48 on the Religiosity scale,
five points higher than the statewide score of 43.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-56 -
Belief in the Moral Order
When people feel bonded to society, they are more motivated to
follow society’s standards and expectations. Therefore, it is
important for families, schools and communities to have clearly
stated policies on ATOD use. Young people who have developed
a positive belief system, and a clear sense of right and wrong, are
less likely to become involved in problem behaviors. For example,
young people who believe that drug use is wrong might be
protected against peer influences to use drugs.Belief in the Moral
Order is measured by items on the survey such as “It is all right tobeat up people if they start the fight.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 65 on the Belief in the Moral Order scale, 15 points higher than the normative
average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Belief in the Moral Order range from a low of 62
among 12th graders to a high of 67 among 6th and 8th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 65 on the Belief in the Moral
Order scale, three points higher than the statewide score of 62.
Risk Factors
Risk factors are characteristics in the community, family, school and individual’s environments that are
known to increase the likelihood that a student 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 drug
use, which can affect the likelihood that a young person will try alcohol, tobacco or other drugs. In those
communities where there is acceptance or tolerance of drug use, students are more likely to engage in
alcohol, tobacco and other drug use.
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Higher rates of drug problems, delinquency and violence occur in
communities or neighborhoods where people feel little attachment
to the community. Perhaps the most significant issue affecting
community attachment is whether residents feel they can make a
difference in their own lives. If the key players in the
neighborhood—such as merchants, teachers, clergy, police and
social services personnel—live outside the neighborhood,
residents’ sense of commitment will be lower. This low sense of
commitment may be reflected in lower rates of voter participation
and parental involvement in schools.
The Low Neighborhood Attachment scale on the survey uses three
items to measure the level of attachment that students feel to their neighborhoods. This risk factor ismeasured by items such as “I’d like to get out of my neighborhood” and “If I had to move, I would miss
the neighborhood I now live in.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 46 on the Low Neighborhood
Attachment scale, four points lower than the normative average of 50.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-57 -
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Low Neighborhood Attachment range from a low of
44 among 6th graders to a high of 48 among 10th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 46 on the Low Neighborhood
Attachment scale, two points higher than the statewide score of 44.
Community Disorganization
The Community Disorganization scale pertains to students’
feelings and perceptions regarding their communities and other
external attributes. It is based on students’ responses to five items,
four of which indicate a neighborhood in disarray (e.g., the
existence of graffiti, abandoned buildings, fighting and drugselling). The fifth item is “I feel safe in my neighborhood.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 68 on the Community Disorganization scale, 18
points higher than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Community
Disorganization range from a low of 62 among 8th graders to a high of 74 among 6th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 68 on the Community
Disorganization scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 69.
Transitions and Mobility
Even normal school transitions are associated with an increase in
problem behaviors. When children move from elementary school
to middle school or from middle school to high school, significant
increases in the rates of drug use, school dropout and antisocial
behavior may occur. This is thought to occur because by making a
transition to a new environment, students no longer have the
bonds they had in their old environment. Consequently, students
may be less likely to become attached to their schools and
neighborhoods, and do not develop the bonds that protect them
from involvement in problem behaviors.
The Transitions and Mobility scale on the survey measures how
often the student has changed homes or schools in the past year and since kindergarten. This risk factor is
measured with items such as “How many times have you changed schools (including changing fromelementary to middle and middle to high school) since kindergarten?” and “How many times have you
changed homes since kindergarten?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 49 on the Transitions and
Mobility scale, one point lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Transitions and Mobility range from a low of 47
among 6th graders to a high of 51 among 8th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 49 on the Transitions and
Mobility scale, three points higher than the statewide score of 46.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-58 -
Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use
Students’ perceptions of the rules and regulations concerning
alcohol, tobacco and other drug use that exist in their
neighborhoods are also associated with problem behaviors in
adolescence. Community norms—the attitudes and policies a
community holds in relation to drug use and other antisocial
behaviors—are communicated in a variety of ways: through laws
and written policies, through informal social practices and through
the expectations parents and other members of the community
have of young people. When laws and community standards are
favorable toward drug use, violence and/or other crime, or even
when they are just unclear, young people are more likely to
engage in negative behaviors (Bracht and Kingsbury, 1990).
An example of conflicting messages about drug use can be found in the acceptance of alcohol use as a
social activity within the community. The beer gardens popular at street fairs and community festivals arein contrast to the “Just Say No” messages that schools and parents may be promoting. These conflicting
and ambiguous messages are problematic in that they do not have the positive impact on preventing
alcohol and other drug use that a clear, consistent, community-level, anti-drug message can have.
This risk factor is measured by six items on the survey, such as “How wrong would most adults in your
neighborhood think it was for kids your age to drink alcohol?” and “If a kid smoked marijuana in your
neighborhood, would he or she be caught by the police?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 51 on the Laws and Norms
Favorable to Drug Use scale, one point higher than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use range
from a low of 49 among 10th graders to a high of 55 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 51 on the Laws and Norms
Favorable to Drug Use scale, two points higher than the statewide score of 49.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-59 -
Perceived Availability of Drugs
The perceived availability of drugs, alcohol and handguns in a
community is directly related to the prevalence of delinquent
behaviors. In schools where children believe that drugs are more
available, a higher rate of drug use occurs.
The Perceived Availability of Drugs scale on the survey is
designed to assess students’ feelings about how easily they can get
alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. Elevation of this risk factor scale
may indicate the need to make alcohol, tobacco and other drugs
more difficult for students to acquire. For instance, a number of
policy changes have been shown to reduce the availability of
alcohol and cigarettes. Minimum-age requirements, taxation and
responsible beverage service have all been shown to affect the perception of availability of alcohol.
This risk factor is measured by four items on the survey, such as “If you wanted to get some marijuana,
how easy would it be for you to get some?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 52 on the Perceived
Availability of Drugs scale, two points higher than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Perceived Availability of Drugs range from a low of
49 among 10th graders to a high of 56 among 8th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 52 on the Perceived
Availability of Drugs scale, three points higher than the statewide score of 49.
