HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey Report - Franklin County.pdf
2009 Pennsylvania
Youth Survey Report
Franklin County
Conducted by
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
Franklin County Report 2009 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: Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use.....................................................................9
Measurement.....................................................................................................................9
Results Summary.................................................................................................................9
Item-Level Results.............................................................................................................14
Prescription Drugs.............................................................................................................23
Section 3: Other Antisocial Behaviors.......................................................................................27
Introduction.......................................................................................................................27
Results Summary...............................................................................................................27
Item-Level Results.............................................................................................................30
Section 4: Special Topics............................................................................................................33
Introduction.......................................................................................................................33
Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behavior.......................................33
Driving After Alcohol or Marijuana Use.........................................................................34
Willingness to Try or Use ATODs......................................................................................35
Gambling..........................................................................................................................36
Symptoms of Depression.................................................................................................37
Violence and Drugs on School Property......................................................................38
Bullying at School and Internet Safety..........................................................................38
Section 5: Risk and Protective Factors.......................................................................................41
Introduction.......................................................................................................................41
Results Summary...............................................................................................................42
Protective Factors............................................................................................................48
Risk Factors........................................................................................................................52
Appendix A: Additional Prevention Planning Data..................................................................65
Introduction.......................................................................................................................65
Risk of Harm.......................................................................................................................65
Disapproval of Drug Use.................................................................................................66
Social Norms.....................................................................................................................67
Parental Disapproval of Drug Use.................................................................................68
Frequency of Drug Use....................................................................................................68
Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School...............................................................72
Gang Involvement...........................................................................................................73
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
Appendix B: Historical Data.......................................................................................................75
Introduction......................................................................................................................75
Demographic Trends......................................................................................................75
ATOD Results, 2007 ..........................................................................................................76
Other Antisocial Behavior Results, 2007........................................................................78
Risk and Protective Results, 2007 ...................................................................................79
Appendix C: Risk and Protective Factor Scale Construction Summary ...............................81
Appendix D: Other Resources...................................................................................................95
Web Sites ..........................................................................................................................95
Prevention Program Guides...........................................................................................95
Prevention Planning........................................................................................................95
References..................................................................................................................................97
Franklin County Report 2009 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 four previous waves of the
survey in 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2007, 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 2009.
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 2009 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, 1,220 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, other antisocial behaviors, 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 (40.5%),
cigarettes (26.4%), marijuana (14.1%), inhalants (13.5%) and smokeless tobacco (12.7%). Other lifetime
prevalence rates ranged from 0.4% for crack cocaine to 2.7% for hallucinogens. The rate of illicit drug use
excluding marijuana is summarized by the indicator “any illicit drug (other than marijuana),” with 16.0%
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 (21.3%), cigarettes (11.1%), inhalants (7.4%),
marijuana (7.3%) and smokeless tobacco (6.7%). Other past-30-day prevalence rates ranged from 0.1% for
crack cocaine to 1.1% for hallucinogens. There was no reported past-30-day methamphetamine use.
Overall, 8.4% 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 and cigarette use and lower average levels of lifetime
marijuana, alcohol, Ecstasy and cocaine use. For past-30-day ATOD use, students reported higher average
levels of cigarette, inhalant and smokeless tobacco use than their national counterparts and lower average
levels of marijuana use and binge drinking.
Other Antisocial Behaviors
For the overall sample, the past-12-month prevalence rates recorded for the seven other problem, or
antisocial, behaviors cover a broad range. In Franklin County, 9.2% of students reported Attacking
Someone with Intent to Harm in the past year, making it the most prevalent of the seven behaviors. Being
Drunk or High at School is the second most prevalent antisocial behavior, with 7.3% of Franklin County
students reporting having been drunk or high at school in the past year. Students in Franklin County
reported very low levels of participation in the following antisocial behaviors: Being Arrested, Attempting
to Steal a Vehicle and Bringing a Weapon to School.
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 33 to a high of 65, 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 (33), Community Rewards
for Prosocial Involvement (48) and Religiosity (49). Franklin County students reported the three highest
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 3 -
overall scores for the following protective factor scales: School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
(65), School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement (64) and Belief in the Moral Order (64).
Overall percentile scores across the 23 risk factor scales range from a low of 40 to a high of 70, with an
average score of 48, which is two 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
(70), Perceived Availability of Handguns (59) and Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial
Behavior (54). The three lowest overall scores were for the following risk factor scales: Early Initiation of
Drug Use (40), Friends’ Use of Drugs (40) and Friends’ Delinquent Behavior (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
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 2009 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 2010 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:
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 4 -
■ 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.
Changes to the PAYS Questionnaire
While the majority of the 2009 PAYS questionnaire is identical to the 2007 questionnaire, several changes
were introduced in this 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 includes six items addressing student experiences with gambling. Two of
the six gambling questions—the past-12-months and past-30-days gambling for “money or
anything 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 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 2009 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
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 5 -
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
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 survey 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 45 students (3.6%) completed valid surveys. Of the 45
surveys identified and eliminated by one or more of the four strategies described above, 12 exaggerated
drug use (strategy 1), seven exaggerated other antisocial behavior (strategy 2), 29 reported the use of the
fictitious drug (strategy 3) and 25 responded in a logically inconsistent way (strategy 4). The elimination
total produced by these four strategies equals more than 45 because some surveys were identified by more
than one strategy.
Franklin County Report 2009 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 to
the 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
Grade Number Percentage Number Percentage Confidence Interval
6th 1,737 26.2% 379 31.1% ±4.5%
7th -- -- -- -- --
8th 1,811 27.3% 319 26.1% ±5.0%
9th -- -- -- -- --
10th 1,753 26.4% 312 25.6% ±5.0%
11th -- -- -- -- --
12th 1,339 20.2% 210 17.2% ±6.2%
Totals 6,640 100.0% 1,220 100.0% ±2.5%
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 (52.5% female versus 42.7%
male). A majority of students identified themselves as White (83.8%). The largest minority group is Latino
(3.4%), followed by African American (2.5%), Asian (1.2%) and American Indian (0.8%). 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 be classified in the
“Other/Multiple” category for the purposes of this report.
Nearly all of the surveyed students (96.1%) reported English as the language they most often speak at
home.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 7 -
Table 2. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Youth
Number of Students Percentage of Students
Overall Valid Surveys 1,220 100.0%
Sex
Male 521 42.7%
Female 641 52.5%
Did not respond 58 4.8%
Ethnicity
White 1,022 83.8%
African American 31 2.5%
Latino 41 3.4%
American Indian 10 0.8%
Asian 15 1.2%
Other/Multiple 96 7.9%
Did not respond 5 0.4%
Primary Language Spoken at Home
English 1,173 96.1%
Spanish 31 2.5%
Other Language 11 0.9%
Did not respond 5 0.4%
Note: Rounding can produce totals that do not equal 100%.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 9 -
Section 2: 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, 2009a).
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 3 and 4. As these results show, Franklin County students
recorded the highest lifetime prevalence-of-use rates for alcohol (40.5%), cigarettes (26.4%), marijuana
(14.1%), inhalants (13.5%) and smokeless tobacco (12.7%). Other lifetime prevalence rates ranged from
0.4% for crack cocaine to 2.7% for hallucinogens. The rate of illicit drug use excluding marijuana is
Section 2
Alcohol, Tobacco and Other
Drug Use
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 10 -
summarized by the indicator “any illicit drug (other than marijuana),” with 16.0% 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 (21.3%),
cigarettes (11.1%), inhalants (7.4%), marijuana (7.3%) and smokeless tobacco (6.7%). Other past-30-day
prevalence rates ranged from 0.1% for crack cocaine to 1.1% for hallucinogens. There was no reported
past-30-day methamphetamine use. Overall, 8.4% 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 Other Drug Use
8
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
7
7
11
10
21
16
1
1
1
3
1
0
2
14
14
13
26
41
020406080100
Any Illicit Drug (Other than Marijuana)
Steroids
Ecstasy
Methamphetamine
Hallucinogens
Heroin
Crack Cocaine
Cocaine
Inhalants
Marijuana
Smokeless Tobacco
Cigarettes
Binge Drinking
Alcohol
30-Day Lifetime
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 11 -
Grade-Level Results
ATOD prevalence rates for individual
grade levels are presented in Graph 2 and
Tables 3 and 4. 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 5.9% among 6th
graders to a high of 39.3% among 12th
graders. Past-30-day marijuana use ranges
from a low of 0.3% among 6th graders to a
high of 17.9% among 12th graders. Past-
30-day cigarette use ranges from a low of
0.8% among 6th graders to a high of 29.5% among 12th graders. Past-30-day inhalant use ranges from a
low of 3.2% among 12th graders to a high of 9.3% among 10th 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 2009 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. (2009a).
In addition to a complete report of prevalence-of-use rates for each surveyed grade, Tables 3 and 4 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 and
cigarette use than their national counterparts and lower average levels of lifetime marijuana, alcohol,
Ecstasy and cocaine use. The largest grade-level differences in lifetime substance use were for marijuana
in the 8th grade (3.9% versus 15.7% for Monitoring the Future), cigarettes in the 10th grade (45.2% versus
32.7% for Monitoring the Future) and alcohol in the 12th grade (62.1% versus 72.3% for Monitoring the
Future).
For past-30-day ATOD use, students in Franklin County reported higher average levels of cigarette,
inhalant and smokeless tobacco use than their national counterparts and lower average levels of marijuana
use and binge drinking. The largest grade-level differences in past-30-day substance use were for
cigarettes in the 10th and 12th grades (20.7% and 29.5% versus 13.1% and 20.1% for Monitoring the
Future) and alcohol in the 10th grade (38.3% versus 30.4% for Monitoring the Future).
