NADAPP Sec School Drug Report 2013 PDF

National Secondary
Schools Survey on
Alcohol and Other Drug
Use in
Trinidad and Tobago,
2013
Final Report
A Project of
the
National Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
Programme (NADAPP)
And
The Inter-American Drug Abuse Control

Commission (CICAD) - Inter-American
Observatory on Drugs (OID)
National Secondary School Survey on Alcohol and Other Drug Use
in Trinidad and Tobago, 2013
Acronyms
ADAPP Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Programme, Tobago
CICAD Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission
MEM Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism
NADAPP National Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Programme
OAS Organization of American States
OID Inter-American Observatory on Drugs
SIDUC Inter-American Uniform Drug Use Data System
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Purpose.................................................................................................................................................. 7
3. Objectives ............................................................................................................................................. 7
4. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Target population ...................................................................................................................8
4.2 Sampling.................................................................................................................................8
4.3 The Survey Questionnaire ......................................................................................................9
4.4 Administering the survey questionnaire .................................................................................9
5. Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................ 12
5.1 Socio-Demographics ............................................................................................................12
5.2 Parents and Parental Involvement ........................................................................................16
5.3 Students in the School Environment ....................................................................................26
5.4 Risk Perception and Curiosity ..............................................................................................35
5.5 Access to illicit drugs and supply.........................................................................................38
5.6 Age of first use .....................................................................................................................42
5.7 Prevalence of drug use .........................................................................................................43
5.8 Incidence of drug use ...........................................................................................................48
5.9 Patterns of Alcohol Use .......................................................................................................54
5.10 Use Related Risks...............................................................................................................56
5.11 Accuracy of Statements ......................................................................................................60
5.12 Comparative findings, surveys of 2006, 2013....................................................................61
6. Achievement of Objectives and Discussion............................................................................................ 68
7. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................. 71
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................72
Work Plan with Adjustments .....................................................................................................72
APPENDIX B ...........................................................................................................................73
Excerpt from SIDUC Protocol on: Prevalence and Incidence: .................................................73
APPENDIX C – Sample Schools ...............................................................................................77
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Geographic distribution of students participating by Education district

Table 1.2: Distribution of participants by gender and Type of school
Table 1.3: Distribution of Schools by gender in schools
Table 1.4: Distribution by Form/ class and gender by percentage
Table 1.5: Age groups distributed by gender
Table 2.1: With whom respondents live
Table 2.2 Parents knowledge of respondents’ whereabouts
Table 2.3: Parents knowledge of TV shows students watched
Table 2.4: Parents control of time respondents come in at night
Table 2.5: Students having meals together with parents
Table 2.6: Parents attention to school work
Table 2.8: Respondents relationship with father/guardian
Table 2.9: Respondents’ relationships with mother/guardian
Table 2.10: Opinion on fathers’ reaction to student being drunk or tipsy
Table 2.10a: Opinion on fathers’ reaction to male/female student being drunk
or tipsy by gender
Table 2.11: Opinion on mothers’ reaction to student being drunk or tipsy
Table 2.11a: Opinion on mothers’ reaction to male/female student being drunk or tipsy
Table 2.12: Opinion on reaction of mother/ guardian to student smoking marijuana
Table 2.12a: Opinion on reaction of mother/ guardian to male/female student smoking

marijuana
Table 2.13: Opinion on reaction of father/ male guardian to student smoking marijuana
Table 2.13a: Opinion on reaction of father/ male guardian to male/female student smoking
marijuana
Table 2.14: Respondents’ relationships with father/guardian
Table 2.15: Respondents’ relationship with mother/guardian

Table 2.16: Students opinions on patterns of parent behaviours as frequency %
Table 2.17: Drinking habits of father/guardian
Table 2.18: Drinking Habits of mother/guardian
Table 3.1: How happy respondent is at school
Table 3.2: Respondents’ sense of belonging at school
Table 3.3: How often respondents skip school
Table 3.4: Respondents absence from school, regardless of reason
Table 3.5: Respondents relationship with teachers
Table 3.6: Comparison of students’ relationships, with parents and teachers as frequency %.
Table 3.7: Probability of finishing school and continuing to University
Table 3.7a: Probability of finishing school and continuing to University by gender
Table 3.8: Students opinions on drugs in the school environment by gender
Table 3.9: Frequency % of perception of students stating Yes on drug use in the school
environment by gender
Table 3.10: Frequency % on perception of drugs in school by Form/ class, those stating Yes
Table 3.11: Frequency % on perception of respondents stating Yes on drugs in the school
environment by age groups
Table 3.12 Frequency on perception of respondents stating Yes on drugs in the school
environment with Education district, and type of school by gender.
Table 3.13: Frequency % of the extent their friends would respond on drug use
Table 4.1: Perception of harmful effects of drug use
Table 4.2: Perception of harmful effects of drug use by gender
Table 4.3: Frequency % of respondents stating curiosity about trying drugs
Table 5.1: Respondents’ access to drugs, showing frequency %
Table 5.2: Frequency % of respondents not offered drugs in any circumstance
Table 6.1: Mean and median of age of first use
Table 7.1: Frequency % of drug use against lifetime > 2%, one-year, one-month Prevalence
Table 7.2: Drugs with lifetime prevalence less than 2%
Table 7.3: Age group and lifetime prevalence of drug use

Table 7.4: Lifetime prevalence of drug use by Form/ class
Table 7.5: Lifetime prevalence by gender
Table 7.6: Lifetime prevalence by Type of School
Table 8.1: One-year and one-month incidence of drug use frequency %,

Table 8.2: One-year incidence of drug use by age-group
Table 8.3: One-year incidence and gender
Table 8.4: One-year incidence of drug use by Form/ class
Table 8.5: One-year incidence of drug use and Type of school
Table 8.6: One-month incidence of drug use by gender
Table 8.7: Profile of use of tranquillizers and stimulants
Table 8.8: Access to tranquilizers and stimulants
Table 8.9: Frequency of use of potential psychoactive substances
Table 9.1: From whom do students usually obtain alcohol

Table 9.2: Where alcohol is used - presented in decreasing frequency %
Table 9.3: Frequency of use of specific alcoholic substances over the past 30 days
Table 9.4: Binge Drinking
Table 10.1: Comparison of drug users sources by frequency %
Table 10.2: Drugs recognized as synthetic drugs
Table 10.3: Comparison of drug users’ frequency of drug use as percentage

Table 10.4 Pattern of marijuana use as frequency %
Table 10.5: Use-related risks for alcohol and illicit drugs over 12 months
Table 10.6 Effect of use of alcohol and illicit drugs over 12 months
List of Charts
Chart 1.1 Geographic Distribution of Participants

