partnership meeting october 20, 2011 amanda deming, m.s. 2010 prevention needs assessment (pna)...

Partnership Partnership MeetingMeeting

October 20, 2011October 20, 2011

Amanda Deming, M.S.

2010 Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA) Survey:Data, Trends, and Implications

OverviewOverview• Basic information about the data and Basic information about the data and

analysesanalyses

• 2010 Survey Results2010 Survey Results– Substance UseSubstance Use

•Prescription Drug UsePrescription Drug Use

– Antisocial BehaviorsAntisocial Behaviors– Risk FactorsRisk Factors– Protective FactorsProtective Factors

• Discussion: Where do we go from here?Discussion: Where do we go from here?

How should we be thinking How should we be thinking about the data?about the data?

2000 2025

2010

Administration and Administration and Validity of Survey Validity of Survey

ResultsResults• Administration detailsAdministration details

• Honesty ScaleHonesty Scale– Response patternsResponse patterns– Survey question: “How Survey question: “How

honest were you in honest were you in filling out this survey?”filling out this survey?”

• 5,873 out of 6,622 5,873 out of 6,622 (~89%) students (~89%) students reported answering reported answering the survey honestlythe survey honestly

Significance AnalysesSignificance Analyses

• Normal fluctuationNormal fluctuation

• Significance Significance analyses:analyses:– Statistically Statistically

significantsignificant– Non-significantNon-significant– Conducted for both Conducted for both

percentage change percentage change from 2002 to 2010 from 2002 to 2010 and and 2008 to 20102008 to 2010

• Significance Significance analyses conducted analyses conducted for selected for selected variables:variables:– Top 3 substances + Top 3 substances +

chewing tobacco (for chewing tobacco (for both lifetime and past both lifetime and past 30-day use)30-day use)

– Prescription drug usePrescription drug use– Highest and lowest 3 Highest and lowest 3

antisocial behaviorsantisocial behaviors– Highest and lowest 3 risk Highest and lowest 3 risk

and protectiveand protective

Monitoring the Future Monitoring the Future (MTF) & Bach-Harrison (BH) (MTF) & Bach-Harrison (BH)

NormsNorms• MTFMTF

– Ongoing study of the behaviors, attitudes and Ongoing study of the behaviors, attitudes and values of American secondary & college values of American secondary & college students and young adultsstudents and young adults

• BH NormBH Norm– Created by Bach-Harrison, L.L.C.Created by Bach-Harrison, L.L.C.– Provides states & communities with the ability Provides states & communities with the ability

to compare their results on risk, protection & to compare their results on risk, protection & antisocial measures with national measures antisocial measures with national measures

– Updated approximately every two yearsUpdated approximately every two years

2010 PNA Survey 2010 PNA Survey Results: SubstancesResults: Substances

• AlcoholAlcohol• TobaccoTobacco

– Chewing TobaccoChewing Tobacco• MarijuanaMarijuana• Prescription DrugsPrescription Drugs

– Narcotics Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers)(Opiates/Painkillers)

– StimulantsStimulants– CNS DepressantsCNS Depressants

NOTE: NOTE: * = indicates statistically significant increase/decrease; teal text indicates a positive change; orange text indicates a negative change

Lifetime Alcohol UseLifetime Alcohol Use2010: 46.8% (2748/5873)2008: 57.0%*57.0%* (3306/5800)2002: 60.1%*60.1%* (1311/2181)

National comparison:•Middle school: ~7% lower•High school: ~1 – 2% lower

Past 30-Day Alcohol UsePast 30-Day Alcohol Use2010: 26.2% (1539/5873)2008: 34.9%*34.9%* (2024/5800)2002: 33.7%*33.7%* (735/2181)

National comparison:•Middle school: ~2% higher•High school: ~2 – 4% lower

Binge DrinkingBinge Drinking2010: 14.3% (840/5873)2008: 22.1%*22.1%* (1282/5873)2002: 16.3%*16.3%* (356/2181)