Graph 2. Past-30-Day Use of Selected ATODs
6
1 0
8
12
3 2
7
38
21
15
9
39
30
18
3
0
20
40
60
AlcoholCigarettesMarijuanaInhalants
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
6th 8th 10th 12th
Graph 2. Past-30-Day Use of Selected ATODs
0
20
40
60
6th8th10th12th
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
Alcohol Cigarettes Marijuana Inhalants
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 12 -
Table 3. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs
Franklin County 2009 Monitoring the
Future1
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall 8th 10th 12th % % % % % % % % % % %
Alcohol 20.2 -- 31.1 -- 61.6 -- 62.1 40.5 36.6 59.1 72.3
Cigarettes 7.8 -- 16.6 -- 45.2 -- 47.5 26.4 20.1 32.7 43.6
Smokeless Tobacco 2.9 -- 10.5 -- 18.7 -- 25.0 12.7 9.6 15.2 16.3
Marijuana 0.8 -- 3.9 -- 28.7 -- 33.7 14.1 15.7 32.3 42.0
Inhalants 11.1 -- 15.2 -- 17.6 -- 8.9 13.5 14.9 12.3 9.5
Cocaine 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 3.1 -- 4.2 1.5 2.6 4.6 6.0
Crack Cocaine 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 1.0 -- 0.5 0.4 1.7 2.1 2.4
Heroin 0.3 -- 0.6 -- 0.3 -- 1.6 0.6 1.3 1.5 1.2
Hallucinogens 0.3 -- 1.0 -- 3.8 -- 8.4 2.7 3.0 6.1 7.4
Methamphetamine 0.3 -- 0.0 -- 0.7 -- 1.6 0.5 1.6 2.8 2.4
Ecstasy 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 2.4 -- 3.2 1.2 2.2 5.5 6.5
Steroids 0.6 -- 0.6 -- 1.0 -- 1.6 0.9 1.3 1.3 2.2
Any Illicit Drug (Other
than Marijuana) 12.1 -- 16.1 -- 21.1 -- 15.3 16.0 -- -- --
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed, the drug was not included in the survey, or a comparable aggregate calculation was not available. Monitoring the Future data are only available for 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
1 Johnston et al. (2009b).
Table 4. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs
Franklin County 2009 Monitoring the
Future1
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall 8th 10th 12th % % % % % % % % % % %
Alcohol 5.9 -- 12.3 -- 38.3 -- 39.3 21.3 14.9 30.4 43.5
Binge Drinking 2.4 -- 4.2 -- 16.9 -- 21.6 9.8 7.8 17.5 25.2
Cigarettes 0.8 -- 2.9 -- 20.7 -- 29.5 11.1 6.5 13.1 20.1
Smokeless Tobacco 1.9 -- 5.8 -- 9.2 -- 13.2 6.7 3.7 6.5 8.4
Marijuana 0.3 -- 1.9 -- 15.0 -- 17.9 7.3 6.5 15.9 20.6
Inhalants 8.3 -- 7.1 -- 9.3 -- 3.2 7.4 3.8 2.2 1.2
Cocaine 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 1.0 -- 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.3
Crack Cocaine 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6
Heroin 0.3 -- 0.3 -- 0.3 -- 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Hallucinogens 0.0 -- 0.6 -- 2.8 -- 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.6
Methamphetamine 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.5
Ecstasy 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.7 -- 1.0 0.4 0.6 1.3 1.8
Steroids 0.6 -- 0.3 -- 0.7 -- 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.0
Any Illicit Drug (Other
than Marijuana) 8.8 -- 7.7 -- 11.0 -- 4.7 8.4 -- -- --
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed, the drug was not included in the survey, or a comparable aggregate calculation was not available. Monitoring the Future data are only available for 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
1 Johnston et al. (2009b).
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 13 -
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 2009 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 5
and 6. (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.) Across the four comparison grades (6th,
8th, 10th and 12th), students in Franklin County reported higher average levels of lifetime cigarette and
smokeless tobacco use than Pennsylvania statewide and lower average levels of lifetime alcohol and
marijuana use. The largest grade-level differences in lifetime substance use were for cigarettes in the 10th
grade (45.2% versus 32.0% for Pennsylvania statewide) and alcohol in the 8th and 12th grades (31.1% and
62.1% versus 45.0% and 70.0% for Pennsylvania statewide).
For past-30-day ATOD use, students in Franklin County reported a higher average level of cigarette use
than Pennsylvania statewide and a lower average level of marijuana use. The largest grade-level
differences in past-30-day substance use were for cigarettes in the 10th and 12th grades (20.7% and 29.5%
versus 13.9% and 20.8% for Pennsylvania statewide) and alcohol in the 10th grade (38.3% versus 30.5%
for Pennsylvania statewide).
Table 5. Lifetime Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Alcohol 20.8 -- 45.0 -- 56.7 -- 70.0 49.3
Cigarettes 4.6 -- 20.6 -- 32.0 -- 44.3 26.3
Smokeless Tobacco 2.5 -- 8.8 -- 14.2 -- 21.4 12.1
Marijuana 0.6 -- 9.8 -- 25.1 -- 41.1 20.0
Inhalants 10.2 -- 13.9 -- 12.2 -- 9.7 11.5
Cocaine 0.0 -- 0.5 -- 1.8 -- 4.8 1.9
Crack Cocaine 0.2 -- 0.4 -- 1.2 -- 1.1 0.8
Heroin 0.1 -- 0.2 -- 0.9 -- 1.4 0.7
Hallucinogens 0.1 -- 1.0 -- 3.7 -- 8.0 3.3
Methamphetamine 0.2 -- 0.2 -- 0.7 -- 1.1 0.6
Ecstasy 0.2 -- 0.7 -- 2.2 -- 4.8 2.1
Steroids 0.6 -- 0.7 -- 1.1 -- 1.0 0.8
Any Illicit Drug (Other
than Marijuana) 10.5 -- 15.0 -- 15.4 -- 17.2 14.7
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 14 -
Table 6. Past-30-Day Use of Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Alcohol 5.1 -- 17.2 -- 30.5 -- 46.0 25.5
Binge Drinking 1.2 -- 7.5 -- 15.7 -- 27.6 13.6
Cigarettes 0.9 -- 6.7 -- 13.9 -- 20.8 11.0
Smokeless Tobacco 0.6 -- 4.7 -- 7.6 -- 10.9 6.2
Marijuana 0.3 -- 5.4 -- 14.2 -- 23.7 11.4
Inhalants 6.8 -- 8.2 -- 5.5 -- 3.3 5.9
Cocaine 0.1 -- 0.2 -- 0.6 -- 1.2 0.6
Crack Cocaine 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.4 -- 0.4 0.3
Heroin 0.0 -- 0.2 -- 0.2 -- 0.5 0.2
Hallucinogens 0.1 -- 0.8 -- 2.3 -- 3.5 1.8
Methamphetamine 0.0 -- 0.1 -- 0.5 -- 0.4 0.3
Ecstasy 0.0 -- 0.4 -- 1.4 -- 2.2 1.1
Steroids 0.5 -- 0.3 -- 0.7 -- 0.8 0.6
Any Illicit Drug (Other
than Marijuana) 7.3 -- 9.3 -- 8.1 -- 7.6 8.1
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 20.2% for 6th graders to a high of
62.1% for 12th graders. Overall, 40.5% of Franklin County students have used alcohol at least
once in their lifetimes.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th and 12th graders reported lower rates of lifetime alcohol
use and 10th graders reported a higher rate of use.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were higher among 10th graders, lower among 8th and 12th graders and similar among
6th graders.
Alcohol Use
6 12
3839
2120
31
6262
41
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
30-Day Lifetime
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 15 -
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of alcohol use ranges from a low of 5.9% for 6th graders to a high of
39.3% for 12th graders. Overall, 21.3% of Franklin County students have used alcohol at least
once in the last 30 days.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th and 12th graders reported lower rates of past-30-day
alcohol use and 10th graders reported a higher rate of use.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were higher among 10th graders, lower among 8th and 12th graders and similar
among 6th graders.
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
2.4% for 6th graders to a high of 21.6%
for 12th graders. Overall, 9.8% of Franklin County students have reported at least one episode
of binge drinking in the past two weeks.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th and 12th graders reported lower rates of binge drinking and
10th graders reported a similar rate of use.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of use that
were lower among 8th and 12th graders and similar among 6th and 10th graders.
Tobacco
After alcohol, tobacco (including cigarettes and
smokeless tobacco) is the most commonly used
drug among adolescents. Nationally, tobacco
use (including both cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco) has declined substantially since the
1990s (Johnston et al., 2009b).
Lifetime Cigarette Use:
■ Lifetime prevalence of cigarette use
ranges from a low of 7.8% for 6th
graders to a high of 47.5% for 12th
graders. Overall, 26.4% of Franklin County students have used cigarettes at least once in their
lifetimes.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th graders reported a lower 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 among 6th, 10th and 12th graders and lower among 8th graders.
Cigarette Use
1 3
21 30
11817
45 48
26
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
30-Day Lifetime
Binge Drinking
2 4
17 22
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 16 -
Past-30-Day Cigarette Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of cigarette use ranges from a low of 0.8% for 6th graders to a high of
29.5% for 12th graders. Overall, 11.1% of Franklin County students have used cigarettes at
least once in the last 30 days.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th graders reported a lower 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 10th and 12th graders, lower among 8th graders and similar
among 6th graders.
Lifetime Smokeless Tobacco Use:
■ Lifetime prevalence of smokeless
tobacco use ranges from a low of 2.9%
for 6th graders to a high of 25.0% for
12th graders. Overall, 12.7% 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 10th and 12th graders and similar among 6th and 8th graders.
Past-30-Day Smokeless Tobacco Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of smokeless tobacco use ranges from a low of 1.9% for 6th graders to
a high of 13.2% for 12th graders. Overall, 6.7% 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 12th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 10th graders.
Smokeless Tobacco Use
2 6 9 13 73111925
13
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
30-Day Lifetime
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 17 -
Marijuana
During the 1990s, there were notable changes in
trends of marijuana use throughout the United
States. Results from the Monitoring the Future
study show increases in both lifetime and past-
30-day prevalence rates through the early and
mid 1990s (Johnston et al., 2009b). For 8th and
10th graders, the past-30-day rates more than
doubled during this period. Since 1996 and
1997, when past-30-day marijuana use peaked,
rates have declined.