Chart 1.2 Distribution by Form
Chart 1.3 Distribution of participants by Gender and Type of School
Chart 1.4 Distribution by Gender in Schools
Chart 1.5 Age-group distribution by Gender
Chart 2.1 Marital-status of parents
Chart 3.1 Perception of Participants saying Yes by Gender
Chart 4.1 Curiosity about trying drugs
Chart 5.1 Perception of Participants’ Access to Drugs
Chart 5.2 When students were offered drugs
Chart 5.3 Where students were offered drugs
Chart 5.4 Who offered students drugs
Chart 7.1 Mean lifetime Prevalence by Form / class
Chart 10.1 Use-Related Risks
Executive Summary
This Report documents the results of the National Secondary School Drug Survey which was
conducted in Trinidad and Tobago in September 2013. The survey had been coordinated through
the National Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Programme, NADAPP and directed and
supported by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), an entity of the
OAS - Organization of American States. A national coordinator, and recruited field workers
administered the survey supported by an Independent Technical Advisor. The general purpose of
the survey was to collect comparative information from a number of regional territories, on the
prevalence of drug use among students. In Trinidad and Tobago a sample of Forms 2, 4, 5, and 6,
11- 17 year old students, in the secondary educational system participated using a standardized
questionnaire. The drugs covered in this survey were alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, marijuana,
hashish, solvents and inhalants, tranquilizers, stimulants, coca paste, cocaine and crack, the
opioids—opium and morphine, hallucinogens, prescription drugs, and local substances including
energy drinks, stout, and hemp.
The research survey met the following objectives, described as:

 Patterns of family behaviours and parental relationships with students
 The use of psychoactive substances: exposure to supply and use, and students opinions on
use, among other areas of interest
 The prevalence of psychoactive substance use by gender, age, grade level, type of school
(public, private or semi-private; all-female, all-male, and co-educational), and school
district.
 The prevalence of psychoactive substance use by students; licit and illicit drugs,
including alcohol and other drugs: once in a lifetime, over the past 12 months, and over
the past 30 days.
 Patterns of use, and risk perception on use of various psychotropic substances
The methodology involved a two-stage, random cluster sampling procedure to select the student
sample of average ages of 13, 15, 16 and 17 years old. Stage one was the selection of schools
from eight Education districts. The number of public and private schools selected within each
district was proportional to the number of schools within each district in both Trinidad and in
Tobago.
Socio-demographics
A total of 71 schools with 4176 students, by gender, 48.1% male and 51.9% female participated
in the survey. The greatest participation occurred in the Education district of St George East at
24%, the least from Tobago and the South Eastern districts. From public schools there were
73.2% respondents; 8% from private schools, and 18.5% from other {assisted} secondary
schools; all schools were further described by gender in schools, as all-male schools,14.6%, all-
female - 16.9%, and mixed co-ed - 68.4%. By age group there were 36.3% from the 11-14 age
group, 39.8% from the 15- 16 years group and 19.4% from the 17+. Form 2 was represented by
31.4%, Form 4 by 28%, Form 5 by 26.5% and Form 6 by 14.1%.
1|Page
Parental involvement
Just fewer than 50% of the respondents’ parents were married, and 19% were single parents, the
remainder were in various other relationships. The majority of the students - 78.3% lived with
their mother and 55.8 % lived with their father, 49.6% lived along with brothers and sisters. In
the area of parental supervision and vigilance, 57.9% knew the TV shows their children watched,
66.7% were in control of the time they came in. A proportion of parents, 4.1% paid no close
attention to the students’ school work, 11.5% of them did not know their children’s close friends;
32.1% of students never had meals with their parents or guardians, and 89.7% of the respondents
expected to tell their parents their whereabouts. Respondents were asked whether parents would
be upset to varying extents if students were caught drunk or tipsy, or if they were caught
smoking marijuana. Parents- 87% of mothers and 81 % of fathers would be extremely upset over
the use of marijuana; there would be parents who would show no concern. Both parents would
be more upset over students using marijuana than using alcoholic beverages, and more over girls
than boys. Some students, 16.9% had bad, or very bad relationships with their fathers, and
similarly there were 7.1 % having these types of relationships with the mothers. Of the parents,
46.5% held discussions with their children on the dangers of drugs. In addition, in the homes of
17% of the students some family members used drugs.
School Environment
Whereas 32.3% stated that they were very happy at school, 6.7% stated that they were unhappy
or very unhappy; also79.1% stated that they felt a sense of belonging to the school, 84.8% had
never skipped school; 41.6 % had no disciplinary problems so far; and 60% claimed to have
good or very good relationships with their teachers. Among the students 38% admitted to
working 1 -5 hours per week. Females more than males envisaged that it was very likely that they
would complete school in the ratio 54.7% females, to 44.8% males, and would go on to
University- 58.8% females to 40.8% males; but 36.9% females to 63.1% males felt that going to
University would be impossible. Those students having no friend who would convince them to
stop smoking marijuana were at 11.3%, but there were13.9% who had friends who would
disapprove.
Risk Perception and Curiosity
To the question: Were there drugs were at your school, 30.8% stated Yes, and 51 % stated that
there were drugs in the area around the school. Perception of the presence of drugs at the schools
was lowest among the Form 2 and highest among the Form 5. Perception was also highest in the
Education districts of Caroni and Victoria, and among the all-male schools, but least among the
all-female schools. In the co-ed schools in the South Eastern, Victoria, and Caroni districts
students had perceived the presence of drugs up to 35% on an average.
2|Page
Of the perceived harmful effects of drugs when used frequently, a Table on Perceived effects
summarized the frequency percentage of respondents finding these drugs to be very harmful.
Overall more females than males found these drugs to be very harmful.
Table: Perceived effects - very harmful drugs if used frequently
Drug if used frequently Very harmful Males Females

