Sherryl M. McGuire Center for Public Management, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.

Transcription

1 ADLESCENTS AT RISK: ALCHL AND DRUG-RELATED DRIVING AMNG KLAHMA YUTH Sherryl M. MGuire Center fr Publi Management, University f klahma, Nrman, klahma, U.S.A. Summary. In a study, ver half f all yuth in tw klahma mmunities reprted drinking/using drugs and driving, r riding with a driver wh had been drinking/using. The impliatins f the study are, that while yuth may be mre aware f the risks, new initiatives will be needed beynd what has already been amplished t further redue yuthful drinking/using drugs and driving. The researh prjet assesses the impat f the Yung klahma Drinking Driving Alternative (YDDA), mmunity-wide drinking and driving preventin prgram. The assessment was dne thrugh a pretest and psttest survey nduted in tw klahma mmunities. Fllwing the pretest and prir t the psttest, Cmmunity I served as a test mmunity, where the drinking and driving preventin prgram was nduted; Cmmunity II served as the ntrl mmunity. In examining the YDDA mmunity-wide drinking and driving preventin prjet three riteria were determined t be relevant. These three measures diretly relate t the gals f the prjet: 1) T identify and evaluate the hanges, if any, in the attitudes f yung persns in favr f redued drinking and driving; 2) T identify and evaluate the hanges, if any, in the pereptin f a valid and effetive deterrene t drinking and driving, and 3) T identify and evaluate the hanges, if any, in the reprted behavirs f drinking and driving amng yuth. Survey Methds The ttal pretest sample was 821 and the psttest sample was 769 high shl and llege age yuth. The samples inluded all f the Cmmunity II 540

2 High Shl ppulatin, ages 16-18, a majrity f the Cmmunity I High Shl ppulatin, ages 16-18, and representative samples frm the llege in eah mmunity whih inluded ages A pretest and psttest design fr test and ntrl mmunities was seleted fr identifying any hanges that tk plae as a result f the mmunity prjet. N interventins were made in the ntrl mmunity, and several were nduted in the test mmunity. The pre and psttest survey instrument was based n the three prgram riteria: attitudes related t drinking and driving, pereptin f a valid and effetive deterrene, and reprted behavirs related t drinking and driving. The psttest was administered apprximately six mnths after the pretest. Table 1 speifies the number f yuth frm eah shl in the tw mmunities, inluding age, gender, upatin and highest eduatin level mpleted. Interventin ativities began in the high shl and llege tw weeks befre the psttest survey was administered. While it uld be argued this biased the results in the desirable diretin, in reviewing the fllwing survey results, it appears that it may nt have been enugh f an impat t atually affet the sample ppulatin, and was t late t atually make any differene. Reprted Attitudes f Yuth Tward Drinking and Driving The first riterin measure examined attitudes f yuth tward drinking and driving. The seven items are listed in Table 2, alng with the perentage f eah respnse t eah questin. Items were written s that ne answer was mst preferred r mst favrable and ther answers were prgressively less favrable t anti-drinking and driving attitudes and behavirs. The mre favrable answer was ded "5" r "4". The ther respnses were ded in desending rder t "1" indiating mvement twards the least favrable 541

3 respnse. Seven items made up the first index whih was summed t frm an verall attitude index. Fr the attitude index the maximum sre is "35." These statistis were then used t alulate the differene, if any, between the pretest and psttest indies. There was n signifiane between that the pretest and psttest surveys in either mmunity. The interventins made in Cmmunity I appear nt t have made any differene in yuthful attitudes t drinking/using and driving. acumulative perents fr eah statement may nt ttal 100 beause f runding. Numbers given fr eah statement may vary beause f missing data, whih has been eliminated in alulating perentages. Attitude hanges appear t have urred prir t the pretest, and the survey did nt detet any mre appreiable hange. Evidene that this is a fatr is frm the hanges in publi awareness desribed in the 1985 "Statewide Alhl Survey. Reprted Pereptins f Deterrene f Yuth Tward Drinking and Driving The send riterin measure examined several instanes related t drinking and driving, and heked the effetiveness f legal deterrene as well as plie predures. The six items are listed in Table 3 alng with the perentages f respnse t eah item. Respnses were ded the same as the attitude questinnaire items, with "5" being the mst favrable respnse and "1" being the least favrable respnse. Fr this deterrene index "30" is the maximum sre. Table 5 reprts the mean pretest and psttest sres fr the deterrene index in the tw mmunities. Again, there were n signifiant differenes in the pre and psttest sres f either mmunity. The interventins in Cmmunity I appear nt t have made any differene in yuthful pereptins f a 542