Lifetime Use:
■ Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use ranges from a low of 0.8% for 6th graders to a high of
33.7% for 12th graders. Overall, 14.1% 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 higher among 10th graders, lower among 8th and 12th graders and similar among
6th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of marijuana use ranges from a low of 0.3% for 6th graders to a high
of 17.9% for 12th graders. Overall, 7.3% of Franklin County students have used marijuana at
least once in the last 30 days.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th and 12th graders reported lower rates of past-30-day
marijuana use and 10th graders reported a similar rate of use.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were lower among 8th and 12th graders, the same among 6th graders and similar
among 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.
Inhalant Use
8 7 9
3
7
11 15 18
9 14
0
10
20
30
40
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
30-Day Lifetime
Marijuana Use
0 2
15 18
7
1 4
29 34
14
0
20
40
60
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
30-Day Lifetime
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 18 -
Lifetime Use:
■ Lifetime prevalence of inhalant use ranges from a low of 8.9% for 12th graders to a high of
17.6% for 10th graders. Overall, 13.5% of Franklin County students have used inhalants at
least once in their lifetimes.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th and 12th graders reported similar rates of lifetime inhalant
use and 10th graders reported a higher rate of use.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of lifetime
use that were higher among 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of inhalant use ranges from a low of 3.2% for 12th graders to a high of
9.3% for 10th graders. Overall, 7.4% 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 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th 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 and 8th graders to a high
of 4.2% for 12th graders. Overall, 1.5% of Franklin County students have used cocaine at least
once in their lifetimes.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th graders reported a lower rate of lifetime cocaine use and
10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of 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 cocaine use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high of
1.0% for 10th 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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 19 -
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
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 1.0% for 10th graders. Overall, 0.4% 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, 10th and 12th
graders to a high of 0.3% for 8th graders. Overall, 0.1% 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 6th and 8th graders and similar among 10th 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 0.3% for 6th and 10th graders to a high
of 1.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.6% 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 similar across all of the comparison grades.
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of heroin use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 12th graders to a high of
0.3% for 6th, 8th and 10th graders. Overall, 0.3% 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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 20 -
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
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 0.3% for 6th graders to a high
of 8.4% for 12th graders. Overall, 2.7% of Franklin County students have used hallucinogens
at least once in their lifetimes.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th and 10th graders reported lower rates of lifetime
hallucinogen 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 the same among 8th graders and similar among 6th, 10th and 12th graders.
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 2.8% for 10th graders. Overall, 1.1% of Franklin County students have used
hallucinogens at least once in the last 30 days.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th and 10th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
hallucinogen 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 similar across all of the comparison grades.
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 0.0% for 8th graders to a
high of 1.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.5% of Franklin County students have used
methamphetamine at least once in their lifetimes.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th and 12th graders reported similar rates of lifetime
methamphetamine use and 10th graders reported a lower rate of 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:
■ No students reported past-30-day methamphetamine use.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
methamphetamine use.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 21 -
■ 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.
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., 2009b).
Lifetime Use:
■ Lifetime prevalence of Ecstasy use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high of
3.2% for 12th graders. Overall, 1.2% of Franklin County students have used Ecstasy at least
once in their lifetimes.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th graders reported a similar rate of lifetime Ecstasy 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 Ecstasy use ranges from a low of 0.0% for 6th graders to a high of
1.0% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.4% 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 the same among 6th graders and similar among 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
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 0.6% for 6th and 8th graders to a high
of 1.6% for 12th graders. Overall, 0.9% 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 6th graders and similar among 8th, 10th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of steroid use ranges from a low of 0.3% for 8th graders to a high of
0.7% for 10th graders. Overall, 0.5% of Franklin County students have used steroids at least
once in the last 30 days.
■ Compared to national findings, 8th, 10th and 12th graders reported similar rates of past-30-day
steroid use.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 22 -
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates of past-30-
day use that were the same among 8th and 10th graders and similar among 6th and 12th graders.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 23 -
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 12.1%
for 6th graders to a high of 21.1% for 10th graders. Overall, 16.0% 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 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of any illicit drug (other than marijuana) use ranges from a low of
4.7% for 12th graders to a high of 11.0% for 10th graders. Overall, 8.4% 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 10th graders, lower among 12th graders and similar among 6th
and 8th 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., 2009a), 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
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.
Any Illicit Drug (Other than Marijuana) Use
9 8 11
5
812
16
21
15 16
0
10
20
30
40
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
U
s
e
30-Day Lifetime
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 24 -
With these challenges in mind, the PAYS included six new 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 7 and 8, and results for Pennsylvania statewide are presented in Tables 9 and 10.
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 16.4% for 10th graders. Overall, 7.6% 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 higher among 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of prescription pain reliever use ranges from a low of 1.1% for 6th
graders to a high of 10.7% for 10th graders. Overall, 5.0% 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 higher among 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 12th graders.
Tranquilizers
Lifetime Use:
■ Lifetime prevalence of tranquilizer use ranges from a low of 0.3% for 6th graders to a high of
8.9% for 12th graders. Overall, 3.0% of Franklin County students have used tranquilizers 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.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 25 -
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of tranquilizer use ranges from a low of 0.6% for 6th graders to a high
of 2.4% for 10th graders. Overall, 1.4% 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 lower among 12th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 10th graders.
Stimulants
Lifetime Use:
■ Lifetime prevalence of stimulant use ranges from a low of 0.6% for 6th and 8th graders to a
high of 8.9% for 12th graders. Overall, 3.8% 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 higher among 10th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 12th graders.
Past-30-Day Use:
■ Past-30-day prevalence of stimulant use ranges from a low of 0.6% for 6th and 8th graders to a
high of 5.2% for 10th graders. Overall, 2.1% 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 higher among 10th graders, lower among 12th graders and similar among 6th
and 8th graders.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 26 -
Table 7. Lifetime Use of Prescription Drugs, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Pain Relievers 2.2 -- 2.3 -- 16.4 -- 13.2 7.6
Tranquilizers 0.3 -- 1.0 -- 4.5 -- 8.9 3.0
Stimulants 0.6 -- 0.6 -- 8.0 -- 8.9 3.8
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 8. Past-30-Day Use of Prescription Drugs, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Pain Relievers 1.1 -- 2.6 -- 10.7 -- 7.9 5.0
Tranquilizers 0.6 -- 1.0 -- 2.4 -- 2.1 1.4
Stimulants 0.6 -- 0.6 -- 5.2 -- 2.6 2.1
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 9. Lifetime Use of Prescription Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Pain Relievers 1.6 -- 3.7 -- 8.3 -- 14.8 7.4
Tranquilizers 0.2 -- 0.7 -- 3.0 -- 8.4 3.2
Stimulants 0.4 -- 1.5 -- 4.3 -- 10.1 4.2
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 10. Past-30-Day Use of Prescription Drugs, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Pain Relievers 1.0 -- 3.6 -- 6.1 -- 8.7 5.0
Tranquilizers 0.2 -- 0.8 -- 2.1 -- 4.2 1.9
Stimulants 0.2 -- 1.2 -- 3.2 -- 6.0 2.8
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 27 -
Section 3: Other Antisocial Behaviors
Introduction
The PAYS also measures a series of seven other problem, or antisocial, behaviors—that is, behaviors that
run counter to established norms of good behavior.
■ Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm ■ Getting Suspended
■ Attempting to Steal a Vehicle ■ Selling Drugs
■ Being Arrested ■ Bringing a Weapon (Such as a Gun, Knife or
Club) to School
■ Being Drunk or High at School
Measurement
As with alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, prevalence tables and graphs are employed to illustrate the
percentages of students who reported other antisocial behaviors. 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. In
addition, frequency data for Bringing a Weapon (Such as a Gun, Knife or Club) to School, illustrating the
number of occasions that students reported bringing a weapon to school within the past 30 days, are
presented in Appendix A.
Results Summary
Overall Results
Other antisocial behavior prevalence rates for the combined sample of 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th graders are
presented in Graph 3, and in the overall results column of Table 11. Across all grades, 9.2% of students
reported Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm in the past year, making it the most prevalent of the seven
behaviors in Franklin County. Being Drunk or High at School is the second most prevalent antisocial
behavior, with 7.3% of Franklin County students reporting having been drunk or high at school in the past
Section 3
Other Antisocial Behaviors
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 28 -
year. Students in Franklin County reported very low levels of participation in the following antisocial
behaviors: Being Arrested, Attempting to Steal a Vehicle and Bringing a Weapon to School.
Graph 3. Overall Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors
1
3
7
7
4
2
9
05101520
Bringing a Weapon to
School
Selling Drugs
Getting Suspended
Being Drunk or High at
School
Being Arrested
Attempting to Steal a
Vehicle
Attacking Someone with
Intent to Harm
Grade-Level Results
Other antisocial behavior prevalence rates
within individual grades are presented in
Graph 4 and Table 11. In many
communities, these behaviors reveal a
complex pattern of changes across grades.
Typically, reports of Being Drunk or High
at School and Selling Drugs follow the
ATOD model, with prevalence rates
increasing through the upper grade levels.
In contrast, reports of Attacking Someone
with Intent to Harm, Getting Suspended
and Being Arrested often peak in the late
middle school or early high school years.
Prevalence rates for Attempting to Steal a
Vehicle and Bringing a Weapon (Such as
a Gun, Knife or Club) to School are
generally too low to allow meaningful
comparisons across grade levels.
Prevention planners in Franklin County should review the other antisocial behavior profiles within
individual grades, with special attention toward behaviors that show a marked deviation from these
patterns.