Frequency %
Cigarettes 77.9 75.2 80.6
Getting drunk 60.6 57.9 63.2
Tranquilizers 70.3 65.0 75.2
Inhalants and solvents 64.0 58.8 68.9
Marijuana 64.6 58.8 70.0
Consuming crack 77.9 76.9 83.6
Coca paste 80.3 54.7 61.3
Using ecstasy 64.9 61.3 68.3
Inhaling second smoke 58.3 55.7 60.6
Inhaling marijuana smoke 56.4 51.8 60.5
The proportion of students admitting to being curious about trying illicit drugs was 33.6%, with
28.3% being curious about trying marijuana; 19.1% stated that if given the opportunity they
would try marijuana. Drugs were accessible to some extent; 42.5% found marijuana to be easily
accessible, and 15% found cocaine to be easily accessible. In terms of being offered drugs,
67.7% were never offered marijuana, compared with 92.6 % who were never offered cocaine and
95% not offered crack, ecstasy, LSD or heroin. In most cases, marijuana was offered mainly by
friends.
Prevalence and Incidence of drug use
Whereas first use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana was recorded at 5 years for less than 1%
of the respondents, the mean age of use of drugs varied from 10 - 14; for cigarettes (12.4 years),
for alcoholic beverages and stimulants (12.2 years) , inhalants (10.4), marijuana (13.6), coca
paste (11.7) and cocaine (12.2). Lifetime prevalence was highest for alcoholic beverages at
65.2% then cigarettes at 28.8%, marijuana at 16.5%, solvents and inhalants at 15.5% and cocaine
at 2.9%. Use of marijuana escalates from 7.8% to 21% between the age groups 11-14 and 15-16.
This summary Table shows the mean lifetime prevalence of all the drugs in the survey and
provides a view on the status of exposure to drug use among the sample.
3|Page
Table: Summary of Prevalence rates for all substances >2
Lifetime Past Year Past-month

Substance ever used
Prevalence Prevalence Prevalence
Alcoholic Drinks 65.2 52.7 73.5
Stimulants 4.0 1.4 1.0
Solvents and Inhalants 15.5 6.8 4.3
Marijuana 16.5 10.7 6.2
Cocaine 2.9 1.5 0.9
Crack 2.2 1.2 .7
Any illegal drug 30.5 16.5 9.9
The following table on Incidence shows the results of estimates for the percentage of students
who started using substances for the first time in the past year, or the past month; alcoholic
drinks had the highest incidence in both periods. The analysis also indicated that the proportion
of students who initiated use of a range of drugs including alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, and
solvents and inhalants was in the age group 15 -16.
Table: Mean Incidence of use of drug
Substance Use One-year One-month

Cigarettes 10.7 3.9
Alcoholic drinks 41.1 23.2
Solvents and Inhalants 7.4 4.5
Marijuana 8.0 3.9
Cocaine 1.3 0.6
Crack 1.2 0.6
Ecstasy 1.4 0.7
Tranquilizers/ stimulants 1.7 1.1
Illegal drugs 13.9 7.2
More females than males in this age group used alcoholic beverages and energy drinks. Gender
differences are also indicated with more males using cigarettes, and marijuana than females.
Mean one-year incidence of tranquilizers is 4 times less in private than in public schools
however, more marijuana was in use at private than at public schools. Over-the counter drugs-
4|Page
stimulants and tranquilizers were accessible from a medical doctor or heath provider at 21.9%,
from a pharmacist at 13.7% but also at home at 18.7%. At the local level, 92.4% of the
respondents had not used hemp, 71.8% had not yet used stout, and 22.7% had not used Energy
drinks.
Use-Related Risks
Alcohol was used mostly at social events, and at home. Some users had already engaged in binge
drinking, consuming 5 or more drinks in one sitting, The alcoholic beverages usually consumed
were beers and wine and to a lesser extent hard liquor, but mainly on weekends. A number of
respondents were already experiencing to some degree, situations that were indicating risks of
using alcohol and other drugs in the past 12 months. Those readily evident were: getting a low
grade on an important test/ exam or school project (sometimes, often or almost always): 11.9%,
getting into any angry argument of fight: 10.9%, memory loss: 8.3%, and seriously thinking
about committing suicide: 7%.
Comparison of survey results 2006, 2013
Certain results from the survey in 2006 were compared with the results in 2013. The respondents
in 2006 numbered 3909 from 56 schools, and in 2013 there were 4176 respondents from 71
schools. The gender ratios compared well although there was a smaller percentage of
respondents in the 11-14 age group.
 Curiosity to use marijuana increased from 19.5% in 2006 to 28.3% in 2013, marijuana
was still offered mostly from friends. There was perceived reduction in easy access to the
other drugs.
 Fewer parents or other relatives were providing alcohol and other drugs in 2013, these
drugs were now being offered mainly by friends.
 The prevalence for cigarette use for both surveys in 2006 and 2013 remained the same at
28.8%, even the male to female ratio of 34.4 male to 33.6 female was the same. The
mean and median ages for cigarette use increased slightly.
 Marijuana remained the easiest drug to access by 37.8% in 2006 to 42.5% in 2013.
Prevalence of marijuana increased for both male and female but both surveys detected
that more males used marijuana.
 Among the drugs in use, inhalant use began earliest at a mean of approximately 10 years,
with a higher prevalence among females than males.
 The prevalence of alcoholic beverages decreased from 83.7% in 2006 and accounted for
66.9% in 2013. Mean age of first use of alcoholic beverages increased from 10.9 to 12.3.
Binge drinking also increased by 5%, those students who had never engaged in binge
drinking were recorded at 68.4% in 2006, and 63.4% in 2013.
 Although the prevalence of cocaine use was relatively small at 0.9% in 2006, a threefold
increase in use was detected in 2013; prevalence of cocaine was recorded as 2.9 % in
2013.
5|Page
National Secondary Schools Survey on Alcohol and Other Drug Use
1. Introduction
This Report documents the results of the National Secondary School Drug Survey on Alcohol
and other drugs which was conducted in Trinidad and Tobago in September 2013, when students
had just began a new academic year. Previous reports had covered surveys conducted in 2002
and 2006. The surveys have been all supported by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control
Commission (CICAD), an entity of the OAS Organization of American States, of which Trinidad
and Tobago is a member state. Similar surveys were simultaneously conducted in a number of
Caribbean territories as well. In longitudinal periodical surveys such as these, the methodological
approach would utilize the same instrument to be administered to similar population groups. In
its implementation, the survey utilized standard methodologies developed by CICAD for school
surveys namely the Inter-American Uniform Drug Use Data System (SIDUC). The data
collected from these surveys provide information not only on the trends in incidence and
prevalence of legal and illicit drug use but affords comparison with other countries, especially in
the Caribbean and Latin America. Advantages would translate into more informed decision
making with respect to developing drug prevention programmes for the targeted cohort of
secondary school students. Also, increased reliability, representativeness, and quality would
reduce the probability of programmes failing to meet the objectives that were originally set out.
These results would help Trinidad and Tobago develop priorities, establish school health and
youth health programmes, evaluate these programmes, and advocate for resources for
implementing the programmes. The overall findings would be fed into an epidemiological
research network in the Inter-American Observatory on Drugs (OID) established for the purpose
of producing reliable and statistical information. The survey afforded the opportunity to pilot
test standard procedures for obtaining improvement in data quality, greater reliability of data,
and increased representativeness of the trends in the Observatory.
6|Page
2. Purpose
The purpose of this study, coordinated through CICAD, was therefore to collect comparative
information on the prevalence of drug use among young students enrolled in the secondary
educational system using a coded standardized questionnaire. It must be recalled that CICAD in
its Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism (MEM) of Trinidad and Tobago had recommended the
need to “Develop drug use prevention programs in accordance with evaluation being carried out”
(MEM report, 2010). In addition, NADAPP’s 2011 Strategic Action Plan, which has as its
principal strategy to “reduce drug demand in Trinidad and Tobago through the implementation
of programmes aimed at drug prevention and harm reduction”, in this case, specifically through
research activities. The survey also relates to the organization’s objective to “develop research
capability for continuous assessment of the extent of Substance Use and Abuse in the country”
(NADAPP Secretariat Strategic Action Plan 2011).
3. Objectives
The specific objectives of this survey were to:
 Determine the prevalence of psychoactive substance use: once in a lifetime, over the past 12
months, and over the past 30 days.
 Determine the prevalence of psychoactive substance use by: gender, age, grade level,
socioeconomic level or type of school (public, private or semi-private), and education district
 Detect patterns of use of the various substances.
 Describe aspects related to the use of psychoactive substances: exposure to supply and use,
risk perception, among other areas of interest.
7|Page
4. Methodology
“SIDUC [The Inter-American Uniform Drug Use Data System] is the methodology that
examines drug demand in order to obtain data, draw up explanatory concepts and support
responses to the problem of use of psychoactive substances.” This methodology as executed in
Trinidad and Tobago involved the participation of a steering committee, a national coordinator,
field supervisors assigned to various education districts, and interviewers/facilitators to
administer the questionnaires in pre-selected classrooms in the Sampling plan. CICAD provided
an independent Technical Advisor to the project to provide consultancy services, covering
training and report writing, stipulated in a Terms of Reference. The Supervisors and Facilitators
in Trinidad and in Tobago were trained to conduct the survey as field operators who would
administer the questionnaire, and in collaboration with the national coordinator would ensure an
effective monitoring system with ties to the Ministry of Education, its secondary schools, its
administrative officers, teachers, and students at the time of conducting the survey. In Tobago,
the counterpart agency ADAPP supported the project. Data entry took place at the NADAPP
office with a specialist who monitored the data entry and submitted the data bases to CICAD.
4.1 Target population
The target population being studied comprised secondary school students in private and public
schools in the second, fourth, fifth and sixth years of secondary school in Trinidad and in
Tobago, equivalent to average ages of 13, 15, 16 and 17 years old. To enable building an
indicator on the level of drug use among students that is comparable over time and between the
different territories, SIDUC estimated that representative information must be obtained from at
least the country’s capital metropolitan area and, if possible, from areas of over 30,000
inhabitants.
4.2 Sampling
A two stage, random cluster sampling procedure was utilized by CICAD to select the student
sample. Stage one was the selection of schools from eight Education districts from around the
country that, collectively, would contain a representative national sample of the entire secondary
school’s population. The number of public and private schools selected within each district was
8|Page
proportionate to the number of schools within each education district in both Trinidad and in
Tobago. The second stage was the random selection of Forms/classes within the school age
groups under study. In each school, a random set of classrooms was selected, the entire class was
invited to participate. .
4.3 The Survey Questionnaire
The standardized questionnaire inquired into the use of alcoholic beverages, cigarettes,
marijuana, hashish, solvents and inhalants, tranquilizers, stimulants, coca paste, cocaine and
crack, the opioids—opium and morphine, hallucinogens, prescription drugs, and local substances
including energy drinks, stout, and hemp. The questionnaire was sent to the department of
Public Health and Primary Care of the Faculty of Medical Sciences, UWI (St Augustine)
requesting support for the ethical approaches related to conducting research. Subsequently, the
questionnaire was tested with three groups of youth of similar ages.
The questionnaire utilized in the survey was shared with a Steering Committee after being pre-
tested and adjusted on three occasions in Trinidad. The questionnaire elicited responses on the
following:
1. Basic socio-demographic data.