Perceived Availability of Handguns
If students believe that it would be difficult to get a handgun, they
are less likely to become involved with the unauthorized and
unsupervised use of firearms.Perceived Availability of Handguns
is measured by the question “If you wanted to get a handgun, howeasy would it be for you to get one?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 59 on the Perceived Availability of Handguns
scale, nine points higher than the normative average of
50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Perceived
Availability of Handguns range from a low of 56 among 10th graders to a high of 63 among 8th
graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 59 on the Perceived
Availability of Handguns scale, six points higher than the statewide score of 53.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-60 -
Poor Family Management
The risk factor scale Poor Family Management measures two
components of family life: “poor family supervision,” which is
defined as parents failing to supervise and monitor their children,and “poor family discipline,” which is defined as parents failing to
communicate clear expectations for behavior and giving
excessively severe, harsh or inconsistent punishment. Children
who experience poor family supervision and poor family
discipline are at higher risk of developing problems with drug use,
delinquency, violence and school dropout.
Sample items used to survey Poor Family Management include
“Would your parents know if you did not come home on time?”and “My family has clear rules about alcohol and drug use.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Poor Family
Management scale, eight points lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Poor Family Management range from a low of 40
among 6th and 8th graders to a high of 48 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Poor Family
Management scale, two points lower than the statewide score of 44.
Family Conflict
Bonding between family members, especially between children
and their parents or guardians, is a key component in the
development of positive social norms. High levels of family
conflict interfere with the development of these bonds, and
increase the likelihood that young people will engage in illegal
drug use and other forms of delinquent behavior.
Family Conflict is measured by four items on the survey, such as“People in my family often insult or yell at each other.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 50 on the Family Conflict scale, equaling the
normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Family Conflict range from a low of 48 among 10th
graders to a high of 52 among 8th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 50 on the Family Conflict
scale, equaling the statewide score of 50.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-61 -
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
If children are raised in a family where a history of addiction to
alcohol or other drugs exists, the risk of their having alcohol or
other drug problems themselves increases. If children are born or
raised in a family where criminal activity or behavior is normal,
their risk for delinquency increases. Similarly, children who are
born to a teenage mother are more likely to become teen parents,
and children of dropouts are more likely to drop out of school
themselves. Children whose parents engage in violent behavior
inside or outside the home are at greater risk for exhibiting violent
behavior themselves. Students’ perceptions of their families’
behavior and standards regarding drug use and other antisocial
behaviors are measured by the survey.Family History of
Antisocial Behavior is assessed by items such as “Has anyone in your family ever had a severe alcohol or
drug problem?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Family History of
Antisocial Behavior scale, eight points lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Family History of Antisocial Behavior range from a
low of 40 among 10th graders to a high of 44 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Family History of
Antisocial Behavior scale, one point higher than the statewide score of 41.
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use
Students’ perceptions of their parents’ opinions about alcohol,
tobacco and other drug use are an important risk factor. In
families where parents use illegal drugs, are heavy users of
alcohol or are tolerant of use by their children, children are more
likely to become drug users in adolescence.Parental Attitudes
Favorable toward ATOD Use is measured by survey items such
as “How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to smokemarijuana?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 47 on the Parental Attitudes Favorable toward
ATOD Use scale, three points lower than the normative
average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use
range from a low of 44 among 6th and 8th graders to a high of 52 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 47 on the Parental Attitudes
Favorable toward ATOD Use scale, one point higher than the statewide score of 46.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-62 -
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior
Students’ perceptions of their parents’ opinions about antisocial
behavior are also an important risk factor. Parental attitudes and
behavior regarding crime and violence influence the attitudes and
behavior of children. If parents approve of or excuse their children
for breaking the law, then the children are more likely to develop
problems with juvenile delinquency.Parental Attitudes Favorable
toward Antisocial Behavior is measured by survey items such as
“How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to pick afight with someone?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 55 on the Parental Attitudes Favorable toward
Antisocial Behavior scale, five points higher than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial
Behavior range from a low of 52 among 8th graders to a high of 59 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 55 on the Parental Attitudes
Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior scale, equaling the statewide score of 55.
Poor Academic Performance
Beginning in the late elementary grades, poor academic
performance increases the risk of drug use, delinquency, violence
and school dropout.Children fail for many reasons, but it appears
that the experience of failure increases the risk of these problem
behaviors.
Poor Academic Performance—students’ feelings about their
performance at school—is measured with two questions on the
survey: “Putting them all together, what were your grades like lastyear?” and “Are your school grades better than the grades of moststudents in your class?” Elevated findings for this risk factor scale
suggest that students believe that they have lower grades than
would be expected, and they perceive they have below-average grades, compared to their peers.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Poor Academic
Performance scale, eight points lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Poor Academic Performance range from a low of
38 among 8th graders to a high of 47 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Poor Academic
Performance scale, two points higher than the statewide score of 40.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-63 -
Lack of Commitment to School
Nine items on the survey assess Lack of Commitment to School—a
student’s general feelings about his or her schooling. Survey itemsinclude “How important do you think the things you are learningin school are going to be for your later life?” and “Now, thinking
back over the past year in school, how often did you enjoy beingin school?” Elevated findings for this risk factor scale suggest that
students feel less attached to, or connected with, their classes and
school environments. Lack of commitment to school means the
child has ceased to see the role of student as a positive one. Young
people who have lost this commitment to school are at higher risk
for a variety of problem behaviors.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 48 on the Lack of
Commitment to School scale, two points lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Lack of Commitment to School range from a low of
42 among 6th graders to a high of 51 among 10th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 48 on the Lack of
Commitment to School scale, four points higher than the statewide score of 44.
Rebelliousness
The survey also assesses the number of young people who feel
they are not part of society, who feel they are not bound by rules,and who don’t believe in trying to be successful or responsible.