National comparison:•Middle and high school: ~2% higher

Lifetime Tobacco (Cigarette) Lifetime Tobacco (Cigarette) UseUse

2010: 23.3% (1368/5873)2008: 26.4%*26.4%* (1531/5800)2002: 35.9%*35.9%* (783/2181)

National comparison:•Middle and high school: ~5 – 8% lower

Past 30-Day Tobacco (Cigarette) UsePast 30-Day Tobacco (Cigarette) Use2010: 9.7% (570/5873)2008: 11.6%*11.6%* (673/5800)2002: 13.4%*13.4%* (292/2181)

National comparison:•Middle and high school: ~5% lower

Continuing Trend of Interest: Continuing Trend of Interest: Rise – and Fall - in Chewing TobaccoRise – and Fall - in Chewing Tobacco2010: 14.0% (822/5873)2008: 15.6%*15.6%* (905/5800)2002: 13.2% (288/2181)

National comparison:•Middle school: ~Equal•High school: ~3% higher

Continuing Trend of Interest: Continuing Trend of Interest: Rise – and Fall - in Chewing TobaccoRise – and Fall - in Chewing Tobacco2010: 6.6% (388/5873)2008: 7.6%*7.6%* (446/5800)2002: 4.2%*4.2%* (92/2181)

National comparison:•Middle school: ~Equal•High school: ~2% higher

Lifetime Marijuana UseLifetime Marijuana Use2010: 21.7% (1274/5873)2008: 23.1% (1340/5800)2002: 28.0%*28.0%* (611/2181)

National comparison:•Middle school: ~7% lower•High school: ~3 – 5% lower

Past 30-Day Marijuana UsePast 30-Day Marijuana Use2010: 12.7% (746/5873)2008: 12.8% (742/5800)2002: 15.2%*15.2%* (332/2181)

National comparison:•Middle and high school: ~Equal

Lifetime Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) Lifetime Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) UseUse

2010: 6.4% (376/5873)2008: 7.5%*7.5%* (435/5800)2004: 11.9%*11.9%* (621/5219)

National comparison:•Middle school: ~3.0% lower•High school: ~Equal

Past 30-Day Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) Past 30-Day Narcotics (Opiates/Painkillers) UseUse

2010: 2.8% (164/5873)2008: 3.5%*3.5%* (203/5800)2004: 5.0%*5.0%* (261/5219)

National comparison:•Middle school: ~1.0% lower•High school: ~Equal

Lifetime Stimulant (Amphetamine) Lifetime Stimulant (Amphetamine) UseUse

2010: 5.9% (347/5873)2008: 5.5% (319/5800)2004: 5.3% (277/5219)

National comparison:•Middle school & younger high school: ~3.0% lower•High school seniors: ~1.0% higher

ATOD USE PROFILE: Lifetime Amphetamine Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All Grades

Pe

rce

nta

ge

s (

%)

2004 Broome County 2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF

Past 30-Day Stimulant (Amphetamine) Past 30-Day Stimulant (Amphetamine) UseUse

2010: 2.7% (159/5873)2008: 2.6% (151/5800)2004: 1.9%*1.9%* (99/5219)

National comparison:•Middle school and younger high school: ~Equal•High school: ~2.0% higher

ATOD USE PROFILE: 30 Day Stimulant (Amphetamine) Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Pe

rce

nta

ge

s (

%)


Lifetime CNS Depressant (Sedative) Lifetime CNS Depressant (Sedative) UseUse

2010: 5.4% (317/5873)2008: 7.2%*7.2%* (417/5800)2006: 7.5%*7.5%* (371/4953)

National comparison:•Across all students: ~5% lower

ATOD USE PROFILE: Lifetime Sedative Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Perc

en

tag

es (

%)

2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF

Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Sedative) Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Sedative) UseUse

2010: 2.3% (135/5873)2008: 2.9%*2.9%* (168/5800)2006: 2.8% (138/4953)