2. Perception about students’ opinions of, and relationships with parents.
3. Data about the composition of the household of students
4. Opinions about the risk tied to the use of licit and illicit substances.
5. Prevalence of alcohol use, as well as the pattern of use (frequency, age of first use).
6. Prevalence of the use of illicit drugs and use pattern (frequency, age of first use) and
important specific associated factors.
7. Prevalence of the use of other psychotropic drugs and use pattern (frequency, age of
first use)
4.4 Administering the survey questionnaire
The project in its entirety required the expertise of a national coordinator from NADAPP,
supported by an independent Technical Advisor recruited by CICAD. To administer the
questionnaire in Tobago, a local coordinator from ADAPP, Tobago assisted in the process.
9|Page
The national coordinator had established permissions and links to the secondary schools
through the Ministry of Education and the Division of Schools Supervision. Survey
supervisors were assigned to Education districts, or shared the larger districts, and teams of
facilitators worked under their direction to administer the questionnaires in the classrooms
selected. All the arrangements for administering the survey were designed at two 2-day
training events, one in Trinidad, the other in Tobago. Supervisors and facilitators located the
schools in the sampling plan and the classes selected. Survey supervisors distributed the
packages of pre-coded questionnaires to facilitators and returned the completed
questionnaires to NADAPP for cleaning and data entry. No teacher or guidance officer of the
schools was involved in the data collection process. In all, the survey was conducted with 13
supervisors, and 55 facilitators, and 71 schools in eight education districts. The sampling plan
that requested 5,586 students actually captured 4176 students.
Parents were notified of the survey by way of Consent forms. The survey began in mid-
September 2013. [See the actual work plan in the Appendix]. Conducting the survey met
some delays in obtaining approval, as well as problems with communications at schools,
sometimes leading to cancellations and re-scheduling of data collection. A number of
schools did not reopen on time at the beginning of the academic year because of issues with
their premises. Consent forms which were sent to schools in advance of the survey were in a
few instances misplaced and had to be reproduced. Schools shifted the schedules because of
priority given to their own activities. Internally, students did not receive information on the
exact location of the classroom for the survey. In two schools, a selected class described as a
difficult did not want to participate. In one instance, the principal was fearful that parents
would think that the survey was an attempt to investigate parents’ involvement in drugs,
another principal kept forgetting to inform his deans that the facilitator was coming to
conduct the survey. Facilitators encountered challenges with weather, travel to outlying
areas, and tardiness due to road accidents.
Data entry personnel, some of whom were facilitators, were trained to enter the
questionnaires into Excel spreadsheets, twice to guarantee data entry quality. The data base
10 | P a g e
in Excel was sent to CICAD for the execution of a standardized plan on SPSS. CICAD
returned the descriptive statistics and analysis to NADAPP for further analysis and reporting.
11 | P a g e
5. Survey Results
5.1 Socio-Demographics
Chart 1.1: Geographic Distribution of Participants
Tobago
5% Caroni
14%
North Eastern
Victoria 6%
16%
South Eastern
7%
Port of Spain
18%
St Patrick
10%
St George East
24%
The total number of students participating as respondents was 4176; the highest proportion from
the education district of St George East- 24%, the least- jointly from Tobago- 5.4% and the
North Eastern Division- 5.5%; as in Table 1.1 and Chart 1.1. In all, the respondents were 48.1%
male, and 51.9% female, distributed among types of schools as, 73.4 % from Public Schools, 8%
from Private schools, and 18.5 % from Other schools- assisted denominational schools, as
captured in Table 1.2 and Chart 1.2. Schools are identified by gender within schools: there were
14.6 % all-male schools, 16.9%, all-female, and 68% co-educational – both males and females,
as in Table 1.4. Public schools and co-educational schools had the highest number of
respondents. The breakdown of respondents, by Form/ class, ranged from 31.4%- in Form 2, to
14.1%- in Form 6, and is shown in Tables 1.3, and 1.4, and Chart 1.2. Age groups by gender of
students have been described in Table 1.5. The median age was 15.
12 | P a g e
Table 1.1: Geographic distribution of students participating by Education district
Education Percent # Sample