Graph 4. Prevalence of Selected Other Antisocial
Behaviors, by Grade
8
111
9
3 2 1
11 14
6 2
8
15
6
1
0
20
40
Being Drunk
or High at
School
Being
Arrested
Bringing a
Weapon to
School
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
6th 8th 10th 12th
Graph 4. Prevalence of Selected Other Antisocial
Behaviors, by Grade
0
20
40
6th8th10th12th
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Attacking with Intent to Harm Being Drunk or High at School
Being Arrested Bringing a Weapon to School
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 29 -
Table 11. 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
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Comparisons to Pennsylvania Statewide
Additional context for evaluating the pattern of other antisocial behaviors reported by Franklin County
students is provided by a comparison to results from Pennsylvania statewide. Prevalence rates for surveyed
students in Pennsylvania are presented in Table 12. Across the four comparison grades (6th, 8th, 10th and
12th), students in Franklin County reported average levels of other antisocial behaviors that are not
markedly different than those of Pennsylvania statewide. The largest grade-level differences in other
antisocial behaviors were for Getting Suspended in the 8th and 10th grades (3.9% and 14.1% versus 9.1%
and 10.8% for Pennsylvania statewide) and Being Drunk or High at School in the 8th grade (3.2% versus
6.9% for Pennsylvania statewide).
Table 12. Prevalence of Other Antisocial Behaviors, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 5.8 -- 10.3 -- 10.8 -- 10.5 9.5
Attempting to Steal a Vehicle 0.5 -- 1.8 -- 2.5 -- 1.8 1.7
Being Arrested 0.6 -- 4.6 -- 5.8 -- 5.5 4.3
Being Drunk or High at School 1.6 -- 6.9 -- 11.5 -- 17.4 9.7
Getting Suspended 3.0 -- 9.1 -- 10.8 -- 9.0 8.2
Selling Drugs 0.1 -- 2.3 -- 6.7 -- 10.7 5.2
Bringing a Weapon to School 0.9 -- 2.1 -- 2.8 -- 3.2 2.3
Average 1.8 -- 5.3 -- 7.3 -- 8.3 5.8
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 30 -
Item-Level Results
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm
Attacking someone with intent to harm is measured by the
question “How many times in the past year (12 months) have you
attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting them?” The
question does not ask specifically about the use of a weapon;
therefore, occurrences of physical fighting without weapons will
be captured with this question.
■ Prevalence rates for Attacking Someone with Intent to
Harm range from a low of 7.8% among 6th graders to a
high of 11.3% among 10th graders.
■ Overall, 9.2% of Franklin County students reported
having attacked someone with intent to harm in the past year.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates that were
higher among 6th graders, lower among 12th graders and similar among 8th and 10th graders.
Attempting to Steal a Vehicle
Vehicle theft is measured by the question “How many times in the
past year (12 months) have you stolen or tried to steal a motor
vehicle such as a car or motorcycle?”
■ Prevalence rates for Attempting to Steal a Vehicle range
from a low of 0.3% among 8th graders to a high of 4.4%
among 10th graders.
■ Overall, 1.8% of Franklin County students reported
having attempted to steal a vehicle in the past year.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in
Franklin County reported rates that were similar across all of the comparison grades.
Attempting to Steal a Vehicle
1 0
4
1 2
0
10
20
30
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Attacking Someone with Intent
to Harm
8 9 11
8 9
0
10
20
30
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 31 -
Being Arrested
Any student experience with being arrested is measured by the
question “How many times in the past year (12 months) have you
been arrested?” Note that the question does not define “arrested.”
Rather, it is left to the individual respondent to define. Some
youths may define any contact with police as an arrest, while
others may consider that only an official arrest justifies a positive
answer to this question.
■ Prevalence rates for Being Arrested range from a low of
1.1% among 6th graders to a high of 6.0% among 10th
graders.
■ Overall, 3.5% of Franklin County students reported having been arrested in the past year.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates that were
lower among 8th graders and similar among 6th, 10th and 12th graders.
Being Drunk or High at School
Having been drunk or high at school is measured by the question
“How many times in the past year (12 months) have you been
drunk or high at school?”
■ Prevalence rates for Being Drunk or High at School
range from a low of 1.3% among 6th graders to a high of
14.7% among 12th graders.
■ Overall, 7.3% of Franklin County students reported
having been drunk or high at school in the past year.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in
Franklin County reported rates that were higher among 10th graders, lower among 8th and 12th
graders and similar among 6th graders.
Getting Suspended
Suspension is measured by the question “How many times in the
past year (12 months) have you been suspended from school?”
Note that the question does not define “suspension.” Rather, it is
left to the individual respondent to make that definition. School
suspension rates vary substantially from district to district.
Therefore, these rates should be interpreted by someone
knowledgeable about local school suspension policy.
■ Prevalence rates for Getting Suspended range from a low
of 3.6% among 6th graders to a high of 14.1% among 10th
graders.
■ Overall, 7.2% of Franklin County students reported having been suspended in the past year.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates that were
higher among 10th graders, lower among 8th graders and similar among 6th and 12th graders.
Getting Suspended
4 4
14
9 7
0
10
20
30
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Being Drunk or High at School
1 3
14 15
7
0
10
20
30
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Being Arrested
1 2
6 6 4
0
10
20
30
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 32 -
Selling Drugs
Selling drugs is measured by the question “How many times in the
past year (12 months) have you sold illegal drugs?” Note that the
question asks about, but does not define or specify, “illegal
drugs.”
■ Prevalence rates for Selling Drugs range from a low of
0.3% among 6th and 8th graders to a high of 8.3% among
12th graders.
■ Overall, 3.3% of Franklin County students reported
having sold drugs in the past year.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates that were
lower among 8th and 12th graders, the same among 10th graders and similar among 6th graders.
Bringing a Weapon (Such as a Gun, Knife or Club)
to School
Bringing a weapon (such as a gun, knife or club) to school is
measured by the question “How many times in the past 30 days
have you brought a weapon (such as a gun, knife or club) to
school?”
■ Prevalence rates for Bringing a Weapon to School range
from a low of 0.6% among 6th graders to a high of 2.4%
among 10th graders.
■ Overall, 1.3% of Franklin County students reported
having brought a weapon to school in the past 30 days.
■ Compared to Pennsylvania statewide, students in Franklin County reported rates that were
lower among 12th graders and similar among 6th, 8th and 10th graders.
Bringing a Weapon to School
1 1 2 1 1
0
10
20
30
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Selling Drugs
00
7 8
3
0
10
20
30
681012Overall
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 33 -
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 13,
and comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 14.
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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 34 -
Table 13. Average Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behaviors, Franklin County
2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
Trying Alcohol 10.5 -- 11.6 -- 12.8 -- 14.1 12.5
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 11.6 -- 12.6 -- 14.1 -- 15.6 14.3
Smoking Cigarettes 10.4 -- 11.8 -- 12.6 -- 13.5 12.5
Smoking Marijuana 10.8 -- 12.4 -- 13.9 -- 14.2 13.9
Being Suspended from School 10.3 -- 11.5 -- 12.9 -- 13.8 12.4
Being Arrested 10.3 -- 12.1 -- 13.3 -- 14.2 13.1
Carrying a Handgun 10.5 -- 11.6 -- 12.2 -- 12.4 11.4
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 10.6 -- 11.5 -- 12.3 -- 13.4 11.9
Belonging to a Gang 10.7 -- 11.7 -- 12.6 -- 13.3 11.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 14. Average Age of Onset of ATOD Use and Other Antisocial Behaviors, Pennsylvania
Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
Trying Alcohol 10.4 -- 11.7 -- 13.2 -- 14.3 13.1
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 11.5 -- 12.6 -- 14.2 -- 15.6 14.7
Smoking Cigarettes 10.6 -- 11.7 -- 12.9 -- 13.9 13.0
Smoking Marijuana 11.8 -- 12.4 -- 13.7 -- 14.7 14.1
Being Suspended from School 10.4 -- 11.4 -- 12.6 -- 13.3 12.4
Being Arrested 10.4 -- 11.9 -- 13.4 -- 14.6 13.5
Carrying a Handgun 10.6 -- 11.5 -- 12.5 -- 13.2 12.1
Attacking Someone with Intent to Harm 10.5 -- 11.4 -- 12.3 -- 13.2 12.1
Belonging to a Gang 10.6 -- 11.7 -- 13.0 -- 13.4 12.3
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 15, and comparison data from the statewide
survey are presented in Table 16.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 35 -
Table 15. Percentage of Youth Reporting Any Occasion of Driving Under the Influence, Franklin
County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Driving after Alcohol Use 0.8 -- 1.0 -- 3.4 -- 13.2 3.6
Driving after Marijuana Use 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 4.8 -- 13.8 3.5
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 16. Percentage of Youth Reporting Any Occasion of Driving Under the Influence,
Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Driving after Alcohol Use 0.5 -- 1.9 -- 3.2 -- 16.5 5.8
Driving after Marijuana Use 0.1 -- 1.2 -- 4.7 -- 18.5 6.5
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 17, and comparison data from the
statewide survey are presented in Table 18.
Table 17. Percentage of Youth Reporting Willingness to Try Selected ATODs, Franklin County
2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Alcohol 16.8 -- 37.7 -- 66.1 -- 68.0 43.5
Marijuana 2.2 -- 8.1 -- 32.7 -- 26.8 15.7
Cocaine 1.4 -- 1.0 -- 6.0 -- 3.4 2.8
Hallucinogens 1.1 -- 1.6 -- 10.1 -- 9.3 4.9
Inhalants 0.8 -- 3.3 -- 5.7 -- 2.9 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 the
substance. The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 36 -
Table 18. Percentage of Youth Reporting Willingness to Try Selected ATODs, Pennsylvania
Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Alcohol 17.3 -- 42.7 -- 60.2 -- 72.0 49.6
Marijuana 1.6 -- 13.2 -- 28.4 -- 38.4 21.4
Cocaine 0.9 -- 2.2 -- 3.8 -- 5.7 3.3
Hallucinogens 0.8 -- 2.8 -- 9.2 -- 14.1 7.1
Inhalants 1.3 -- 3.2 -- 5.0 -- 4.7 3.7
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 the substance. The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Gambling
The 2009 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 19, and comparison data
from the statewide survey are presented in Table 20.
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—are identical to questions used on the 2005 and 2007 surveys. The
sports betting, lottery ticket, and table gaming questions are similar to questions that were included in the
2007 survey.