These students are at higher risk of drug use, delinquency and
school dropout.Rebelliousness is measured by three items, suchas “I ignore the rules that get in my way.”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 40 on the Rebelliousness scale, 10 points lower
than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Rebelliousness
range from a low of 34 among 6th graders to a high of 42 among 10th and 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 40 on the Rebelliousness
scale, two points higher than the statewide score of 38.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-64 -
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior
Young people who associate with peers who engage in delinquent
behavior are much more likely to engage in delinquent behavior
themselves. This is one of the most consistent predictors identified
by research. Even when young people come from well-managed
families and do not experience other risk factors, spending time
with peers who engage in delinquent behavior greatly increases
the risk of their becoming involved in delinquent behavior.Friends’ Delinquent Behavior is measured by survey items suchas “In the past year, how many of your four best friends have been
suspended from school?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 41 on the Friends’ Delinquent Behavior scale, nine points lower than the normative
average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Friends’ Delinquent Behavior range from a low of
40 among 6th and 12th graders to a high of 42 among 10th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 41 on the Friends’
Delinquent Behavior scale, equaling the statewide score of 41.
Friends’ Use of Drugs
Young people who associate with peers who engage in substance
use are much more likely to engage in it themselves. This is one
of the most consistent predictors identified by research. Even
when young people come from well-managed families and do not
experience other risk factors, spending time with peers who usedrugs greatly increases a youth’s risk of becoming involved in
such behavior.Friends’ Use of Drugs is measured by survey items
such as “In the past year, how many of your best friends haveused marijuana?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 40 on the Friends’ Use of Drugs scale, 10 points
lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Friends’ Use of Drugs range from a low of 38
among 10th and 12th graders to a high of 42 among 6th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 40 on the Friends’ Use of
Drugs scale,one point higher than the statewide score of 39.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-65 -
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior
Students’ perceptions of their peer groups’ social norms are also
an important predictor of involvement in problem behavior. Any
indication that students feel that they get positive feedback from
their peers if they use alcohol, tobacco or other drugs, or if they
get involved in delinquent behaviors, is important to note and
understand. When young people believe that their peer groups are
involved in antisocial behaviors, they are more likely to become
involved in antisocial behaviors themselves. This risk factor ismeasured by items such as “What are the chances you would be
seen as cool if you smoked marijuana?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 46 on the Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior scale, four points lower than the
normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior range from a
low of 41 among 6th graders to a high of 48 among 10th and 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 46 on the Peer Rewards for
Antisocial Behavior scale, equaling the statewide score of 46.
Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior
During the elementary school years, children usually express
anticrime and prosocial attitudes and have difficulty imagining
why people commit crimes or drop out of school. However, in
middle school, as others they know participate in such activities,
their attitudes often shift toward greater acceptance of these
behaviors. This acceptance places them at higher risk for these
antisocial behaviors.
These attitudes are measured on the survey by items like “How
wrong do you think it is for someone your age to pick a fight with
someone?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 43 on the Favorable
Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior scale, seven points lower than the normative average of
50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior
range from a low of 41 among 6th graders to a high of 45 among 10th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 43 on the Favorable
Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior scale, equaling the statewide score of 43.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-66 -
Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use
During the elementary school years, children usually express anti-
drug attitudes and have difficulty imagining why people use
drugs. However, in middle school, as others they know participate
in such activities, their attitudes often shift toward greater
acceptance of these behaviors. This acceptance places them at
higher risk. This risk factor scale,Favorable Attitudes toward
ATOD Use,assesses risk by asking young people how wrong they
think it is for someone their age to use drugs. Survey items used tomeasure this risk factor include “How wrong do you think it is for
someone your age to drink beer, wine or hard liquor (for example,
vodka, whiskey or gin) regularly?” An elevated score for this risk factor scale can indicate that students
see little wrong with using drugs.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 44 on the Favorable
Attitudes toward ATOD Use scale, six points lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use range from
a low of 41 among 6th graders to a high of 47 among 10th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 44 on the Favorable
Attitudes toward ATOD Use scale, equaling the statewide score of 44.
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use
The perception of harm from drug use is related to both
experimentation and regular use. The less harm that an adolescent
perceives as the result of drug use, the more likely it is that he or
she will use drugs.Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use is measuredwith four survey items, such as “How much do you think people
risk harming themselves if they try marijuana once or twice?” An
elevated score can indicate that students are not aware of, or do
not comprehend, the possible harm resulting from drug use.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 52 on the Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use
scale, two points higher than the normative average of
50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use range from a low
of 49 among 8th graders to a high of 60 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 52 on the Low Perceived
Risks of Drug Use scale, equaling the statewide score of 52.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-67 -
Early Initiation of Drug Use
The initiation of alcohol, tobacco or other drug use at an early age
is linked to a number of negative outcomes. The earlier that
experimentation with drugs begins, the more likely it is that
experimentation will become consistent, regular use. Early
initiation may lead to the use of a greater range of drugs, as well
as other problem behaviors. This scale is measured by survey
items that ask when drug use began.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 39 on the Early Initiation of Drug Use scale, 11
points lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Early Initiation of Drug Use range from a low of 38
among 8th graders to a high of 40 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 39 on the Early Initiation of
Drug Use scale, three points higher than the statewide score of 36.
Sensation Seeking
Constitutional factors are individual characteristics that may have
a biological or physiological basis. Constitutional factors that
increase risk are often seen as sensation seeking, low harm
avoidance and lack of impulse control. They appear to increase
the risk of young people using drugs, engaging in delinquent
behavior and/or committing violent acts.Sensation Seeking is
measured by survey items such as “How many times have you
done crazy things even if they are a little dangerous?”
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 45 on the Sensation Seeking scale, five points
lower than the normative average of 50.
■Across grade levels, percentile scores for Sensation Seeking range from a low of 44 among
10th graders to a high of 47 among 12th graders.
■Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 45 on the Sensation Seeking
scale, three points higher than the statewide score of 42.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-69 -
Appendix A: Historical Data
Introduction
In addition to the current survey effort, Franklin County administered the PAYS in the fall of 2007 and
2009.Caution should be exercised when comparing overall results across survey administrations. This is
because differences in the samples, particularly the distribution of the sample across grade levels,can
dramatically impact overall results, making trend comparisons inaccurate for some communities.Also
note that risk and protective factor results from 2001 and 2003 are not included in this report because a
different scoring methodology was used in those years. (Please see Section 5 of this report for more
information on risk and protective factor scoring).
Demographic Trends
The survey measures a variety of demographic characteristics.Table 53 shows selected characteristics of
surveyed Franklin County youth for 2007, 2009 and 2011.