District respondents schools
Caroni 13.8 % 8
North Eastern 5.5 9
Port of Spain 18.2 11
St George East 24.3 11
St Patrick 9.5 9
South Eastern 6.9 8
Victoria 16.4 8
Tobago 5.4 7
Table 1.2: Distribution of participants by gender and Type of school
Type Total % Male Female

of Respondents % Respondents %
school
Public 73.2 74.6 71.7
Private 8.0 7.6 8.5
Other 18.5 17.4 19.6
Table 1.3: Distribution of Schools by gender in schools
Gender in schools Percent

All male schools 14.6 %
All female 16.9
schools
Mixed co-ed 68.4
schools
Table 1.4: Distribution by Form/class and gender percentage
Form / class % Total Male Female

respondents respondents
Form 2 31.4 32.6 30.1
Form 4 28.0 29.2 26.9
Form 5 26.5 29.0 24.3
Form 6 14.1 9.3 18.7
13 | P a g e
Chart 1.2: Distribution by Form/class
Form 6
9%
Form 2
Form 5
38%
21%
Form 4
32%
Table 1.5: Age-groups distributed by gender percentage
Age group Percent Male % Female %
11-14 36.3 37.3 35.5

15-16 39.8 39.2 40.7
17+ 19.4 17.7 21.1
14 | P a g e
Chart 1.3: Distribution of participants by Gender
and Type of school
Other Private Public
19.60%
Female 8.50%
71.70%
17.40%
Male 7.60%
74.60%
18.50%
Total 8%
73.20%
Chart 1.4: Distribution by Gender in Schools
Mixed co-ed schools
All Female schools
All Male schools
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00%

All Male schools All Female schools Mixed co-ed schools
Percent 14.60% 16.90% 68.40%
15 | P a g e
Chart 1.5: Age group distribution by Gender
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
Percentage
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
11-14 15-16 17+
All Participants 36.30% 39.80% 19.40%
% Male 37.30% 39.20% 17.70%
% Female 35.50% 40.70% 21.10%
5.2 Parents and Parental Involvement
Students reported that with respect to marital status, 48.3% of the parents were married, and
single parents comprised 19.2%; 10% of parents were separated, 8.6% living in common-law
relationship, and 2.5% widowed as in Chart 2.1. An additional 30.8 % parents could be
widowed, divorced, or in common-law relationships.
Chart 2.1: Marital status of parents

1956 =46.8%
831 =19.9%
385 =9.2%
288 = 6.9% 434 = 10.4%
87 =2.1% 110 =2.6% 85 =2%
16 | P a g e
As to respondents’ living arrangements, in Table 2.1, 55.8% lived with their father, 1.6 % with a
step-father, 78.3% lived with their mother, with 1.7% with a step-mother; 49.6% lives with their
brother or sister; 7.8% lived with guardians, and 11.7 % with other relatives; 0.9 % lived with a
friend, and 0.7% reported living alone, 1.6 % provided no information.
Table 2.1: With whom respondents live
With whom Frequency Frequency %

respondents live
Father 2261 55.8
Mother 3173 78.3
Brother/Sister 2011 49.6
Stepmother 705 1.7
Stepfather 229 5.6
Wife/Husband 104 2.6
Boyfriend/ Girlfriend 62 1.5
Guardians 317 7.8
Other relatives 475 11.7
Friend 38 0.9
Alone 30 0.7
Other 92 2.3
In terms of parental supervision of these students, 78.7% reported that parents always or almost
always knew their children’s whereabouts, while 2% stated that parents never or almost never
knew where they were, as described in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: Parents knowledge of respondents’ whereabouts
Whether parents know students Frequency Frequency %

whereabouts
They never or almost never know where I am 81 2
Sometimes they do not know 774 19.3
They always or almost always know where I 3152 78.7
am
Total 4053
In a similar vein, in Table 2.3, 57.9% of parents knew the TV shows respondents watched, while
42.1 % did not know.
17 | P a g e
Table 2.3: Parents knowledge of TV shows students watched
Parents knowledge of TV Frequency Frequency %

shows watched
Parents who knew 2316 57.9
Parents did not know 1683 42.1
Total 4000 100.0
In the area of parental vigilance over the respondents, 66.7% of the students indicated that their
parents were in control of the time they came home at night, while 89.7% of the parents expected
to be told where students were, Table 2.5. In contrast, 19.2% of students stated that the time they
arrived home was rarely controlled, and 2.7% rarely told parents their whereabouts.
Table 2.4 Parents control of time respondent comes in at night
Control of time Frequency Frequency %

come in at night
Yes 2664 66.7
No 458 11.5
Rarely 769 19.2
Never 102 2.6
Total 3993 100.0
Table 2.5: Parents told where respondent were
Parents expect to be Frequency Frequency %