Table 19. Percentage of Youth Reporting Gambling or Gambling-Related Problems, Franklin
County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
% % % % % % % %
Gambled for money in the past year 7.7 -- 14.9 -- 22.3 -- 19.1 15.2
Gambled for money in the past 30 days 5.8 -- 7.3 -- 10.2 -- 10.1 8.0
Bet on sporting events in the past year 13.5 -- 17.8 -- 23.7 -- 19.6 18.3
Bought lottery tickets in the past year 8.5 -- 8.3 -- 10.8 -- 14.6 10.1
Bet money using the internet in the past year 1.9 -- 2.0 -- 5.5 -- 3.5 3.1
Bet money on table games in the past year 9.3 -- 11.6 -- 16.0 -- 14.6 12.5
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 37 -
Table 20. Percentage of Youth Reporting Gambling or Gambling-Related Problems,
Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
% % % % % % % %
Gambled for money in the past year 8.7 -- 16.6 -- 20.6 -- 22.3 17.5
Gambled for money in the past 30 days 5.0 -- 9.8 -- 11.5 -- 12.6 10.0
Bet on sporting events in the past year 14.8 -- 23.2 -- 25.0 -- 25.7 22.5
Bought lottery tickets in the past year 11.5 -- 12.1 -- 14.5 -- 19.2 14.5
Bet money using the internet in the past year 2.5 -- 3.7 -- 4.6 -- 4.1 3.8
Bet money on table games in the past year 9.9 -- 16.4 -- 17.9 -- 18.6 16.0
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 21, and comparison data from the
statewide survey are presented in Table 22.
Table 21. Percentage of Youth Reporting Symptoms of Depression, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
% % % % % % % %
In the past year, felt depressed or sad most days 25.3 -- 29.8 -- 36.6 -- 28.6 30.0
Sometimes I think that life is not worth it 14.8 -- 21.2 -- 26.0 -- 15.6 19.4
At times I think I am no good at all 29.0 -- 26.7 -- 32.9 -- 21.1 28.1
All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure 10.0 -- 13.2 -- 13.8 -- 11.1 12.0
Note: The numbers reported in this table represent the percentage of students who answered either “yes” or “Yes!” to each question. The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 22. Percentage of Youth Reporting Symptoms of Depression, Pennsylvania Statewide
2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
% % % % % % % %
In the past year, felt depressed or sad most days 26.8 -- 32.1 -- 33.2 -- 33.2 31.6
Sometimes I think that life is not worth it 14.7 -- 23.0 -- 22.9 -- 21.0 20.6
At times I think I am no good at all 23.6 -- 29.1 -- 29.0 -- 28.9 27.8
All in all, I am inclined to think that I am a failure 10.6 -- 13.6 -- 14.9 -- 15.2 13.7
Note: The numbers reported in this table represent the percentage of students who answered either “yes” or “Yes!” to each question. The symbol “--” indicates
that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 38 -
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
23, and comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 24.
Table 23. Percentage of Youth Reporting Violence or Drugs on School Property in the Past Year,
Franklin County
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Threatened to be hit or beaten up 22.8 -- 27.9 -- 28.9 -- 14.6 24.3
Attacked or beaten up 10.7 -- 11.1 -- 9.1 -- 6.0 9.6
Threatened with a weapon 2.2 -- 3.3 -- 2.4 -- 1.5 2.4
Attacked with a weapon 0.8 -- 0.3 -- 1.0 -- 0.5 0.7
Been offered, given, or sold an illegal
drug 1.4 -- 8.1 -- 20.1 -- 14.1 10.1
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 24. Percentage of Youth Reporting That They Have Been Threatened or Attacked on
School Property in the Past Year, Pennsylvania Statewide
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Threatened to be hit or beaten up 16.1 -- 23.6 -- 19.0 -- 14.7 18.3
Attacked or beaten up 8.9 -- 8.0 -- 6.2 -- 5.9 7.2
Threatened with a weapon 2.5 -- 3.5 -- 3.1 -- 2.7 3.0
Attacked with a weapon 0.7 -- 1.2 -- 1.4 -- 1.1 1.1
Been offered, given, or sold an illegal
drug 1.5 -- 8.2 -- 17.2 -- 20.1 12.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
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 children
the 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
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 39 -
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
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 25, and comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table
26.
Table 25. Percentage of Youth Reporting Bullying at School or Sexual Harassment on the
Internet in the Past Year, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Been hit, kicked, pushed, or shoved around 26.7 -- 29.9 -- 21.2 -- 9.8 23.3
Been called names, made fun of, or
teased 52.3 -- 53.3 -- 45.8 -- 32.4 47.5
Been left out of things on purpose 37.7 -- 37.1 -- 32.9 -- 23.3 33.8
Other students telling lies or spreading false rumors 58.0 -- 61.6 -- 56.1 -- 43.5 56.0
Other students taking money or
damaging your things 23.2 -- 20.9 -- 29.7 -- 19.6 23.6
Other students threatening or forcing
you to do things 11.4 -- 16.1 -- 16.0 -- 9.5 13.5
Other students using the internet or a
cell phone to threaten or embarrass you 4.3 -- 12.0 -- 14.3 -- 6.5 9.3
Sexual harassment on the internet 6.4 -- 11.9 -- 16.4 -- 14.7 11.8
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 26. Percentage of Youth Reporting Bullying at School or Sexual Harassment on the
Internet in the Past Year, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Been hit, kicked, pushed, or shoved around 23.2 -- 24.5 -- 16.5 -- 9.5 18.1
Been called names, made fun of, or
teased 45.5 -- 49.5 -- 43.0 -- 34.9 43.0
Been left out of things on purpose 35.6 -- 34.9 -- 31.5 -- 28.7 32.5
Other students telling lies or spreading false rumors 50.1 -- 57.2 -- 51.3 -- 47.4 51.4
Other students taking money or
damaging your things 20.4 -- 23.0 -- 21.2 -- 18.1 20.7
Other students threatening or forcing
you to do things 13.1 -- 14.3 -- 11.4 -- 9.2 11.9
Other students using the internet or a
cell phone to threaten or embarrass you 6.7 -- 10.7 -- 11.8 -- 10.7 10.1
Sexual harassment on the internet 6.6 -- 12.2 -- 17.0 -- 12.9 12.4
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 41 -
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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 42 -
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.
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 2009 PAYS is 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, however, 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.
Results Summary
Overall Results
Overall risk and protective factor scale scores are presented in Graphs 5 and 6. These results provide a
general description of the prevention needs of Franklin County 6th, 8th, 10th and 12th graders as a whole.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 43 -
As Graph 5 shows, overall percentile scores across the nine protective factor scales range from a low of 33
to a high of 65, 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 (33), Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement (48) and Religiosity (49).
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
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement (65), School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement (64) and Belief
in the Moral Order (64). The higher scores reported by students in these areas represent strengths that
Franklin County can build on.
As Graph 6 shows, overall scores across the 23 risk factor scales range from a low of 40 to a high of 70,
with an average score of 48, which is two points lower than the normative average of 50. The three highest
risk factor scales are Community Disorganization (70), Perceived Availability of Handguns (59) and
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior (54). 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 (40), Friends’ Use of Drugs (40) and Friends’ Delinquent Behavior (40). The
lower scores reported by students in these areas represent strengths that Franklin County can build on.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 44 -
Graph 5. Overall Protective Factor Scale Scores
54
64
49
64
65
53
52
55
48
33
050100
Average
Belief in the Moral Order
Religiosity
School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Family Attachment
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement
Graph 6. Overall Risk Factor Scale Scores
48
46
40
50
44
42
48
40
40
42
45
42
54
47
43
49
44
59
53
51
50
70
47
050100
Average
Sensation Seeking
Early Initiation of Drug Use
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use
Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use
Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior
Friends’ Use of Drugs
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior
Rebelliousness
Lack of Commitment to School
Poor Academic Performance
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use
Family History of Antisocial Behavior
Family Conflict
Poor Family Management
Perceived Availability of Handguns
Perceived Availability of Drugs
Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use
Transitions and Mobility
Community Disorganization
Low Neighborhood Attachment
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 45 -
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 27 and 28 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 (75), Perceived Availability of Handguns (62), Perceived Availability of
Drugs (57) and Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior (54). Franklin County 12th
graders reported their four highest levels of risk for Community Disorganization (67), Parental Attitudes
Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior (59), Perceived Availability of Handguns (56) and Low Perceived
Risks of Drug Use (55).
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 29 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 27 and 29 show, students in Franklin County reported a higher
average level of protection than students in Pennsylvania statewide as a whole. This trend is particularly
pronounced in the 8th and 12th grades, where Franklin County students reported average protection scores
that were notably higher than their Pennsylvania statewide counterparts (58 and 56 for Franklin County
versus 52 and 50 for Pennsylvania statewide). Across the nine protective factor scales, the most
pronounced differences in average levels of protection were for the following three scales: School
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement, School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement and Belief in the
Moral Order.