National comparison:•Across all students: ~1% lower

ATOD USE PROFILE: 30 Day Sedative Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Perc

en

tag

es (

%)

2006 Broome County 2008 Broome County 2010 Broome County MTF

Lifetime CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) Lifetime CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) UseUse

2010: 2.6% (153/5873)2008: 3.6%*3.6%* (209/5800)2004: 2.7% (141/5219)

National comparison:•Across all students: ~3-4% lower

ATOD USE PROFILE: Lifetime Tranquilizer Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Perc

en

tag

es (

%)


Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) Past 30-Day CNS Depressant (Tranquilizer) UseUse

2010: 1.1% (65/5873)2008: 1.4% (81/5800)2004: 1.3% (68/5219)

National comparison:•Across all students: ~0.5% lower

ATOD USE PROFILE: 30 Day Tranquilizer Use

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Perc

en

tag

es (

%)


ANTISOCIAL ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIORSBEHAVIORS

(ASB)(ASB)

•Suspended from School

•Drunk or High at School

•Sold Illegal Drugs

•Stolen a Vehicle

•Been Arrested

•Attacked to Harm

•Carried a Handgun

• Handgun to School

Antisocial Behaviors: Antisocial Behaviors: HighestHighest

• Drunk or High Drunk or High at Schoolat School

– 11.5% of students: 11.5% of students: 2010 (675/5873)2010 (675/5873)

– 13.8%*13.8%* of students: of students: 2008 (800/5800)2008 (800/5800)


– MS students below MS students below BH norm; HS BH norm; HS students students approximately equal approximately equal to BH normto BH norm

• Attacked to HarmAttacked to Harm

– 10.0% of students: 2010 (587/5873)10.0% of students: 2010 (587/5873)– 12.4%*12.4%* of students: 2008 of students: 2008

(719/5873)(719/5873)– 14.6%*14.6%* of students: 2002 of students: 2002

(318/2181)(318/2181)– All grades below BH normAll grades below BH norm

• Suspended from SchoolSuspended from School

– 8.7% of students: 2010 (511/5873)8.7% of students: 2010 (511/5873)– 9.0% of students: 2008 (522/5800)9.0% of students: 2008 (522/5800)– 7.3%*7.3%* of students: 2002 of students: 2002

(159/2181)(159/2181)– All grades below BH normAll grades below BH norm

Antisocial Behaviors: Antisocial Behaviors: LowestLowest

• Carried a HandgunCarried a Handgun

– 3.8% of students: 2010 (223/5873)3.8% of students: 2010 (223/5873)– 3.3% of students: 2008 (191/5800)3.3% of students: 2008 (191/5800)– 2.7%*2.7%* of students: 2002 (59/2181) of students: 2002 (59/2181)– All grades below BH normAll grades below BH norm

• Stolen a VehicleStolen a Vehicle

– 2.1% of students: 2010 (123/5873)2.1% of students: 2010 (123/5873)– 1.8% of students: 2008 (104/5800)1.8% of students: 2008 (104/5800)– 1.9% of students: 2002 (41/2181)1.9% of students: 2002 (41/2181)– All grades below BH normAll grades below BH norm

• Handgun to SchoolHandgun to School




– All grades below BH All grades below BH normnorm

RISK FACTORSRISK FACTORS

• Low Neighborhood Attachment• Laws & Norms Favor Drug Use • Perceived Availability of Drugs

• Poor Family Management• Family Conflict

• Sibling Drug Use• Exposure to Adult ASB

• Parent Attitudes Favor ASB• Parent Attitudes Favor Drug Use

• Academic Failure• Low Commitment to School

• Rebelliousness• Early Initiation of ASB

• Early Initiation of Drug Use

• Attitudes Favorable to ASB

• Attitudes Favorable to Drug Use

• Perceived Risk of Drug Use

• Interaction with Antisocial Peers• Friend’s Use of

Drugs• Rewards for ASB

• Depressive Symptoms

• Gang Involvement

Risk Factors: HighestRisk Factors: Highest

• Rewards for ASBRewards for ASB




– MS students ~equal MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS to BH norm; HS students ~ 5-10% students ~ 5-10% higher than BH higher than BH normnorm