4 valid and effetive deterrene t drinking and driving. This uld be a refletin f already altered pereptins due t an inrease in publi awareness, r it uld be due t the interventin prjet itself--ineffetive ativities, insuffiient time t ndut the ativities prir t the psttest, r the inapprpriateness f measuring suh an ativity when it is really a part f a larger effrt t hange pereptins f deterrene. Reprted Behavirs f Yuth Tward Drinking and Driving The third riterin measure examined reprted behavirs f yuth related t drinking and driving. Fur items made up the behavir index and are listed in Table 4. Questins inlude drinking/using drugs just befre r during a trip in the ar, persnally driving a ar while drinking, riding with a driver wh has been drinking r using drugs, and attempting t stp a friend frm drinking and driving. The respnses were ded the same as the abve tw indies, with "5" being the mst favrable respnse tward anti-drinking and driving behavirs and "1" being the least favrable respnse. Fr this behavir index "16" is the maximum sre. There were n signifiant differenes in the pretest and psttest survey fr either mmunity. The interventins made in Cmmunity I appear nt t have made any differene in the reprted behavirs related t drinking and driving, r as nted abve, this is ne f several ativities that annt be measured separately. There are three ther survey items related t yuthful drinking and driving behavirs. Table 5 reprts the respnses n tw f these items whih ask yuth t estimate the perentage f ther yuth wh drink and drive and the perentage f their friends wh drink and drive. The third item questins yuth as t whether they have hanged their drinking and driving behavir in 543

5 the past six mnths and if s, in what way they have hanged their drinking and driving behavir. Respnses fllwed the same pattern as the ther indies; there was n differene between the pretest and psttest sres. Cnlusin The mmunity-wide drinking and driving preventin prjet that YDDA nduted in mmunities was ne f several urrent awareness prgrams aimed at hanging publi pereptins and attitudes. ver the last six t seven years, an inrease in publi awareness was affeted by the natinal, state, and lal strategies t redue drinking and driving. It appears that the impat f this general attitude shift in publi awareness annt be separated frm the YDDA mmunity prjet. It annt definitely be determined whether the lak f signifiant hange amng yuth was beause bth mmunities had already experiened sme basi hanges r beause the YDDA prjet was ineffetive. In reviewing the 1983 and 1985 statewide survey f drinkers aged with the pre and pst mmunity surveys, and assuming sme relatinship between the tw, there is an indiatin that behavirs had already hanged t sme extent, prir t the mmunity pretest. There is als sme evidene that while the YDDA mmunity prjet did nt hange attitudes, nr the pereptins f a valid and effetive deterrene, nr behavirs related t drinking and driving, it may have played a rle as ne f several prjets nduted in klahma between 1983 and 1985 related t alhl untermeasures whih fussed n yuth. ther statewide data substantiates a derease in yuthful drivers invlved in alhl-related aidents. Statistis reveal that 3,387 klahma yuthful drivers (age 13-21) were invlved in alhl-related aidents in 1981, mpared t 2,942 in 1982, 2,302 in 1983, 1,927 in 1984, and 1,289 in With an already dereasing inidene f yuthful drivers invlved in alhl- 544

6 related aidents, there is strng evidene that the inrease in the publi's verall awareness and the inreased enfrement f drunk drivers had already started having an effet when YDDA's mmunity-wide drinking and driving preventin prjet in Therefre, the effet f the mmunity prjet, while likely t have ntributed t the publi awareness, annt be separated frm the varius ther ativities that addressed this prblem at the time. While the mmunity interventin prjet alne des nt appear t have a signifiant impat fr hanging yuth related t drinking and driving, ver the past three years it has been an integral part f the establishment f the eduatinal prgram in klahma mmunities. Wrking with the plie, raising the pereptins fr the need t hange drinking and driving behavirs amng yuth as well as pereptins f mmunity ffiials has been a neessary step in raising mmunity supprt fr the eduatinal prgram. Histrially, the prblem f drunk driving amng yuth has been reslved infrmally based n a desire nt t stigmatize yuth fr life sine yung persns are harateristially mre likely t make errrs f judgment. YDDA'S mmunity preventin ativities have played a rle in hanging these pereptins and habits t the extent that nsiderable numbers were referred t YDDA's eduatinal prgram fr yuthful ffenders ver the three-year perid. While the number f yuth invlved in "DUI shls" prir t YDDA's existene is nt available, there is learly mre referrals amng ages than previus years. ffiials reprted that prir t the existene f YDDA, they frequently did nt refer yuth t a DUI shl beause it was inapprpriate fr yuthful ffenders (wh were ften first-time ffenders) t be gruped with adult ffenders in a prgram frmat ften designed fr lder persns. 545