told where student
is
Yes 3568 89.7
No 108 2.7
Rarely 260 6.5
Never 40 1.0
Total 3976 100.0
18 | P a g e
Attention to school work was ‘very closely’ paid by 27.8% of parents, and ‘closely’ by 43.3%,
that is together 71.1%, while ‘not at all’ by 4.1% of the parents, as in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Parents attention to school work
Parents attention to school Frequency Frequency %

work
Very closely 1115 27.8
Closely 1738 43.3
Somewhat 995 24.8
Not at all 166 4.1
Total 4014 100.0
The students who had meals every day with their parents was recorded as 30.2%, with 13.4%
who had meals one day only per week, and 31.6% who never had meals with their parents. There
was variation in the number of days the remainder of respondents had meals together, from 6
days to 2 days respectively, 1.7% - 7.8%, as in Table 2.7.
Frequency of students having Frequency Frequency %

meals daily with parents
Never 1279 32.1
One single day 533 13.4
Two days 312 7.8
Three days 256 6.4
Four days 186 4.7
Five days 143 3.6
Six days 68 1.7
Every day 1204 30.2
Total 4053 100.0
19 | P a g e
In general, tallying all the positive responses in Tables 2.8 and 2.9, more students admitted to
good relationships with mothers than with fathers. In addition, to the question “how well parents
know their close friends” 34.7% stated very well; 29% stated more or less, while 11.5 % stated
not at all. In interpreting this, 1 in 3 parents knew the close friends of their children.
Table 2.8: Respondents relationship with father/guardian
Relationship with
father/guardian Frequency Frequency %
Very good 1512 38.0
Good 1595 40.0
Bad 391 9.8
Very Bad 281 7.1
Not applicable 205 5.1
Total 3984 100.0
Table 2.9: Respondents’ relationships with mother/guardian
Relationship with Frequency Frequency %

mother/guardian
Very good 2419 60.6
Good 1245 31.2
Bad 188 4.7
Very Bad 96 2.4
Total 3989 100.0
Perception of parental reactions to children using drugs, described in Tables 2.10 to 2.13,
showed that 60-80 % of parents would be upset if children arrived at home drunk or smoking
marijuana, with the breakdown given as follows:
20 | P a g e
Fathers/ male guardians would be upset to varying degrees if students were caught drunk/tipsy,
52.2% would be extremely upset, 14.6% very upset while 6.7% would not be upset, in
comparison with mothers/ female guardians where 60.3% would be extremely upset or 15.7%
very upset, and 4.8% not upset.
Table 2.10: Opinion on fathers’ reaction to student being drunk or tipsy
Reaction (father) Frequency Frequency %

Extremely upset 2081 52.2
Very upset 581 14.6
Somewhat upset 394 9.9
Not upset 267 6.7
I have no idea how they 522 13.1
would react
Total 3985 100.0
Table 2.10a: Opinion on fathers’ reaction to male/female student being drunk or tipsy by gender
No idea
Extremely Very Somewh Not Not
Reaction how they
upset upset at upset upset applicable
would react
Male 45.6% 15.5% 11.7% 9.0% 15.5% 2.7%
Female 58.5% 13.7% 6.8% 3.8% 13.6% 3.6%
Table 2.11: Opinion on mothers’ reaction to student being drunk or tipsy
Reaction (mother) Frequency Frequency %

Very upset 626 15.7
Not upset 190 4.8
I have no idea how they 368 9.3
would react
Total 3971 100.0
21 | P a g e
Table 2.11a: Opinion on mothers’ reaction to male/female student being drunk or tipsy
No idea how
Extremely Very Somewhat Not Not
Reaction they would
upset upset upset upset applicable
react
Male 56.0% 16.9% 9.0% 6.4% 10.5% 1.3%
Female 64.6% 14.1% 8.1% 2.9% 9.4% 0.9%
For the reaction extremely upset, fathers in Tables 2.10a and mothers in Table 2.11a, would react
more to girls than to boys being tipsy or drunk. For the reaction not upset, this was stated more
by male than female students, although less than 10% of the responses for both mothers and
fathers in this category.
Similarly, if students were found smoking marijuana as shown below in Tables 2.12, students
believed that 79.4% of mothers/ female guardians would be extremely upset, 7.8% very upset,
and 1.7% not at all upset if students were caught smoking marijuana. In Table 2.13, 73.1% of
fathers/ male guardians would be extremely upset, or 8.5% very upset, while 2.2% would not be
upset. The data indicate that more mothers than fathers would be extremely upset over the use of
marijuana, however, more mothers would be extremely upset over girls than boys, if caught
using marijuana as in Tables 2.12 and 2.13.
Table 2.12: Opinion on reaction of mother/ guardian to student smoking marijuana
Reaction Frequency Frequency %

Very upset 309 7.8
Not upset 66 1.7
I have no idea how 283 7.1
they would react
22 | P a g e
Table 2.12a: Opinion on reaction of mother/ guardian to male/female student smoking marijuana
No idea
Extremely Very Somewhat Not how they Not
Reaction upset upset upset upset would applicable
react
Male 46.2% 55.0% 50.8% 61.2% 49.5% 55.8%
Female 53.0% 43.0% 47.6% 34.3% 49.5% 44.2%
Table 2.13: Opinion on reaction of father/ male guardian to student smoking marijuana
Reaction (father) Frequency Frequency %

Very upset 337 8.5
Not upset 88 2.2
I have no idea how they would 351 8.9
react
On the other hand, the perception was that less than 2% of both mothers and fathers would not
be upset over either boys or girls, if caught using marijuana, as in Tables 2.12 and 2.13.
Table 2.13a: Opinion on reaction of father/ male guardian to male/female student smoking
marijuana
No idea
how
Extremely Very Somewhat Not Not
they
upset upset upset upset applicable
would
Reaction
react
Male 45.8% 54.2% 59.6% 60.2% 51.3% 45.9%
Female 53.4% 44.1% 40.4% 34.7% 47.6% 54.1%
In general, parents, both mothers and fathers would appear to be more upset over the students’
use of marijuana than over students being tipsy or drunk from using alcohol.
23 | P a g e
Relationships with fathers were described as very good - by 38% of the respondents, good - by
40%, and bad - by 9.8%; 7.1% admitted to very bad relationships with fathers, Table 2.14. With
mothers the relationships were stated as very good - 60.6%, good - 31.2%; bad - 2.4%, very bad -
2.4%, Table 2.15. In general, more students admitted to good relationships with mothers than
with fathers. The relationships that parents and guardians had among each other were described
as very good by 37.2% of the respondents, good by 37.4%; bad 13.2%, and very bad 9.4%.
Table 2.14: Respondents’ relationships with father/guardian
Relationship with father/guardian Frequency Frequency %