Table 53. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Youth
Number of Students Percentage of Students
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Valid Surveys ------988 1,220 2,107 ------100.0%100.0%100.0%
Sex
Male ------449 521 936 ------45.4%42.7%44.4%
Female ------527 641 1,061 ------53.3%52.5%50.4%
No Response ------12 58 110 ------1.2%4.8%5.2%
Ethnicity
White ------861 1,022 1,746 ------87.1%83.8%82.9%
African Amer.------30 31 69 ------3.0%2.5%3.3%
Latino ------12 41 49 ------1.2%3.4%2.3%
Amer. Indian ------12 10 19 ------1.2%0.8%0.9%
Asian ------10 15 27 ------1.0%1.2%1.3%
Other/Multiple ------53 96 183 ------5.4%7.9%8.7%
No Response ------10 5 14 ------1.0%0.4%0.7%
Grade Level
6th ------223 379 576 ------22.6%31.1%27.3%
7th ------0 0 0 ------0.0%0.0%0.0%
8th ------280 319 647 ------28.3%26.1%30.7%
9th ------0 0 0 ------0.0%0.0%0.0%
10th ------250 312 512 ------25.3%25.6%24.3%
11th ------0 0 0 ------0.0%0.0%0.0%
12th ------219 210 372 ------22.2%17.2%17.7%
Note: Rounding can produce totals that do not equal 100%.
Appendix A
Historical Data
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-70 -
ATOD Results, 2007 and 2009
Table 54. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs,Franklin County 2007
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 24.5 --61.4 --67.7 --77.8 58.5
Cigarettes 4.5 --35.7 --43.8 --50.9 34.0
Smokeless Tobacco 0.5 --12.5 --24.1 --23.9 15.4
Marijuana 0.0 --8.9 --32.9 --42.7 20.8
Inhalants 7.9 --17.5 --10.9 --5.1 11.1
Cocaine 0.0 --1.1 --4.0 --8.7 3.5
Crack Cocaine 0.0 --1.8 --2.0 --1.4 1.3
Heroin 0.0 --1.1 --1.6 --1.8 1.1
Hallucinogens 0.0 --2.2 --6.5 --10.6 4.9
Methamphetamine 0.0 --1.1 --0.4 --1.4 0.7
Ecstasy 0.5 --1.8 --5.2 --4.6 3.1
Steroids 0.0 --2.5 --2.8 --2.3 1.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 55. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs,Franklin County 2007
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 3.6 --22.1 --30.4 --45.5 25.3
Binge Drinking 1.4 --10.1 --18.4 --30.4 14.9
Cigarettes 0.5 --15.4 --23.6 --30.7 17.4
Smokeless Tobacco 0.5 --6.1 --14.8 --13.3 8.7
Marijuana 0.0 --2.9 --14.1 --21.1 9.3
Inhalants 2.7 --6.1 --3.2 --0.9 3.5
Cocaine 0.0 --0.4 --0.4 --3.7 1.1
Crack Cocaine 0.0 --0.4 --0.4 --0.0 0.2
Heroin 0.0 --0.4 --0.4 --0.9 0.4
Hallucinogens 0.0 --1.4 --2.4 --0.9 1.2
Methamphetamine 0.0 --0.0 --0.0 --0.5 0.1
Ecstasy 0.0 --0.4 --1.6 --1.4 0.8
Steroids 0.0 --1.4 --0.4 --1.8 0.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-71 -
Table 56. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs,Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 20.2 --31.1 --61.6 --62.1 40.5
Cigarettes 7.8 --16.6 --45.2 --47.5 26.4
Smokeless Tobacco 2.9 --10.5 --18.7 --25.0 12.7
Marijuana 0.8 --3.9 --28.7 --33.7 14.1
Inhalants 11.1 --15.2 --17.6 --8.9 13.5
Cocaine 0.0 --0.0 --3.1 --4.2 1.5
Crack Cocaine 0.0 --0.3 --1.0 --0.5 0.4
Heroin 0.3 --0.6 --0.3 --1.6 0.6
Hallucinogens 0.3 --1.0 --3.8 --8.4 2.7
Methamphetamine 0.3 --0.0 --0.7 --1.6 0.5
Ecstasy 0.0 --0.3 --2.4 --3.2 1.2
Steroids 0.6 --0.6 --1.0 --1.6 0.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 57. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs,Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Alcohol 5.9 --12.3 --38.3 --39.3 21.3
Binge Drinking 2.4 --4.2 --16.9 --21.6 9.8
Cigarettes 0.8 --2.9 --20.7 --29.5 11.1
Smokeless Tobacco 1.9 --5.8 --9.2 --13.2 6.7
Marijuana 0.3 --1.9 --15.0 --17.9 7.3
Inhalants 8.3 --7.1 --9.3 --3.2 7.4
Cocaine 0.0 --0.3 --1.0 --0.5 0.4
Crack Cocaine 0.0 --0.3 --0.0 --0.0 0.1
Heroin 0.3 --0.3 --0.3 --0.0 0.3
Hallucinogens 0.0 --0.6 --2.8 --1.6 1.1
Methamphetamine 0.0 --0.0 --0.0 --0.0 0.0
Ecstasy 0.0 --0.3 --0.7 --1.0 0.4
Steroids 0.6 --0.3 --0.7 --0.5 0.5
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-72 -
Other Antisocial Behavior Results, 2007 and 2009
Table 58. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors,Franklin County 2007
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 6.8 --15.4 --15.7 --7.8 12.0
Attempting to Steal a Vehicle 0.0 --1.4 --2.4 --1.4 1.3
Being Arrested 0.0 --3.6 --6.4 --5.1 4.1
Being Drunk or High at School 0.9 --6.8 --12.1 --18.0 9.4
Getting Suspended 2.7 --6.8 --19.2 --8.8 9.5
Selling Drugs 0.0 --2.2 --5.2 --10.6 4.5
Bringing a Weapon to School 0.5 --3.2 --3.2 --5.1 3.0
Average 1.6 --5.6 --9.2 --8.1 6.3
Table 59. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors,Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall%%%%%%%%
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 7.8 --9.4 --11.3 --7.9 9.2
Attempting to Steal a Vehicle 1.4 --0.3 --4.4 --1.0 1.8
Being Arrested 1.1 --2.3 --6.0 --5.9 3.5
Being Drunk or High at School 1.3 --3.2 --13.9 --14.7 7.3
Getting Suspended 3.6 --3.9 --14.1 --8.5 7.2
Selling Drugs 0.3 --0.3 --6.7 --8.3 3.3
Bringing a Weapon to School 0.6 --1.3 --2.4 --1.1 1.3
Average 2.3 --3.0 --8.4 --6.8 4.8
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-73 -
Risk and Protective Results, 2007 and 2009
Table 60. Protective Factor Scale Scores,Franklin County 2007
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
CommunityDomain
Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 51 --57 --56 --65 57
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 49 --52 --52 --53 51
FamilyDomain
Family Attachment 51 --51 --54 --52 52
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 47 --55 --55 --52 52
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 48 --53 --52 --52 51
SchoolDomain
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 47 --57 --55 --50 52
School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 61 --46 --48 --41 49
Peer andIndividualDomain
Religiosity 52 --47 --42 --52 48
Belief in the Moral Order 63 --64 --69 --66 65
Average 52 --54 --54 --54 53
Table 61. Risk Factor Scale Scores,Franklin County 2007
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
CommunityDomain