Table 30 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 28
and 30 show, there is no clear pattern of grade-level differences in average risk between students in
Franklin County and 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 four scales: Perceived
Availability of Handguns, Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior, Family Conflict and Poor
Family Management.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 46 -
Table 27. Protective Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 24 -- 41 -- 32 -- 39 33 Community Domain Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 46 -- 49 -- 48 -- 51 48
Family Attachment 55 -- 59 -- 51 -- 58 55
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 52 -- 54 -- 50 -- 54 52
Family
Domain
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 53 -- 55 -- 51 -- 53 53
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 64 -- 71 -- 59 -- 63 65 School Domain School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 62 -- 68 -- 63 -- 62 64
Religiosity 41 -- 57 -- 48 -- 54 49 Peer and
Individual Domain Belief in the Moral Order 64 -- 67 -- 60 -- 68 64
Average 51 -- 58 -- 51 -- 56 54
Table 28. Risk Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
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
Community Domain
Perceived Availability of Handguns 62 -- 63 -- 56 -- 56 59
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
Family Domain
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial
Behavior 54 -- 47 -- 56 -- 59 54
Poor Academic Performance 42 -- 41 -- 44 -- 39 42 School
Domain Lack of Commitment to School 46 -- 46 -- 46 -- 42 45
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
Peer and Individual
Domain
Sensation Seeking 50 -- 43 -- 48 -- 40 46
Average 48 -- 45 -- 50 -- #46 48
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 47 -
Table 29. Protective Factor Scale Scores, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 33 -- 38 -- 38 -- 40 37 Community
Domain Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 50 -- 51 -- 53 -- 52 52
Family Attachment 59 -- 55 -- 54 -- 52 55
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 54 -- 52 -- 50 -- 50 51
Family
Domain
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 56 -- 52 -- 53 -- 51 53
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 58 -- 59 -- 51 -- 53 55 School
Domain School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 58 -- 59 -- 55 -- 54 57
Religiosity 45 -- 45 -- 45 -- 43 45 Peer and
Individual
Domain Belief in the Moral Order 62 -- 59 -- 57 -- 55 58
Average 53 -- 52 -- 51 -- 50 51
Table 30. Risk Factor Scale Scores, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
Low Neighborhood Attachment 42 -- 45 -- 47 -- 45 45
Community Disorganization 72 -- 70 -- 69 -- 69 70
Transitions and Mobility 41 -- 49 -- 51 -- 47 47
Laws and Norms Favorable to Drug Use 50 -- 52 -- 52 -- 55 52
Perceived Availability of Drugs 54 -- 56 -- 53 -- 52 53
Community
Domain
Perceived Availability of Handguns 59 -- 58 -- 53 -- 47 53
Poor Family Management 44 -- 47 -- 50 -- 48 47
Family Conflict 51 -- 53 -- 50 -- 53 52
Family History of Antisocial Behavior 41 -- 44 -- 43 -- 46 44
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward ATOD Use 45 -- 46 -- 47 -- 49 47
Family
Domain
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial
Behavior 56 -- 54 -- 57 -- 61 57
Poor Academic Performance 42 -- 44 -- 43 -- 44 43 School
Domain Lack of Commitment to School 49 -- 46 -- 48 -- 49 48
Rebelliousness 40 -- 45 -- 44 -- 42 43
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior 40 -- 42 -- 43 -- 44 42
Friends’ Use of Drugs 41 -- 42 -- 40 -- 42 41
Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior 43 -- 43 -- 47 -- 55 47
Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior 46 -- 45 -- 46 -- 48 46
Favorable Attitudes toward ATOD Use 43 -- 46 -- 47 -- 48 46
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use 45 -- 49 -- 55 -- 57 51
Early Initiation of Drug Use 39 -- 40 -- 38 -- 39 39
Peer and
Individual Domain
Sensation Seeking 47 -- 43 -- 43 -- 42 44
Average 47 -- 48 -- 48 -- #49 48
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 48 -
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 is
measured 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 33 on the Community
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, 17 points lower than the normative average of
50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Community Opportunities for Prosocial
Involvement range from a low of 24 among 6th graders to a high of 41 among 8th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 33 on the Community
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, four 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 do
something well.”
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 48 on the Community Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement scale, two points lower than the normative
average of 50.
Community Opportunities for
Prosocial Involvement
24
41 32 39 33
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Community Rewards for
Prosocial Involvement
46 49 48 51 48
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 49 -
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement
range from a low of 46 among 6th graders to a high of 51 among 12th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 48 on the Community
Rewards for Prosocial Involvement scale, four points lower than the statewide score of 52.
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 feelings
with 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 51 among
10th graders to a high of 59 among 8th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 55 on the Family Attachment
scale, equaling the statewide score of 55.
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 by
such items as “My parents ask me what I think before most family
decisions 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 50 among 10th graders to a high of 54 among 8th and 12th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 52 on the Family
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, one point higher than the statewide score of
51.
Family Attachment
55 59 51 58 55
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Family Opportunities for
Prosocial Involvement
52 54 50 54 52
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 50 -
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 you
for 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 51 among 10th 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, equaling the statewide score of 53.
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 factor
is 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 65 on the School Opportunities for Prosocial
Involvement scale, 15 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 graders to a high of 71 among 8th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 65 on the School
Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement scale, 10 points higher than the statewide score of
55.
Family Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement
53 55 51 5353
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
School Opportunities for
Prosocial Involvement
64 71
59 63 65
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 51 -
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 have
done something well.”
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 64 on the School Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement scale, 14 points higher than the normative
average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement range
from a low of 62 among 6th and 12th graders to a high of 68 among 8th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 64 on the School Rewards for
Prosocial Involvement scale, seven points higher than the statewide score of 57.
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 49 on the Religiosity scale, one point lower than
the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Religiosity
range from a low of 41 among 6th graders to a high of 57 among 8th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 49 on the Religiosity scale,
four points higher than the statewide score of 45.
School Rewards for Prosocial
Involvement
62 68 63 62 64
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Religiosity
41
57 48 54 49
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 52 -
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 to
beat up people if they start the fight.”
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 64 on the Belief in the Moral Order scale, 14 points higher than the normative
average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Belief in the Moral Order range from a low of 60
among 10th graders to a high of 68 among 12th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 64 on the Belief in the Moral
Order scale, six points higher than the statewide score of 58.
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 is
measured 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 47 on the Low Neighborhood
Attachment scale, three points lower than the normative average of 50.
Belief in the Moral Order
64 67 60 68 64
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Low Neighborhood Attachment
44 4949 48 47
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 53 -
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Low Neighborhood Attachment range from a low of
44 among 6th graders to a high of 49 among 8th and 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 47 on the Low Neighborhood
Attachment scale, two points higher than the statewide score of 45.
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 drug
selling). The fifth item is “I feel safe in my neighborhood.”
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 70 on the Community Disorganization scale, 20
points higher than the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Community
Disorganization range from a low of 67 among 10th and 12th graders to a high of 75 among 6th
graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 70 on the Community
Disorganization scale, equaling the statewide score of 70.
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 from
elementary 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 50 on the Transitions and
Mobility scale, equaling the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Transitions and Mobility range from a low of 44
among 6th graders to a high of 57 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 50 on the Transitions and
Mobility scale, three points higher than the statewide score of 47.
Community Disorganization
75 69 6767 70
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Transitions and Mobility
44 51 57 48 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 54 -
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 are
in 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 46 among 8th graders to a high of 56 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 51 on the Laws and Norms
Favorable to Drug Use scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 52.
Laws and Norms Favorable to
Drug Use
51 46 56 5151
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 55 -
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 53 on the Perceived
Availability of Drugs scale, three points higher than the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Perceived Availability of Drugs range from a low of
44 among 12th graders to a high of 57 among 6th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 53 on the Perceived
Availability of Drugs scale, equaling the statewide score of 53.
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, how
easy 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 and 12th 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.
Perceived Availability of Drugs
57 52 55 44 53
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Perceived Availability of
Handguns
62 63 5656 59
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 56 -
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 44 on the Poor Family
Management scale, six points lower than the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Poor Family Management range from a low of 41
among 8th graders to a high of 47 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 44 on the Poor Family
Management scale, three points lower than the statewide score of 47.
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 49 on the Family Conflict scale, one point lower
than the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Family Conflict range from a low of 43 among 12th
graders to a high of 51 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 49 on the Family Conflict
scale, three points lower than the statewide score of 52.
Poor Family Management
45 41 47 42 44
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Family Conflict
49 50 51 43 49
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 57 -
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 43 on the Family History of
Antisocial Behavior scale, seven points lower than the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Family History of Antisocial Behavior range from a
low of 38 among 8th graders to a high of 47 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 43 on the Family History of
Antisocial Behavior scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 44.
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 smoke
marijuana?”
■ 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 41 among 8th graders to a high of 52 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 47 on the Parental Attitudes
Favorable toward ATOD Use scale, equaling the statewide score of 47.
Family History of Antisocial
Behavior
43 38 47 41 43
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Parental Attitudes Favorable
toward ATOD Use
46 41 52 50 47
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 58 -
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 a
fight with someone?”
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 54 on the Parental Attitudes Favorable toward
Antisocial Behavior scale, four 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 47 among 8th graders to a high of 59 among 12th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 54 on the Parental Attitudes
Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior scale, three points lower than the statewide score of
57.
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 last
year?” and “Are your school grades better than the grades of most
students 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
39 among 12th graders to a high of 44 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Poor Academic
Performance scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 43.
Parental Attitudes Favorable
toward Antisocial Behavior
54 47 56 59 54
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Poor Academic Performance
42 41 44 39 42
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 59 -
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 items
include “How important do you think the things you are learning
in school are going to be for your later life?” and “Now, thinking
back over the past year in school, how often did you enjoy being
in 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 45 on the Lack of
Commitment to School scale, five 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 12th graders to a high of 46 among 6th, 8th and 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 45 on the Lack of
Commitment to School scale, three points lower than the statewide score of 48.
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, such
as “I ignore the rules that get in my way.”
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile
score of 42 on the Rebelliousness scale, eight points
lower than the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Rebelliousness
range from a low of 38 among 12th graders to a high of 47 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Rebelliousness
scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 43.
Lack of Commitment to School
464646 42 45
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Rebelliousness
40 43 47 38 42
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 60 -
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 such
as “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 40 on the Friends’ Delinquent Behavior scale, 10 points lower than the normative
average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Friends’ Delinquent Behavior range from a low of
35 among 8th graders to a high of 44 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 40 on the Friends’
Delinquent Behavior scale, two points lower than the statewide score of 42.
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 use
drugs 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 have
used 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 34
among 12th graders to a high of 47 among 6th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 40 on the Friends’ Use of
Drugs scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 41.
Friends’ Delinquent Behavior
41 35 44 4040
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Friends’ Use of Drugs
47
36 44 34 40
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 61 -
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 is
measured 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 48 on the Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior scale, two points lower than the
normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Peer Rewards for Antisocial Behavior range from a
low of 40 among 8th graders to a high of 53 among 12th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 48 on the Peer Rewards for
Antisocial Behavior scale, one point higher than the statewide score of 47.
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 42 on the Favorable
Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior scale, eight points lower than the normative average of
50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Favorable Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior
range from a low of 39 among 8th graders to a high of 45 among 6th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 42 on the Favorable
Attitudes toward Antisocial Behavior scale, four points lower than the statewide score of 46.