Very good 1512 38.0
Good 1595 40.0
Bad 391 9.8
Very Bad 281 7.1
Total 3984 100.0
Table 2.15: Respondents’ relationship with mother/guardian
Relationship with mother/guardian Frequency Frequency %

Very good 2419 60.6
Good 1245 31.2
Bad 188 4.7
Very Bad 96 2.4
Total 3989 100.0
Highlighted in Table 2.16 are the frequency percentages of some patterns of behaviour that
students accorded to their parents. As to whether parents held serious discussions with their
children about the dangers of drugs, 46.5 % of the respondents stated Yes and 53.5% stated No.
About their parents’ drug use, some students- 28.1% perceived that their parents would have
24 | P a g e
used drugs when they were young; 71.8% stated No. In the homes of 16.9% of the students,
brothers, sisters, or someone else used a type of drug while 3.7% of mothers and 21.7% of
fathers regularly smoked. There were 4.8 % of fathers and 1.4 % mothers who drank alcohol
every day.
Table 2.16: Students opinions on patterns of parent behaviours as frequency %
Behaviour Yes
Parents held conversations with student about the dangers 46.5
of drugs
Parent/guardian use of drug when young 28.1
Fathers regularly smoked 21.7
Mothers regularly smoked 3.7
Fathers who drink alcohol everyday 4.8
Mothers who drink alcohol everyday 1.4
Both parents regularly smoked 3.8
Drinking habits of fathers were stated as 23.5% who never drank alcohol, 45.3% only on special
occasions, and 4.8% drank every day, Table 2.17. With regard to mothers, 26.9% never drank
alcohol, 54.4% only on special occasions, while 1.4% drank every day, Table 2.18. Twice the
proportion of fathers 12.8% as mothers 6.4% drank sometimes during the week.
Table 2.17: Drinking Habits of Father/Guardian
Drinking Habits Father/Guardian Frequency Frequency %

Never drinks any alcohol 832 23.5
Only on special occasions 1600 45.3
Only on weekends, but never during the week 275 7.8
Sometimes during the week 518 14.6
Drinks alcohol every day 168 4.8
Total 3535 100.0
25 | P a g e
Table 2.18: Drinking Habits of Mother/Guardian
Drinking Habits Mother/Guardian Frequency Frequency %

Never drinks any alcohol 1091 30.9
Only on special occasions 1918 54.4
Only on weekends, but never during 162 4.6
the week
Sometimes during the week 258 7.3
Drinks alcohol every day 50 1.4
Total 3529 100.0
5.3 Students in the School Environment
Students, 32.3% reported that they were very happy at school, an additional 39.3% were fairly
happy; on the other hand 3.0% were unhappy, and 3.7% very unhappy, Table 3.1; 79.1% felt a
sense of belonging whereas 20.9% did not share this sentiment, Table 3.2. As to how often they
skipped school, 84.8% never skipped school, 11.7% a few times, 2.3% several times, and 1.25%
often Table 3.3. In Table 3.4, 48.6% would be absent from school for less than 5 days regardless
of the reason, 12.1% would be absent between 21-30 days, and 4.9% more than 30 days. Among
the students, 41.6% never had disciplinary or behavioural problems; 26.4% had such a problem
on one occasion; 28.7% a few times; and 3.45% often.
Table 3.1: How happy respondent is at school
How happy when student is

at school Frequency Frequency %
Very happy 1298 32.3
Fairly happy 1578 39.3
Neither happy/nor unhappy 873 21.7
Unhappy 120 3.0
Very unhappy 149 3.7
Total 4018 100.0
26 | P a g e
Table 3.2: Respondents’ sense of belonging at school
Sense of belonging at school Frequency Frequency %

Yes 3119 79.1
No 824 20.9
Total 3943 100.0
Table 3.3: How often respondents skip school
How often skipped school Frequency Frequency %

Never 3402 84.8
A few times 469 11.7
Several times 92 2.3
Often 47 1.2
Total 4010 100.0
Table 3.4: Respondents absence from school, regardless of reason
Absent from school,

regardless of reason Frequency Frequency %
Less than 5 days 1902 48.6
Between 5 and 10 days 1165 29.7
More than 30 days 191 4.9
Total 3917 100.0
At school, relationship with teachers were described as ‘very good’- 22.5%, ‘good’- 37.7%, and
average 36.2%, but ‘bad’- 1.6%, and ‘very bad’- 2% as in Table 3.5.
27 | P a g e
Table 3.5: Respondents relationship with teachers
Relationship with Frequency

teachers %
Very good 22.5
Good 37.7
Average 36.2
Bad 1.6
Very bad 2.0
Total 100.0
The data on relationships with teacher were compared with those on relationship with parents.
The relationship with mothers was rated highest, of all the relationships, at very good, but at
60.6% as in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Comparison of students’ relationships with parents and teachers, as frequency %
Relationship Teachers Father Mother

Very good 22.5 % 38% 60.6%
Good 37.7 40 31.2
Average 36.2
Bad 1.6 9.8 2.4
Very bad 2.0 7.1 2.4
Total 100.0 100 100
There were 12.7% students who admitted to be working for varying numbers of hours per week,
but some 2.7% reported working the unlikely 40 hours per week. Among the valid data, 38% of
these students worked 1-5 hours a week, 34.8% worked 6-19 hours a week, and 8.3% worked 11-
15 hours per week.
A total of 79.9% of students had not repeated a school year while 16.3% had repeated a year.
The probability of finishing school was very likely for 86.2%, likely for an additional 10.2%; of
28 | P a g e
going on to University - 52.3% stated that it was very likely, while 29.7% stated likely, as
described in Table 3.7.
Table 3.7: Probability of finishing school and continuing to University
Probability of finishing Probability of continuing