Low Neighborhood Attachment 53 --47 --48 --45 48
Community Disorganization 53 --51 --52 --56 53
Transitions and Mobility 32 --56 --55 --51 49
Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use 52 --51 --49 --55 52
Laws and Norms Favorable to Handguns 49 --47 --44 --50 48
Perceived Availability of Drugs 48 --47 --41 --44 45
Perceived Availability of Handguns 60 --54 --49 --50 53
FamilyDomain
Poor Family Management 43 --42 --43 --42 42
Family Conflict 56 --50 --48 --51 51
Family History of Antisocial Behavior 43 --49 --46 --47 47
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use 46 --53 --52 --49 51
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward AntisocialBehavior 44 --49 --47 --48 47
SchoolDomain
Poor Academic Performance 46 --48 --52 --38 46
Lack of Commitment to School 45 --44 --46 --43 45
Peer andIndividualDomain
Rebelliousness 46 --50 --42 --45 46
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior 40 --42 --45 --42 43
Friends’ Use of Drugs 39 --48 --44 --43 45
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior 46 --54 --51 --51 51
Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior 39 --39 --38 --39 39
Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use 39 --46 --38 --40 41
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use 44 --44 --45 --48 45
Early Initiation of Drug Use 42 --51 --46 --47 47
Sensation Seeking 46 --50 --41 --39 44
Average 46 --48 --46 --46 47
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-74 -
Table 62. Protective Factor Scale Scores,Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
CommunityDomain
Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 24 --41 --32 --39 33
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 46 --49 --48 --51 48
FamilyDomain
Family Attachment 55 --59 --51 --58 55
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 52 --54 --50 --54 52
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 53 --55 --51 --53 53
SchoolDomain
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 64 --71 --59 --63 65
School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 62 --68 --63 --62 64
Peer andIndividualDomain
Religiosity 41 --57 --48 --54 49
Belief in the Moral Order 64 --67 --60 --68 64
Average 51 --58 --51 --56 54
Table 63. Risk Factor Scale Scores,Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
CommunityDomain
Low Neighborhood Attachment 44 --49 --49 --48 47
Community Disorganization 75 --69 --67 --67 70
Transitions and Mobility 44 --51 --57 --48 50
Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use 51 --46 --56 --51 51
Perceived Availability of Drugs 57 --52 --55 --44 53
Perceived Availability of Handguns 62 --63 --56 --56 59
FamilyDomain
Poor Family Management 45 --41 --47 --42 44
Family Conflict 49 --50 --51 --43 49
Family History of Antisocial Behavior 43 --38 --47 --41 43
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use 46 --41 --52 --50 47
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward AntisocialBehavior 54 --47 --56 --59 54
SchoolDomain
Poor Academic Performance 42 --41 --44 --39 42
Lack of Commitment to School 46 --46 --46 --42 45
Peer andIndividualDomain
Rebelliousness 40 --43 --47 --38 42
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior 41 --35 --44 --40 40
Friends’ Use of Drugs 47 --36 --44 --34 40
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior 48 --40 --52 --53 48
Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior 45 --39 --43 --40 42
Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use 44 --39 --49 --40 44
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use 48 --45 --54 --55 50
Early Initiation of Drug Use 42 --34 --45 --37 40
Sensation Seeking 50 --43 --48 --40 46
Average 48 --45 --50 --46 48
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-75 -
Appendix B: Risk and Protective Factor Scale Construction Summary
Appendix B
Risk and Protective Factor
Scale Construction Summary
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-76 -
Community Domain Scales
RISK FACTORS
COM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Q109 I’d like to get out of my neighborhood.
Q102 I like my neighborhood.
Q100 If I had to move, I would miss the neighborhood I now live in.
Community Disorganization
Q103a How much do each of the following statements describe your neighborhood:
crime and/or drug selling.
Q103b How much do each of the following statements describe your neighborhood:
fights.
Q103c How much do each of the following statements describe your neighborhood:
lots of empty or abandoned buildings.
Q103d How much do each of the following statements describe your neighborhood:
lots of graffiti.
Q107 I feel safe in my neighborhood.
Transitions and Mobility
Q110 Have you changed homes in the past year?
Q104 How many times have you changed homes since kindergarten?
Q106 Have you changed schools (including changing from elementary to middle and
middle to high school) in the past year?
Q108 How many times have you changed schools since kindergarten?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-77 -
RISK FACTORS,CONTINUED
COM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use
Q33a How wrong would most adults (over 21) in your neighborhood think it was for
kids your age: to use marijuana?
Q33b How wrong would most adults (over 21) in your neighborhood think it was for
kids your age: to drink alcohol?
Q33c How wrong would most adults (over 21) in your neighborhood think it was for
kids your age: to smoke cigarettes?
Q29 If a kid drank some beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey, or
gin) in your neighborhood, would he or she be caught by the police?
Q27 If a kid smoked marijuana in your neighborhood, would he or she be caught by
the police?
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Q25 If you wanted to get some beer, wine or hard liquor (for example, vodka,
whiskey, or gin), how easy would it be for you to get some?