7 In summary, the impat f the YDDA Cmmunity Interventin Prjet, appears t have had little effet upn the yuth it targeted. analysis, hwever, the prjet did nt atually stand alne. In further It appears t be ne f a grup f prjets that have had an effet upn klahma's publi attitudes and reprted behavirs. The mmunity prjet has als been an imprtant part f the publi relatins, and inreased mmunity awareness. It has led t supprt frm referring ffiials fr YDDA's eduatinal prgram. Statewide data reveals a substantial derease frm 1981 t 1985 in yuthful drivers invlved in alhl-related aidents.2 There was a 62 perent derease ver this time perid. These dramati dereases ver the five years prir t the mmunity prjet, and the ntinued dwnward trend in these statistis after the prjet, indiate that the statewide effrt t impat upn this prblem was suessful, and there is evidene that the YDDA eduatinal prgram3 and the mmunity prgram were ne f the several prgrams that hanged attitudes and ultimately behavirs whih reated the large derease. Remmendatins The YDDA Cmmunity Interventin Prjet, while it alne is nt likely t prdue verifiable hanges in yuthful attitudes, pereptin f deterrene r behavir hange related t drinking and driving, did appear t be ne fatr amng many fatrs urring at this time whih ntributed t a majr derease in fatalities and serius injuries. Suh a prjet nduted in mmunities with n speifi, measurable gals is nt likely t prdue measurable hanges. n the ther hand, when mbined with ther prgrams in a larger, mre strategially-linked effrt t impat upn well-defined prblems, an be an imprtant effrt ntributing t the verall utme, i.e. yuthful drivers in alhl-related aidents. In njuntin with ther media and publi ampaign prgrams aimed at inreasing yuthful pereptins tward anti-drinking and 546

8 driving attitudes and behavirs, the YDDA Cmmunity Interventin Prjet is likely t be effetive in reduing fatalities and serius injuries. The dilemma is in measuring the psitive effets f this type f a prgram when it is inextriably tied t the entire effrt. Nevertheless, there appears t be a definite need fr suh prgrams in njuntin with a larger strategy in reduing fatalities and serius injuries. In additin, YDDA's Cmmunity Interventin Prjet is an imprtant fatr in YDDA's entry int a mmunity fr the ntinuane f effetive mmunity relatins t supprt the yuthriented eduatinal prgram. Bibligraphy 1. Bureau f Gvernment Researh. (1985). Statewide Alhl Survey: Driving Under the Influene and Use f upant Prtetin Devies. Nrman, klahma: University f klahma. 2. klahma Highway Safety ffie, Bureau f Gvernment Researh. (1986). Cntinuatin f the Yung klahman Drinking Driving Alternative Cmmunity Evaluatin. Nrman, klahma: University f klahma. 547

9 TABLE 1 DEMGRAPHICS F YUTHFUL PPULATIN (PERCENTS)* Cmmunity I Pst Cmmunity II Pre Pst Ttal Pre Pst Ttal Sample (N=407) (n=401) (n=414) (n=368) (n=821) (n= Sub-ruD f Ppulatin High shl Age 16 years Gender Female Male upatin Farm Clerial Servie Skilled and unskilled trades Paraprfessinal ther Eduat in grade High shl graduate Vatinal r tehnial years llege years llege Cumulative perents fr eah statement may nt ttal 100 beause f runding. Numbers given fr eah statement may vary beause f missing data, whih has been eliminated in alulating perentages. 548

10 N - r ^ vt *- ' ii ' ii ' C 3 2 ' 'S ' in v j in in v t ' ' st r j r r r r r 4" r *4- r v* «- >a-vt ' ' ' r r ' & r - ' 3 in nj >4" *4* ' -4- 'j-nj- ' ' ' > * vt ^ ' ' 8 8 Ü PERCENTAGE F REPRTED YUTHFUL ATTITUDES TUARD DRINKING AND DRIVING (PRETEST and PSTTEST) 2r 8 <0 _ C C/>Q 4-» (D z J - t_ > QJ <u L (A < ) C < )<u - (0 *-> /> ' J CM J ' N- «- in r j r ' j «- «- r r Nir r T - ' r j r j r sj h - r > C N r? %»/ w tl ~a g (0 g i n r z z z _ TJ/N/ N. J r- J ' C C in r > ' ii ^3 r ' t! 'J- (Nl*- C ft) -8^ t «r j rvj 1 N-* Ni r r r Q- 4-t C ' in J +-» r! 0> <> > * C\J r C r 1-4 J H- T in L. ' > «1 H- V/ a> i_ -C +-* h- >a in >* a a> ' «- u j I r sj r i n in '4->a- r in in N - «- r r^. r^ ' J J ft) s~\ > «N* t - ' N - " J J TJ D «- C\J 3 r j. ' J ^ > C C i M- <u C 3 Ü >* _ > "E 13 C D Ü (D n M + * 4-» 3 ft) 8.C > TJ ft) Perents in parentheses indiate p re te s t. 549