• Perceived Minimal Risk of Drug UsePerceived Minimal Risk of Drug Use

– 45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873)45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873)– 41.5%*41.5%* of students: 2008 (2407/5800) of students: 2008 (2407/5800)– 40.3%*40.3%* of students: 2002 (879/2181)of students: 2002 (879/2181)– MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS

students ~ 5-10% higher than BH normstudents ~ 5-10% higher than BH norm

• Parental Attitudes Favorable to ASBParental Attitudes Favorable to ASB

– 45.3% of students: 2010 (2660/5873)45.3% of students: 2010 (2660/5873)– 53.6%*53.6%* of students: 2008 (3265/5800) of students: 2008 (3265/5800)– 56.9%*56.9%* of students: 2002 (1241/2181) of students: 2002 (1241/2181)– MS students ~5% higher than BH norm; MS students ~5% higher than BH norm;

HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH HS students ~ 5-10% higher than BH normnorm

Risk Factors: LowestRisk Factors: Lowest

• Early Initiation of ASBEarly Initiation of ASB

– 25.2% of students: 2010 (1480/5873)25.2% of students: 2010 (1480/5873)– 24.6% of students: 2008 (1427/5800)24.6% of students: 2008 (1427/5800)– 26.9%*26.9%* of students: of students: 2002 (587/2181)2002 (587/2181)– All students ~10% lower than BH normAll students ~10% lower than BH norm

• Interaction with Antisocial PeersInteraction with Antisocial Peers

– 25.1% of students: 2010 (1474/5873)25.1% of students: 2010 (1474/5873)– 29.1%*29.1%* of students: 2008 (1688/5800) of students: 2008 (1688/5800)– 24.8% of students: 2002 (541/2181)24.8% of students: 2002 (541/2181)– All students ~ 5-10% lower than BH normAll students ~ 5-10% lower than BH norm

• Gang InvolvementGang Involvement




– MS students ~5% MS students ~5% lower than BH lower than BH norm; HS students norm; HS students ~ equal to BH norm~ equal to BH norm

Where are the high risk Where are the high risk kids?kids?

Note: High risk = 8(M.S.)/9(H.S.) or more risk factors

PROTECTIVE FACTORSPROTECTIVE FACTORS

• Rewards for Prosocial Involvement•Family Attachment

•Family Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement• Family Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

• School Opportunity for Prosocial Involvement• School Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

• Religiosity•Belief in the Moral Order

• Interaction with Prosocial Peers•Peer-Individual Prosocial Involvement

•Peer-Individual Rewards for Prosocial Involvement

Protective Factors: HighestProtective Factors: Highest

• School Rewards for School Rewards for Prosocial Prosocial InvolvementInvolvement




– MS students ~10% MS students ~10% higher than BH higher than BH norm; HS students ~ norm; HS students ~ equal to BH normequal to BH norm

• Peer-Individual Prosocial Peer-Individual Prosocial InvolvementInvolvement

– 66.5% of students: 2010 (3906/5873)66.5% of students: 2010 (3906/5873)– 64.2%*64.2%* of students: 2008 (3724/5800)of students: 2008 (3724/5800)– 63.8%*63.8%* of students: 2006* of students: 2006*

(3160/4953)(3160/4953)– All students ~ 5-10% higher than BH All students ~ 5-10% higher than BH

normnorm

• School Opportunities for Prosocial School Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement Involvement