Q26 If you wanted to get some cigarettes, how easy would it be for you to get some?
Q32 If you wanted to get some marijuana, how easy would it be for you to get
some?
Q28 If you wanted to get a drug like cocaine, LSD, or amphetamines, how easy
would it be for you to get some?
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Q30 If you wanted to get a handgun, how easy would it be for you to get one?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-78 -
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
COM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Q101 My neighbors notice when I am doing a good job and let me know.
Q111 There are people in my neighborhood who encourage me to do my best.
Q105 There are people in my neighborhood who are proud of me when I do
something well.
Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Q2912 Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your
community: sports teams?
Q2913 Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your
community:scouting?
Q2914 Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your
community: boys and girls clubs?
Q2915 Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your
community: 4-H clubs?
Q2916 Which of the following activities for people your age are available in your
community: service clubs?
Q555 There are lots of adults in my neighborhood I could talk to about something
important.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-79 -
Family Domain Scales
RISK FACTORS
FAM
I
L
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Poor Family Management
Q78 My parents ask if I’ve gotten my homework done.
Q80 Would your parents know if you did not come home on time?
Q79 When I am not at home, one of my parents knows where I am and whom I am
with.
Q76 The rules in my family are clear.
Q83 My family has clear rules about alcohol and drug use.
Q82 If you drank some beer or wine or liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey, or gin)
without your parents’ permission, would you be caught by your parents?
Q85 If you skipped school, would you be caught by your parents?
Q84 If you carried a handgun without your parents’ permission, would you be
caught by your parents?
Family Conflict
Q2909 People in my family often insult or yell at each other.
Q2911 People in my family have serious arguments.
Q2910 We argue about the same things in my family over and over.
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior
Q74d How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to: steal anything worth
more than $5?
Q74e How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to: draw graffiti, or write
things or draw pictures on buildings or other property (without the owner’s
permission)?
Q74f How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to: pick a fight with
someone?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-80 -
RISK FACTORS,CONTINUED
FAM
I
L
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use
Q74a How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to: drink beer, wine or
hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey or gin) regularly?
Q74b How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to: smoke cigarettes?
Q74c How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to: smoke marijuana?
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Q77 Has anyone in your family ever had a severe alcohol or drug problem?
Q75a Have any of your brothers or sisters ever: drunk beer, wine or hard liquor (for
example, vodka, whiskey or gin)?
Q75b Have any of your brothers or sisters ever: smoked marijuana?
Q75c Have any of your brothers or sisters ever: smoked cigarettes?
Q75d Have any of your brothers or sisters ever: taken a handgun to school?
Q75e Have any of your brothers or sisters ever: been suspended or expelled from
school?
Q34a About how many adults (over 21) have you known personally who in the past
year have: used marijuana, crack, cocaine, or other drugs?
Q34b About how many adults (over 21) have you known personally who in the past
year have: sold or dealt drugs?
Q34c About how many adults (over 21) have you known personally who in the past
year have: done other things that could get them in trouble with the police, like
stealing, selling stolen goods, mugging or assaulting others, etc?
Q34d About how many adults (over 21) have you known personally who in the past
year have: gotten drunk or high?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-81 -
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
FAM
I
L
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Family Attachment
Q87 Do you feel very close to your mother?
Q88 Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your mother?
Q97 Do you feel very close to your father?
Q92 Do you share your thoughts and feelings with your father?
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Q99 My parents give me lots of chances to do fun things with them.
Q89 My parents ask me what I think before most family decisions affecting me are
made.
Q96 If I had a personal problem, I could ask my mom or dad for help.
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Q86 My parents notice when I am doing a good job and let me know about it.
Q91 How often do your parents tell you they’re proud of you for something you’ve
done?
Q93 Do you enjoy spending time with your mother?
Q94 Do you enjoy spending time with your father?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-82 -
School Domain Scales
RISK FACTORS
SCH
O
O
L
DOM
A
I
N
Poor Academic Performance
Q13 Putting them all together, what were your grades like last year?
Q23 Are your school grades better than the grades of most students in your class?
Lack of Commitment to School
Q3681 How often do you feel that the schoolwork you are assigned is meaningful and
important?
Q3682 How interesting are most of your courses to you?
Q3683 How important do you think the things you are learning in school are going to
be for your later life?
Q3684 Now, thinking back over the past year in school, how often did you: Enjoy
being in school?
Q3685 Now, thinking back over the past year in school, how often did you: Hate being
in school?
Q3686 Now, thinking back over the past year in school, how often did you: Try to do
your best work in school?
Q738 During the LAST FOUR WEEKS, how many whole days have you missedbecause you skipped or “cut”?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-83 -
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
SCH
O
O
L
DOM
A
I
N
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Q14 In my school, students have lots of chances to help decide things like class
activities and rules.
Q17 There are lots of chances for students in my school to talk with a teacher one-
on-one.
Q2891 Teachers ask me to work on special classroom projects.
Q2057 There are lots of chances for students in my school to get involved in sports,
clubs, and other school activities outside of class.
Q3668 I have lots of chances to be part of class discussions or activities.
School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Q15 My teacher(s) notices when I am doing a good job and lets me know about it.
Q21 The school lets my parents know when I have done something well.
Q18 I feel safe at my school.
Q731 My teachers praise me when I work hard in school.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-84 -
Peer and Individual Domain Scales
RISK FACTORS
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use
Q3687 How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other
ways) if they: smoke one or more packs of cigarettes per day?
Q3679 How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other
ways) if they: try marijuana once or twice?
Q3688 How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other
ways) if they: smoke marijuana regularly?
Q3680 How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other
ways) if they: take one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine,
liquor) nearly every day?
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Q60a How old were you when you first: smoked marijuana?
Q60b How old were you when you first: smoked a cigarette, even just a puff?
Q60c How old were you when you first: had more than a sip or two of beer, wine or
hard liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey, or gin)?
Q60d How old were you when you first: began drinking alcoholic beverages
regularly, that is, at least once or twice a month?
Sensation Seeking
Q57a How many times have you done the following things? Done what feels good no
matter what.
Q57b How many times have you done the following things? Done something
dangerous because someone dared you to do it.