Peer Rewards for Antisocial
Behavior
48 40
52 53 48
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Favorable Attitudes toward
Antisocial Behavior
45 39 43 40 42
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 62 -
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 to
measure 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 39 among 8th graders to a high of 49 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 44 on the Favorable
Attitudes toward ATOD Use scale, two points lower than the statewide score of 46.
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 measured
with 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 50 on the Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use
scale, equaling the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use range from a low
of 45 among 8th graders to a high of 55 among 12th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 50 on the Low Perceived
Risks of Drug Use scale, one point lower than the statewide score of 51.
Favorable Attitudes toward
ATOD Use
44 39 49 40 44
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Low Perceived Risks of Drug Use
48 45 54 55 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 63 -
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 40 on the Early Initiation of Drug Use scale, 10
points lower than the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Early Initiation of Drug Use range from a low of 34
among 8th graders to a high of 45 among 10th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 40 on the Early Initiation of
Drug Use scale, one point higher than the statewide score of 39.
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 46 on the Sensation Seeking scale, four points
lower than the normative average of 50.
■ Across grade levels, percentile scores for Sensation Seeking range from a low of 40 among
12th graders to a high of 50 among 6th graders.
■ Overall, Franklin County students received a percentile score of 46 on the Sensation Seeking
scale, two points higher than the statewide score of 44.
Early Initiation of Drug Use
42 34
45 37 40
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Sensation Seeking
50 43 48 40 46
0
20
40
60
80
100
681012Overall
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 65 -
Appendix A: Additional Prevention Planning Data
Introduction
The following section presents detailed response data for survey items that may be of particular interest to
prevention planners. Some of this information has already been presented earlier in this report in the form
of several of the risk factor scale scores (see Section 5). These detailed response data have been provided
to help communities form a more complete picture of the attitudes and behaviors held by the youth who
were surveyed. It is helpful, however, to view this information within the context of the risk and protective
factor framework covered earlier in this report.
Risk of Harm
Perception of risk is an important determinant in the decision-making process young people go through
when 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 leading
indicator of future drug use patterns in a community (Bachman, Johnston, O’Malley & Humphrey, 1986).
Table 31 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. Comparison data from the statewide survey are
presented in Table 32.
Table 31. Percentage of Youth Who Reported Perception of “Great Risk” of Harm, Franklin
County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 39.1 -- 27.8 -- 22.4 -- 26.5 29.8
Smoking Cigarettes Regularly 68.9 -- 69.3 -- 56.9 -- 57.1 64.1
Trying Marijuana Once or Twice 40.5 -- 37.4 -- 21.0 -- 17.9 31.0
Smoking Marijuana Regularly 81.0 -- 81.0 -- 58.6 -- 49.0 70.1
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Appendix A
Additional Prevention
Planning Data
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 66 -
Table 32. Percentage of Youth Who Reported Perception of “Great Risk” of Harm, Pennsylvania
Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 40.3 -- 30.2 -- 25.2 -- 26.2 30.1
Smoking Cigarettes Regularly 71.7 -- 67.5 -- 63.0 -- 64.6 66.5
Trying Marijuana Once or Twice 46.0 -- 36.1 -- 21.5 -- 15.4 29.0
Smoking Marijuana Regularly 83.2 -- 74.5 -- 54.9 -- 43.2 63.0
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 Care Youth 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 33 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. Comparison data from the statewide survey are
presented in Table 34.
Table 33. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Personal Disapproval of Drug Use, Franklin
County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 97.9 -- 86.5 -- 63.2 -- 58.9 79.3
Smoking Cigarettes 97.3 -- 89.6 -- 64.0 -- 56.3 79.8
Smoking Marijuana 98.7 -- 94.6 -- 74.3 -- 73.1 87.0
Using Other Illicit Drugs 98.9 -- 97.5 -- 92.7 -- 93.3 96.0
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 34. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Personal Disapproval of Drug Use, Pennsylvania
Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 97.2 -- 82.5 -- 62.5 -- 49.2 71.6
Smoking Cigarettes 97.3 -- 86.7 -- 72.1 -- 56.8 77.3
Smoking Marijuana 98.4 -- 89.0 -- 73.1 -- 62.3 79.8
Using Other Illicit Drugs 98.7 -- 96.3 -- 92.8 -- 90.3 94.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 67 -
Social Norms
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 35 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. Comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table
36.
Table 35. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Peer Approval of Drug Use, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 2.9 -- 7.4 -- 17.7 -- 20.9 11.1
Smoking Cigarettes 2.3 -- 3.0 -- 11.0 -- 10.9 6.3
Smoking Marijuana 2.6 -- 2.7 -- 15.7 -- 15.4 8.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 36. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Peer Approval of Drug Use, Pennsylvania
Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 1.4 -- 6.7 -- 13.5 -- 22.2 11.4
Smoking Cigarettes 1.3 -- 4.7 -- 6.8 -- 7.1 5.1
Smoking Marijuana 1.1 -- 6.0 -- 13.5 -- 18.6 10.3
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 37 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. Comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 38.
Table 37. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated “Other Adults” Disapprove of Drug Use, Franklin
County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol 88.6 -- 85.1 -- 68.1 -- 65.0 78.5
Smoking Cigarettes 91.5 -- 86.7 -- 65.3 -- 59.4 78.1
Smoking Marijuana 96.8 -- 94.0 -- 81.4 -- 81.3 89.5
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 68 -
Table 38. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated “Other Adults” Disapprove of Drug Use,
Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol 90.6 -- 80.5 -- 70.1 -- 60.6 74.8
Smoking Cigarettes 92.2 -- 83.2 -- 73.7 -- 59.5 76.5
Smoking Marijuana 96.2 -- 90.3 -- 83.3 -- 75.9 86.0
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
39 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. Comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 40.
Table 39. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Parental Disapproval of Drug Use, Franklin
County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drink Alcohol Regularly 93.3 -- 85.8 -- 67.0 -- 60.3 79.0
Smoke Cigarettes 95.5 -- 89.9 -- 71.4 -- 62.2 82.1
Smoke Marijuana 96.3 -- 94.0 -- 82.9 -- 76.6 88.9
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 40. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Parental Disapproval of Drug Use, Pennsylvania
Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Drinking Alcohol Regularly 93.1 -- 81.9 -- 68.3 -- 54.1 73.5
Smoke Cigarettes 95.1 -- 87.3 -- 77.4 -- 65.4 80.6
Smoke Marijuana 97.2 -- 91.2 -- 82.7 -- 73.3 85.6
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Frequency of Drug Use
While the prevalence rates presented in Section 2 are useful for determining how many kids 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 41-48 present the
past-30-day frequency of use reported by surveyed youth for the following drugs: alcohol, cigarettes,
marijuana, and inhalants.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 69 -
Table 41. Past-30-Day Frequency of Alcohol Use, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
0 occasions 94.1 -- 87.7 -- 61.7 -- 60.7 78.7
1 or 2 occasions 5.7 -- 8.5 -- 26.1 -- 22.4 14.4
3 to 5 occasions 0.3 -- 3.5 -- 8.8 -- 6.1 4.2
6 to 9 occasions 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 1.7 -- 5.1 1.4
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.7 -- 4.1 0.8
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 1.0 -- 0.5 0.3
40 or more occasions 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 1.0 0.2
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 42. Past-30-Day Frequency of Alcohol Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
0 occasions 94.9 -- 82.8 -- 69.5 -- 54.0 74.5
1 or 2 occasions 4.4 -- 11.9 -- 19.8 -- 26.6 16.1
3 to 5 occasions 0.5 -- 2.9 -- 5.5 -- 10.8 5.1
6 to 9 occasions 0.1 -- 1.0 -- 2.7 -- 4.8 2.2
10 to 19 occasions 0.1 -- 0.6 -- 1.7 -- 2.4 1.2
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.3 -- 0.6 0.3
40 or more occasions 0.0 -- 0.5 -- 0.4 -- 0.8 0.5
Note: Rounding on the above table can produce totals that do not equal 100%. The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 43. Past-30-Day Frequency of Cigarette Use, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Not at all 99.2 -- 97.1 -- 79.3 -- 70.5 88.9
Less than one cigarette per day 0.8 -- 2.9 -- 9.9 -- 15.0 6.0
One to five cigarettes per day 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 5.4 -- 6.2 2.4
About one-half pack per day 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 3.7 -- 3.6 1.5
About one pack per day 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 1.0 -- 4.1 0.9
About one and one-half packs per day 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.5 0.2
Two packs or more per day 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 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 were
not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 70 -
Table 44. Past-30-Day Frequency of Cigarette Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Not at all 99.1 -- 93.3 -- 86.1 -- 79.2 89.0
Less than one cigarette per day 0.6 -- 3.9 -- 6.1 -- 7.7 4.7
One to five cigarettes per day 0.2 -- 2.0 -- 4.8 -- 6.2 3.4
About one-half pack per day 0.1 -- 0.3 -- 1.8 -- 4.2 1.7
About one pack per day 0.0 -- 0.2 -- 0.6 -- 2.1 0.8
About one and one-half packs per day 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.4 -- 0.4 0.2
Two packs or more per day 0.0 -- 0.2 -- 0.3 -- 0.3 0.2
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 45. Past-30-Day Frequency of Marijuana Use, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
0 occasions 99.7 -- 98.1 -- 85.0 -- 82.1 92.7
1 or 2 occasions 0.0 -- 1.3 -- 5.1 -- 7.2 2.8
3 to 5 occasions 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 3.1 -- 1.0 1.0
6 to 9 occasions 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 1.4 -- 2.1 0.7
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 3.8 -- 2.1 1.4
20 to 39 occasions 0.3 -- 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.5 0.3
40 or more occasions 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 1.4 -- 5.1 1.2
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 46. Past-30-Day Frequency of Marijuana Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
0 occasions 99.7 -- 94.6 -- 85.8 -- 76.3 88.6
1 or 2 occasions 0.1 -- 2.5 -- 5.7 -- 8.7 4.4
3 to 5 occasions 0.0 -- 1.0 -- 2.6 -- 3.6 1.9
6 to 9 occasions 0.0 -- 0.6 -- 1.6 -- 1.7 1.0
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 -- 0.4 -- 1.6 -- 2.6 1.2
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 -- 0.2 -- 0.9 -- 2.3 0.9
40 or more occasions 0.0 -- 0.8 -- 1.7 -- 4.8 1.9
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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 71 -
Table 47. Past-30-Day Frequency of Inhalant Use, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
0 occasions 91.7 -- 92.9 -- 90.7 -- 96.8 92.6
1 or 2 occasions 6.4 -- 6.1 -- 5.9 -- 3.2 5.6
3 to 5 occasions 1.4 -- 0.6 -- 1.7 -- 0.0 1.0
6 to 9 occasions 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.0 0.1
10 to 19 occasions 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0
20 to 39 occasions 0.3 -- 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.0 0.2
40 or more occasions 0.3 -- 0.3 -- 1.0 -- 0.0 0.4
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 48. Past-30-Day Frequency of Inhalant Use, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
0 occasions 93.2 -- 91.8 -- 94.5 -- 96.7 94.1
1 or 2 occasions 5.6 -- 6.0 -- 3.7 -- 2.4 4.3
3 to 5 occasions 0.6 -- 0.7 -- 0.8 -- 0.6 0.7
6 to 9 occasions 0.3 -- 0.6 -- 0.4 -- 0.2 0.4
10 to 19 occasions 0.2 -- 0.4 -- 0.2 -- 0.1 0.2
20 to 39 occasions 0.0 -- 0.1 -- 0.1 -- 0.1 0.1
40 or more occasions 0.1 -- 0.4 -- 0.3 -- 0.1 0.2
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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 72 -
Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School
Table 49 presents the past-30-day frequency of bringing a weapon (such as a gun, knife or club) to school,
reported by surveyed youth. Comparison data from the statewide survey are presented in Table 50.