11 ' ' > r r S 3 r r a* r- ' r r 8 3 r r 0* r^ s' r r r r \i «- >1- >* r «- «- *4- nj- 4- «- T- Nir >4- >* >* «- N* Ni- C r 'J- PERCENTAGE F REPRTED YUTHFUL PERCEPTINS F DETERRENCE TWARD DRINKING AND DRIVING (PRETEST AND PSTTEST) SZ D C 2= C g > +J ' ' N- N- r r u (D ' a a> _ 3 / > M D H - *- «- N* r r r r r r C C" r v t r ' r r >1- r r * > r CM L. /~N _C TJ ^ N / N /- \ r r^ N 00 CM CM C CM r r! r >«? CMin in m vt w > * r «r- r CM s/ V s/ ) -* ' * C_ X) ** in ' " r CMCM >a- ' «CM CCM CMCM *->? C C Y "X /-» D / s Sj- > ' r- C C CM' C L. in «CM T- ' 4-» * T N- in C CMCM 3 r CM r- -r- W rsj J N_^ w r w w Cw _ >0 ' a j C IT» C +J.. (\1 CM C (1) ' in m x: *- «- ^ ^ i- CCM D N 'f s. in in M J CM C 0 x-x m in (u in '.C CM CM >-» D T> D 2 is- D ' ' > * r - r - 4-» CÖ r* /*n 4-* ' «- Ö)S «CM r- (J ^ C (D - C 1_ +-* in «- r.. t_ > (Ö r~ «C *-N /"» 3 ^ 0 " s "S w r N - N-* 4-» r r r r 4-* JC 2, / s C M r ) ' in D) ' C r ' r >«> r r > «C -M 4-* _ L. " T J? ) > _ * * ^ ^ ^ C»-* -M C 4-* 4-» r ' CM ' r N- L. «N_ / > N - CM r- ' «- «- C M «- v / v / ^ vy r «- Q).. t- r r- r r m r CM (1) 1 03 ' ' T J '* ' r nj- L ^ /-N - ' i n > >a- in C v v Ü ' ' ** «- 13 r in >«r m r r 5 ^ ni 3 r r ^ 2 C M ' r r v r S r > 4 Q) r r TJ C (0 i H- C 3 Ü >* C D ü >** i 4-» _ CL C * +-»D C l_ 8- >-g CL Q) Q. XI 550

12 00 ' in r r > v r r r ' m r r in ' r r ' v* ' * 8: PERCENTAGE F REPRTED YUTHFUL BEHAVIRS TWARD DRINKING AND DRIVING (PRETEST AND PSTTEST) * I rsj I h* C -C M +J C/) 8: _ r >* 8: ^ ) in C N - <) hj r r N- CM v \j ' CM «- m ' 'S* 0 l - T> D T3 t- Q. > - ) 4-». (0 C/5 D ) C ^ s C C )'^ *-* C C 3 1 "C ' t- _ *-> (/) >» t- E Q. M- H- CL) <U-Q i C CA Q D -C 's* >* s4- ' ' N» N- ' N - r - «- CM m r r r N- v* r r m r >* r <1> C C > C J -C njr 3t_ " _ 3 > x: m> u C 8.» QJ C ' T3 -C S s _ 5 I Ü 8:: ' > ' r r\ ' ' ' r m CM ' N» C in r CM N- r \j m in r N- CM CM «- ' ' >* C ' in N* M C (0 > 3» Ü T> +J C > D) C X Q. 3 D) C -C 4-* > C tl Z TJ TJ 8! Kl>* ' I I ' ' in r r r v r ^ ' 'S* > * r C ' r r t > ) L. C -C H- "» L. Cfl H - TJ X M l_ <U C -M 6 H- C0 ' a > 4-» 4-J C CC > Q- - 4-* t_ T3 ~.? g in LU C < < - H in LU DC a. a a z < LU» 5 C LU C3 < in N- 5* in CM 8.r in T - >* >* ' i n N. CM W t - v * t j r r r~ 3 0 0' Q. ' ' D r r v D >s> >.rs *- * C - - CMCM a C C + - <1) ) T - M C CM «- a> «>* >* ' ' d ' r v* > CM C in in > >*>* j- T3CMCM rs. r D * in >0*r^ CMr >* ' *4- CMCM CM *** > C «- C i n r (1) CM CM L ^*s s.'*. N - C a> m «- /-N - V V V *-* Cumulative perents fr eah statement may nt ttal 100 beause f runding. Numbers given fr eah statement may vary beause f missing data, whih has been eliminated in alulating perentages. 551