Q57c How many times have you done the following things? Done crazy things even
if they are a little dangerous.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-85 -
RISK FACTORS,CONTINUED
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Rebelliousness
Q55 I do the opposite of what people tell me, just to get them mad.
Q62 I ignore rules that get in my way.
Q73 I like to see how much I can get away with.
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior
Q65a Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have been suspended from school?
Q65b Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have carried a handgun?
Q65c Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have sold illegal drugs?
Q65d Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have stolen or tried to steal a motor
vehicle such as a car or motorcycle?
Q65e Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have been arrested?
Q65f Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have dropped out of school?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-86 -
RISK FACTORS,CONTINUED
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Friends’ Use of Drugs
Q58a Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have smoked cigarettes?
Q58b Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have tried beer, wine or hard liquor
(for example, vodka, whiskey or gin) when their parents didn’t know about it?
Q58c Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have used marijuana?
Q58d Think of your four best friends (the friends you feel closest to). In the past year
(12 months), how many of your best friends have used LSD, cocaine,
amphetamines, or other illegal drugs?
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior
Q59a What are the chances you would be seen as cool if you smoked cigarettes?
Q59b What are the chances you would be seen as cool if you began drinking
alcoholic beverages regularly, that is, at least once or twice a month?
Q59c What are the chances you would be seen as cool if you smoked marijuana?
Q59d What are the chances you would be seen as cool if you carried a handgun?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-87 -
RISK FACTORS,CONTINUED
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior
Q61a How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to take a handgun to
school?
Q61b How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to steal anything worth
more than $5?
Q61c How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to pick a fight with
someone?
Q61d How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to attack someone with the
idea of seriously hurting him or her?
Q61e How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to stay away from school
all day when their parents think they are at school?
Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use
Q67a How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to drink beer, wine or hard
liquor (for example, vodka, whiskey or gin) regularly?
Q67b How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to smoke cigarettes?
Q67c How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to smoke marijuana?
Q67d How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to use LSD, cocaine,
amphetamines or another illegal drug?
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-88 -
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Religiosity
Q54 How often do you attend religious services or activities?
Belief in the Moral Order
Q56 I think it is okay to take something without asking, if you can get away with it.
Q72 I think sometimes it’s okay to cheat at school.
Q63 It is all right to beat up people if they start the fight.
Q64 It is important to be honest with your parents, even if they become upset or you
get punished.
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-89 -
Appendix C: List of Tables and Graphs
Table 1. Confidence Intervals for Sample...................................................................................6
Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Youth ......................................................7
Table 3. Percentage of Youth Reporting Bullying at School or Sexual Harassment on theInternet in the Past Year, Franklin County 2011 ........................................................................10
Table 4. Percentage of Youth Reporting Bullying at School or Sexual Harassment on the
Internet in the Past Year, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011 ..........................................................10
Table 5. Percentage of Youth Reporting Violence or Drugs on School Property in the PastYear, Franklin County 2011.........................................................................................................11
Table 6. Percentage of Youth Reporting Violence or Drugs on School Property in the PastYear, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011...........................................................................................11
Table 7. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Gang Involvement, Franklin County 2011 ..11
Table 8. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Gang Involvement, Pennsylvania Statewide
2011 ..............................................................................................................................................12
Table 9. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors, Franklin County 2011 ...........................12
Table 10. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011 ...........12
Table 11. Past-30-Day Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School, Franklin County 2011 13
Table 12. Past-30-Day Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School, PennsylvaniaStatewide 2011 ............................................................................................................................13
Graph 1. Overall Lifetime and Past-30-Day Prevalence of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other
Drug Use .......................................................................................................................................16
Graph 2. Past-30-Day Use of Selected ATODs.........................................................................17
Table 13. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs ...............................................18
Table 14. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs........................................18
Table 15. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011......................................................................................................................................................19
Appendix C
List of Tables and Graphs
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-90 -
Table 16. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide2011..............................................................................................................................................20
Table 17. Lifetime Use of Prescription Drugs, Franklin County 2011 ......................................30
Table 18. Past-30-Day Use of Prescription Drugs, Franklin County 2011................................31
Table 19. Lifetime Use of Prescription Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011 ........................31
Table 20. Past-30-Day Use of Prescription Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011.................31
Table 21. Percentage of Youth Who Reported Perception of “Great Risk” of Harm, FranklinCounty 2011 ................................................................................................................................32
Table 22. Percentage of Youth Who Reported Perception of “Great Risk” of Harm,
Pennsylvania Statewide 2011....................................................................................................32
Table 23. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Personal Disapproval of Drug Use,FranklinCounty 2011 ................................................................................................................................32
Table 24. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Personal Disapproval of Drug Use,
Pennsylvania Statewide 2011....................................................................................................33
Table 25. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Peer Approval of Drug Use, Franklin County2011..............................................................................................................................................33
Table 26. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Peer Approval of Drug Use, PennsylvaniaStatewide 2011............................................................................................................................33
Table 27. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated “Other Adults” Disapprove of Drug Use,Franklin County 2011..................................................................................................................34
Table 28. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated “Other Adults” Disapprove of Drug Use,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011....................................................................................................34
Table 29. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Parental Disapproval of Drug Use, Franklin
County 2011 ................................................................................................................................34
Table 30. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Parental Disapproval of Drug Use,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011....................................................................................................34
Table 31. Past-30-Day Frequency of Alcohol Use, Franklin County 2011.............................35
Table 32. Past-30-Day Frequency of Alcohol Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011...............35
Table 33. Past-30-Day Frequency of Cigarette Use, Franklin County 2011..........................35
Table 34. Past-30-Day Frequency of Cigarette Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011............36
Table 35. Past-30-Day Frequency of Marijuana Use, Franklin County 2011 ........................36
Table 36. Past-30-Day Frequency of Marijuana Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011 ..........36