– 66.1% of students: 2010 (3882/5873)66.1% of students: 2010 (3882/5873)– 67.5% of students: 2008 (3915/5800)67.5% of students: 2008 (3915/5800)– 69.3%*69.3%* of students: 2002 (1511/2181) of students: 2002 (1511/2181)– MS students ~10% higher than BH MS students ~10% higher than BH

norm; HS students ~ equal to BH normnorm; HS students ~ equal to BH norm*NOTE: 2002 and 2004 survey did not measure this component

Protective Factors: LowestProtective Factors: Lowest• Peer-Individual Rewards for Peer-Individual Rewards for

Prosocial InvolvementProsocial Involvement

– 45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873)45.6% of students: 2010 (2678/5873)– 47.3% of students: 2008 (2743/5800)47.3% of students: 2008 (2743/5800)– 52.7%*52.7%* of students: 2006* (2610/4953) of students: 2006* (2610/4953)– MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS


• Community Rewards for Prosocial Community Rewards for Prosocial InvolvementInvolvement

– 43.3% of students: 2010 (2543/5873)43.3% of students: 2010 (2543/5873)– 41.9% of students: 2008 (2430/5800)41.9% of students: 2008 (2430/5800)– 40.7%*40.7%* of students: 2002 (888/2181) of students: 2002 (888/2181)– MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS MS students ~equal to BH norm; HS


• ReligiosityReligiosity– 38.6% of students : 38.6% of students :

2010 (2267/5873)2010 (2267/5873)– 39.8%* of students: 39.8%* of students:

2008 (2308/5800)2008 (2308/5800)– 45.7%*45.7%* of students: of students:

2002 (997/2181)2002 (997/2181)– MS students ~5% MS students ~5%

higher than BH higher than BH norm; HS students ~ norm; HS students ~ 5-10% higher than 5-10% higher than BH normBH norm

*NOTE: 2002 and 2004 survey did not measure this component

How many kids are How many kids are endorsing high protection?endorsing high protection?

Note: High protection = 5 or more protective factors

NEW AREAS OF INTERESTNEW AREAS OF INTEREST

Obtaining AlcoholObtaining AlcoholWhere did you get the alcohol?

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

I bought itmyself from

a store

I got it at aparty

I gavesomeone

else moneyto buy it for

me

I got it fromsomeone Iknow age

21 or older

I got it fromsomeone I

know underage 21

I got it froma familymember/relative

other thanmy parents

I got it fromhome with

my parent'spermission

I got it fromhome

without myparent's

permission

I got itanotherway.

Per

cen

tag

es

PNA 2010 - All Grades NSDUH 2009

Consuming AlcoholConsuming Alcohol

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Party - NPP

My house or friend's - NPP

Friend's home - NPP

Friend's home - PP

Party at a remote location

Party - parents home

Events

Home

Bar/club

Car

Parking lot

At school

Other

Percentage endorsing location

Century Council 2003 NSDUH 2009 PNA 2010 - All Grades

Driving and AlcoholDriving and Alcohol

In the past 30 days, did you DRIVE after drinking?

0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%

10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%20.00%

7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total

Perc

enta

ges

Broome County PNA BH Norm YRBS 2009 NY - YRBS 2009

Driving and AlcoholDriving and Alcohol

In the past 30 days, did you RIDE with somone who had been drinking?

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th Total

Per

cen

tag

es (

%)

Broome County PNA BH Norm YRBS 2009

Bullying: PrevalenceBullying: Prevalence

In the past year, have you been bullied or picked on?

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th All

Grade

PNA 2010 YRBS 2009

Bullying: Relative FrequenciesBullying: Relative Frequencies

PNA 2010 - Past 12 Months: Occasional vs. Persistent Bullying

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%


Grade

1 - 5 days 6 or more days

Bullying & Perceived SafetyBullying & Perceived Safety

Past 30 days: Missed school because felt unsafe at or on the way to school?