Table 49. Past-30-Day Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Never 99.4 -- 98.7 -- 97.6 -- 98.9 98.7
1 or 2 times 0.6 -- 1.0 -- 1.4 -- 0.0 0.8
3 to 5 times 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.7 -- 0.5 0.3
6 to 9 times 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0
10 to 19 times 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.5 0.1
20 to 29 times 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.1
30 to 39 times 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0
40+ times 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.3 -- 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 were not surveyed.
Table 50. Past-30-Day Frequency of Bringing a Weapon to School, Pennsylvania Statewide
2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Never 99.1 -- 97.9 -- 97.2 -- 96.8 97.7
1 or 2 times 0.8 -- 1.6 -- 1.5 -- 1.8 1.5
3 to 5 times 0.0 -- 0.2 -- 0.4 -- 0.6 0.3
6 to 9 times 0.0 -- 0.1 -- 0.2 -- 0.1 0.1
10 to 19 times 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.1 -- 0.2 0.1
20 to 29 times 0.0 -- 0.1 -- 0.0 -- 0.1 0.1
30 to 39 times 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 -- 0.0 0.0
40+ times 0.0 -- 0.1 -- 0.6 -- 0.4 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.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 73 -
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 51
presents the percentage of surveyed youth indicating gang involvement. Comparison data from the
statewide survey are presented in Table 52.
Table 51. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Gang Involvement, Franklin County 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Ever Belonged to a Gang 4.3 -- 2.2 -- 5.1 -- 3.6 3.8
Belonged to a Gang with a Name 3.5 -- 1.9 -- 4.1 -- 4.1 3.3
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Table 52. Percentage of Youth Who Indicated Gang Involvement, Pennsylvania Statewide 2009
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall % % % % % % % %
Ever Belonged to a Gang 4.5 -- 6.2 -- 6.7 -- 5.4 5.7
Belonged to a Gang with a Name 3.1 -- 5.4 -- 6.2 -- 4.5 4.8
Note: The symbol “--” indicates that data are not available because students were not surveyed.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 75 -
Appendix B: Historical Data
Introduction
In addition to the current survey effort, Franklin County administered the PAYS in the fall of 2007.
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 and 2009.
Table 53. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Surveyed Youth
Number of Students Percentage of Students
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009
Overall Valid Surveys -- -- -- 988 1,220 -- -- -- 100.0% 100.0%
Sex
Male -- -- -- 449 521 -- -- -- 45.4% 42.7%
Female -- -- -- 527 641 -- -- -- 53.3% 52.5%
Did not respond -- -- -- 12 58 -- -- -- 1.2% 4.8%
Ethnicity
White -- -- -- 861 1,022 -- -- -- 87.1% 83.8%
African American -- -- -- 30 31 -- -- -- 3.0% 2.5%
Latino -- -- -- 12 41 -- -- -- 1.2% 3.4%
American Indian -- -- -- 12 10 -- -- -- 1.2% 0.8%
Asian -- -- -- 10 15 -- -- -- 1.0% 1.2%
Other/Multiple -- -- -- 53 96 -- -- -- 5.4% 7.9%
Did not respond -- -- -- 10 5 -- -- -- 1.0% 0.4%
Grade Level
6th -- -- -- 223 379 -- -- -- 22.6% 31.1%
7th -- -- -- 0 0 -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0%
8th -- -- -- 280 319 -- -- -- 28.3% 26.1%
9th -- -- -- 0 0 -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0%
10th -- -- -- 250 312 -- -- -- 25.3% 25.6%
11th -- -- -- 0 0 -- -- -- 0.0% 0.0%
12th -- -- -- 219 210 -- -- -- 22.2% 17.2%
Note: Rounding can produce totals that do not equal 100%.
Appendix B
Historical Data
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 76 -
ATOD Results, 2007
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 77 -
Table 60. 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 61. 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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 78 -
Other Antisocial Behavior Results, 2007
Table 65. 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
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 79 -
Risk and Protective Results, 2007
Table 68. Protective Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2007
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
Community Domain Community Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 51 -- 57 -- 56 -- 65 57
Community Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 49 -- 52 -- 52 -- 53 51
Family Attachment 51 -- 51 -- 54 -- 52 52
Family Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 47 -- 55 -- 55 -- 52 52 Family
Domain
Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 48 -- 53 -- 52 -- 52 51
School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement 47 -- 57 -- 55 -- 50 52 School Domain School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement 61 -- 46 -- 48 -- 41 49
Religiosity 52 -- 47 -- 42 -- 52 48 Peer and
Individual
Domain Belief in the Moral Order 63 -- 64 -- 69 -- 66 65
Average 52 -- 54 -- 54 -- 54 53
Table 69. Risk Factor Scale Scores, Franklin County 2007
6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Overall
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
Community
Domain
Perceived Availability of Handguns 60 -- 54 -- 49 -- 50 53
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
Family
Domain
Parental Attitudes Favorable toward Antisocial Behavior 44 -- 49 -- 47 -- 48 47
Poor Academic Performance 46 -- 48 -- 52 -- 38 46 School
Domain Lack of Commitment to School 45 -- 44 -- 46 -- 43 45
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
Peer and
Individual
Domain
Sensation Seeking 46 -- 50 -- 41 -- 39 44
Average 46 -- 48 -- 46 -- 46 47
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 81 -
Appendix C: Risk and Protective Factor Scale Construction Summary
Appendix C
Risk and Protective Factor
Scale Construction Summary
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 82 -
Community Domain Scales
RISK FACTORS
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?
COM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Q108 How many times have you changed schools since kindergarten?
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 83 -
RISK FACTORS, CONTINUED
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
COM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Q30 If you wanted to get a handgun, how easy would it be for you to get one?
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 84 -
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
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?
COM
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Q555 There are lots of adults in my neighborhood I could talk to about something
important.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 85 -
Family Domain Scales
RISK FACTORS
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)?
FAM
I
L
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Q74f How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to: pick a fight with
someone?
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 86 -
RISK FACTORS, CONTINUED
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?
FAM
I
L
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Q34d About how many adults (over 21) have you known personally who in the past
year have: gotten drunk or high?
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 87 -
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
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?
FAM
I
L
Y
DOM
A
I
N
Q94 Do you enjoy spending time with your father?
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 88 -
School Domain Scales
RISK FACTORS
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?
SCH
O
O
L
DOM
A
I
N
Q738 During the LAST FOUR WEEKS, how many whole days have you missed
because you skipped or “cut”?
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 89 -
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
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.
SCH
O
O
L
DOM
A
I
N
Q731 My teachers praise me when I work hard in school.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 90 -
Peer and Individual Domain Scales
RISK FACTORS
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.
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Q57c How many times have you done the following things? Done crazy things even
if they are a little dangerous.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 91 -
RISK FACTORS, CONTINUED
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?
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 92 -
RISK FACTORS, CONTINUED
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?
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Q59d What are the chances you would be seen as cool if you carried a handgun?
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 93 -
RISK FACTORS, CONTINUED
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?
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Q67d How wrong do you think it is for someone your age to use LSD, cocaine,
amphetamines or another illegal drug?
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 94 -
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
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.
PEE
R
A
N
D
IND
I
V
I
D
U
A
L
DOM
A
I
N
Q64 It is important to be honest with your parents, even if they become upset or you
get punished.
Franklin County Report 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 95 -
Appendix D: Other Resources
Web Sites
Office of National Drug Control Policy www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov
National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information www.ncadi.samhsa.gov
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) www.samhsa.gov
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
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Western Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies. (2004).
Building a successful prevention program: list of all practices. [Data file]. Available at the University of Nevada
Reno’s Web site, www.casat.unr.edu/bestpractices/alpha-list.php.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science. (2004). Blueprints for Violence
Prevention. [Data file]. Available from the University of Colorado Boulder’s Web site,
www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints.
Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2004). Communities That Care Prevention Strategies Guide. [Data file]. Available
from the SAMHSA Web site, www.preventionplatform.samhsa.gov.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA). (2004). Model Programs list. [Data file]. Available from the SAMHSA Web site,
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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 97 -
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. (2009a). 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 2009 Pennsylvania Youth Survey
- 98 -
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.