Table 37. Past-30-Day Frequency of Inhalant Use, Franklin County 2011............................37
Table 38. Past-30-Day Frequency of Inhalant Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011..............37
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-91 -
Table 39. Average Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behaviors, FranklinCounty 2011.................................................................................................................................40
Table 40. Average Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behaviors,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011.....................................................................................................40
Table 41. Percentage of Youth Reporting Any Occasion of Driving Under the Influence,Franklin County 2011...................................................................................................................41
Table 42. Percentage of Youth Reporting Any Occasion of Driving Under the Influence,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011.....................................................................................................41
Table 43. Percentage of Youth Reporting Willingness to Try Selected ATODs, Franklin
County 2011.................................................................................................................................41
Table 44. Percentage of Youth Reporting Willingness to Try Selected ATODs, PennsylvaniaStatewide 2011 ............................................................................................................................41
Table 45. Percentage of Youth Reporting Gambling or Gambling-Related Problems,
Franklin County 2011...................................................................................................................42
Table 46. Percentage of Youth Reporting Gambling or Gambling-Related Problems,Pennsylvania Statewide 2011.....................................................................................................42
Table 47. Percentage of Youth Reporting Symptoms of Depression, Franklin County 201143
Table 48. Percentage of Youth Reporting Symptoms of Depression, PennsylvaniaStatewide 2011 ............................................................................................................................43
Graph 3. Overall Protective Factor Scale Scores, 2011...........................................................48
Graph 4. Overall Risk Factor Scale Scores, 2011 .....................................................................48
Table 49. Protective Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2011 ...........................................50
Table 50. Risk Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2011......................................................50
Table 51. Protective Factor Scale Scores, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011 .............................51
Table 52. Risk Factor Scale Scores, Pennsylvania Statewide 2011........................................51
Table 53. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Youth ...................................69
Table 54. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Franklin County 2007..........70
Table 55. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Franklin County 2007 ..70
Table 56. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Franklin County 2009..........71
Table 57. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Franklin County 2009 ..71
Table 58. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors, Franklin County 2007 .........................72
Table 59. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors, Franklin County 2009 .........................72
Table 60. Protective Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2007 ...........................................73
Table 61. Risk Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2007......................................................73
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-92 -
Table 62. Protective Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2009 ..........................................74
Table 63. Risk Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2009 .....................................................74
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-93 -
Appendix D: Other Resources
Web Sites
Office of National Drug Control Policy:www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp
National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information:www.ncadi.samhsa.gov
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA):www.samhsa.gov
Communities That Care:www.sdrg.org/ctcresource
Monitoring the Future:www.monitoringthefuture.org
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA):www.nida.nih.gov and www.drugabuse.gov
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA):www.niaaa.nih.gov
Social Development Research Group:www.uwsrd.org/sdrg
Prevention Program Guides
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).Model Programs Guide: www.ojjdp.gov/mpg.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science.Blueprints for Violence Prevention.
Available from the University of Colorado Boulder’s web site:www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints.
Social Development Research Group, University of Washington.Communities That Care Prevention Strategies
Guide:www.sdrg.org/ctcresource/Prevention Strategies Guide/introduction.pdf.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA).Model Programs List:www.nrepp.samhsa.gov.
Prevention Planning
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Associates. (1992).Communities that care: Action for drug abuse prevention
(1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Appendix D
Other Resources
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-95 -
References
Atlas, R. & Pepler D. (1998).Observations of bullying in the classroom.Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86-99.
Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective
factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors: The communities that care youth
survey.Evaluation Review, 26, 575-601.
Bachman, J., Johnston, L., O’Malley, P., & Humphrey, R. (1986). Changes in marijuana use linked to changes in
perceived risks and disapproval (Monitoring the Future Occasional Paper 19). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
Research.
Bachman, J., Johnston, L., O’Malley, P., & Humphrey, R. (1988). Explaining the recent decline in marijuana use:
Differentiating the effects of perceived risks, disapproval, and general lifestyle factors.Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 29, 92-112.
Banks, R. (1997).Bullying in schools.ERIC Digest [Online]. Available:www.ericdigests.org/1997-4/bullying.htm.
Blum, R. W., Beuhring, T., Shew, M. L., Bearinger, L. H., Sieving, R. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2000). The effects of
race/ethnicity, income, and family structure on adolescent risk behaviors.American Journal of Public Health, 90,
1879-1884.
Bracht, N.& Kingsbury, L. (1990). Community organization principles in health promotion: A five-state model. In
N. Bracht (Ed.),Health promotion at the community level (pp. 66-88). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
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.
Everett, S. A., Ph.D., M.P.H., Giovino, G. A., Ph.D., Warren, C. W., Ph.D., Crossett, L., R.D.H., & Kann, L., Ph.D.
(1998). Other substance use among high school students who use tobacco.Journal of Adolescent Health, 23,
289-296.
Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W. W., Sager, N., & Short-Camilli, C. (1997).Bullyproofing your school: Creating a
positive climate.Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 235-243.
Glaser, R. R., Van Horn, M. L., Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., &Catalano, R. F. (2005). Measurement properties of
the communities that care youth survey across demographic groups.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21,
73-102.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Associates. (1992).Communities that care: Action for drug abuse prevention
(1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011a).Monitoring the Future national
survey results on drug use, 1975-2008. Volume I: Secondary school students (NIH Publication No. 07-7402).
Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
References
Franklin County Report 2011 Pennsylvania Youth Survey-96 -
Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2009b).Teen marijuana use tilts up, while
some drugs decline in use.University of Michigan News Service: Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved 1/15/2010 from
http://www.monitoringthefuture.org.
Leff, S. S, Power, T. J., & Goldstein, A. B. (2004). Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of bullying-
prevention programs in the schools. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.)Bullying in American schools: A
social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 269-294). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Newcomb, M. D. (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). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Newcomb, M. D.& 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. 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., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (1999). Risk and protection: Are both necessary to understand diverse
behavioral outcomes in adolescence?Social Work Research, 23,145-158.
Skiba, R. & Fontanini, A. (2000).Bullying prevention: What works in preventing school violence. Safe and
Responsive Schools Project Fact Sheet Series, Indiana Education Policy Center [Online]. Available:
www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/SrsBullying.pdf.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2003). Results from the 2002 National Survey on Drug
Use and Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies, NHSDA Series H-22, DHHS Publication No.
SMA 03-3836). Rockville, MD.
U. S. Department of Education. (1998).Preventing bullying: A manual for schools and communities. [Online].
Available:www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/17/14/d5.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004).The Common Core of Data (CCD).
[Data file]. Available from National Center for Education Statistics Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/ccd.