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%


Grade

PNA 2010 YRBS 2009

Bullying & Perceived Safety:Bullying & Perceived Safety:Relative FrequenciesRelative Frequencies

PNA 2010 - Past 30 Days: Number of days missed due to safety concerns

0.00%1.00%2.00%3.00%4.00%5.00%6.00%7.00%8.00%9.00%

10.00%


Grade

1 day 2-3 days 4-5 days 6 or more days

PARENT SURVEY 2010:PARENT SURVEY 2010:HIGHLIGHTSHIGHLIGHTS

KYDS Coalition Parent Survey KYDS Coalition Parent Survey 2010:2010:

OverviewOverview• 27 questions27 questions

• Variety of issues and attitudes relating to Variety of issues and attitudes relating to youth substance use, antisocial behavior, youth substance use, antisocial behavior, and family managementand family management

• Mailed to the homes of parents of middle and Mailed to the homes of parents of middle and high school students in the Chenango Forks, high school students in the Chenango Forks, Johnson City, Maine-Endwell, Susquehanna Johnson City, Maine-Endwell, Susquehanna Valley, Whitney Point, & Windsor school Valley, Whitney Point, & Windsor school districtsdistricts

• Total of 606 (~10%) surveys were completed Total of 606 (~10%) surveys were completed and analyzed by the KYDS Coalition and analyzed by the KYDS Coalition Information SpecialistInformation Specialist

• Notable findings, when examined in parallel Notable findings, when examined in parallel with PNAwith PNA, , reported here in briefreported here in brief

Perceived Risk of HarmPerceived Risk of Harm

(People/Youth) are at moderate or great risk of harming themselves if they...

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Drink beer, w ine,or hard liquor

Smoke cigarettes Smoke marijuana

Per

cent

ages

Youth Parents

Perceived vs. Reported Perceived vs. Reported Approval of Substance UseApproval of Substance Use

(My parents/I) believe it is very wrong for youth to...

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

Drink beer, w ine,or hard liquor

regularly

Smoke cigarettes Smoke marijuana

Perc

en

tag

es

Youth Parents

Conversations: Conversations: Alcohol/Drug Use and RisksAlcohol/Drug Use and Risks

In the past 12 months, talked to about:

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Alcohol use Drugs (excluding Rx)

Per

cen

tag

es

Parents Youth

Frequency of Talks: AlcoholFrequency of Talks: Alcohol

Number of times that I've talked to my child about alcohol abuse in the past 12 months:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Never Once 2-3 times 4-5 times 6-9 times 10 ormore

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Frequency of Talks: Frequency of Talks: DrugsDrugs

Number of times I've talked with my child about illegal drug use in the last 12 months:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Frequency of Talks: Rx Frequency of Talks: Rx DrugsDrugs

Number of times I've talked w ith my child about prescription and/or over-the-counter drug use in

the last 12 months:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Concluding RemarksConcluding Remarks

• Value of the dataValue of the data– Importance of recognizing the local risk and Importance of recognizing the local risk and

protective factorsprotective factors– Note substances increasing in popularityNote substances increasing in popularity

• Positive trends of decrease: how do we Positive trends of decrease: how do we interpret?interpret?– Programs; opportunities; other?Programs; opportunities; other?

• Broader framework for changeBroader framework for change

Acknowledgements Acknowledgements

• Katie Cusano, MA, CASACKatie Cusano, MA, CASAC

• Melinda Kmetz, BAMelinda Kmetz, BA

• Stephen Lisman, PhDStephen Lisman, PhD

• Melissa O’Connor, InternMelissa O’Connor, Intern

• Bach-Harrison, L.L.C.Bach-Harrison, L.L.C.

• Schools, Teachers, Administrators, Schools, Teachers, Administrators, StudentsStudents

For more information, visit us online: www.kydscoalition.org

http://www.kydscoalition.org/

partnership meeting october 20, 2011 amanda deming, m.s. 2010 prevention needs assessment (pna)...

Documents

middle school

national comparison

lowerhigh school

equalhigh school

higherhigh school

national measures

day alcohol use2010

day marijuana use2010