Students’
school to University
opinion
Frequency Frequency % Frequency Frequency %
Very 3402 86.2 2048 52.3
likely
Likely 403 10.2 1161 29.7
Not very 44 1.1 372 9.5
likely
Impossible 223 0.6 61 1.5
Don’t 765 1.9 270 6.9
Know
Table 3.7a: Probability of finishing school and continuing to University by gender
Not
Probability of Very Don’t
Likely very Impossible
finishing school likely Know
likely
Male 44.8% 67.7% 56.5% 83.3% 58.1%
Female 54.7% 31.6% 41.3% 16.7% 41.9%
Not
Probability going Very Don’t
Likely very Impossible
university likely Know
likely
Male 40.8% 53.4% 69.1% 63.1% 61.0%
Female 58.8% 46.1% 30.6% 36.9% 38.1%
Females more than males, by a ten percent margin, (54.7% females to 44.8% males) envisaged
that it was very likely that they would complete school and by approximately 20%, (58.8%
females to 40.8% males) continue into University, Table 3.7a. The reverse situation existed in
the category likely to complete school and continue into University both showing more responses
from males than females. Four times that number of boys than girls felt that it was impossible
that they would complete school.
Drugs in the school environment: To the question are there drugs at school, 30.8% of
respondents answered Yes and 41.2% said they did not know. But to the question, do students
29 | P a g e
bring drugs to school, 55.4% stated Yes, and 28.6% stated that they did not know. To the
question, were there drugs around the school environment- next to the school, 51.0 % stated Yes,
while 35.4 % stated they did not know.
The responses on drugs in the school environment were further broken down by gender in Table
3.8, and Chart 3.1. Perception of participants, responding with the answer Yes has been broken
down further by gender, by Form/ class, by age group and by Education district in Tables 3. and
3.6 respectively.
Table 3.8: Students opinions on drugs in the school environment by gender
Question Response Male Female No Data Total

Do you believe that there are drugs at your school Y 38.2 24.1 26.9 30.8
N 19.3 35.9 20.0 28.0
DK 42.4 40.0 53.1 41.2
There are students who bring drugs to school Y 58.0 53.0 51.2 55.4
N 12.7 19.1 13.1 16.0
DK 29.3 27.9 35.7 28.6
There are drugs in the area around your school Y 50.0 52.1 26.1 51.0
N 13.9 13.3 23.2 13.6
DK 36.1 34.7 50.7 35.4
Students try to buy /deal drugs among themselves Y 48.3 46.1 34.8 47.1
outside or around the school N 14.6 19.5 16.6 17.1
DK 37.1 16.6 48.5 35.7
Have personally ever seen a student selling or Y 28.5 20.7 23.0 24.4
dealing drugs at or around school N 51.7 72.1 48.1 62.3
DK 19.8 7,2 28.9 13.3
Have personally seen a student using drugs at or Y 38.0 29.8 40.9 33.7
around school N 45.7 63.2 38.9 54.8
DK 16.4 7.0 20.2 11.5
Y=Yes, N= No, DK= Don’t Know
Viewing the trend in Table 3.8, in terms of gender awareness, males- 38.2% appeared more
aware than females - 24.1% of the presence of drugs in the school environment, with the
exception of drugs being bought or sold around the schools. About 50% of the students admitted
that there were drugs in the area around the school. There were a number of students who did not
respond or did not know about the presence of drugs.
30 | P a g e
Table 3.9: Frequency % of perception of students stating Yes on drug use in the school
environment by gender
Frequency of students perception of drugs at school, by gender for Total Male Female
students saying Yes
Do you believe that :there are there drugs at your School 30.8 38.2 24.1
: there are students who bring drugs to school 55.4 58.0 12.7
: there are drugs in the area around your school 51.0 50 13.9
: students try to buy /deal drugs among themselves 47.1 37.1 49.6
outside or around the School
Have you: personally ever seen a student selling or 24.4 15.4 25.2
dealing drugs at or around school
: personally seen a student using drugs at or around school 33.7 19.5 36.3
Percentage of Participants Saying Yes By Gender

Total Male Female
58
55.4 51 50 49.6
47.1
38.2 37.1
33.7 36.3
30.8
24.1 24.4 25.2
19.5
12.7 13.9 15.4
Do you believe There are students There are drugs in Students try to Have you: Have personally
that there are who bring drugs the area around buy /deal drugs personally ever seen a student
drugs at your to school your school among themselves seen a student using drugs at or
school outside or around selling or dealing around school
the school drugs at or
around school
In particular, the responses of respondents stating Yes, to questions on drugs in the school
environment have been highlighted in Tables 3.9, 3.10, and 3.11. As to the respondents’ opinion
/ belief that students try/deal with drugs outside the school, 47.1% stated Yes, and as to whether
students were seen selling/ giving drugs around the school, 24.4% stated Yes, while 33.7%
admitted to seeing a student using drugs around the school; 13.3 % did not know and 11.5% did
not see such activity.
31 | P a g e
Table 3.10: Frequency % on perception of drugs in school by Form/ class, those stating Yes
Frequency on perception of students stating Yes Form Form Form Form

on drugs in schools by Form/Class 2 4 5 6
Do you believe that : there are drugs at your 18.6 31.7 47.1 25.4
school
: there are students who bring drugs to school 45.6 55.6 69.5 49.9
: there are drugs in the area around your school 39.4 50.1 58.5 63.8
: students try to buy /deal drugs among 37.1 49.6 58.3 63.8
themselves
outside or around the school
Have you: personally ever seen a student selling 15.4 25.2 37.7 17.8
or dealing drugs at or around school
: personally seen a student using drugs at or 19.5 36.3 49.7 29.8
around school
Table 3.11: Frequency % on perception of respondents stating Yes on drugs in the school
environment by age groups
Perception/ Frequency % 11-14 15-16 17+ nd

Do you believe that: there are drugs at your 20.3 38.7 33.7 32.6
School
: there are students who bring drugs to school 46.7 62.0 57.3 58.8
: there are drugs in the area around your school 41.6 55.0 62.3 40.6
: students try to buy /deal drugs among 40.0 54.3 46.2 44.4
themselves
outside or around the school
Have you: personally ever seen a student 15.1 30.2 27.8 33.9
selling or dealing
drugs at or around school
: personally seen a student using drugs at or 21.2 42.5 38.9 34.1
around school
nd= no data
It is evident from the tabulated data above that perception and awareness of drugs in the
environment of the schools incrementally increased across Forms 2- 6 and simultaneously across
the age groups.
32 | P a g e
In analysing the data of those students stating Yes by gender and Education district in Table 3.12,
it must be emphasized that the responses related to the students’ awareness, and not to the
quantity of drugs in use. Also in looking at the sampling all the schools in Tobago fell into the
category of co-educational schools.
Among the male-only schools, perception of drugs in school was highest in Caroni Education
district, at 74.5%, and next in Victoria at 41.9%. In female-only schools in the sample, the
awareness was least, and between 6% - 10%. In co-ed schools, the South Eastern, Victoria and
Caroni districts schools had similar values that averaged 35%.
On the question of whether students brought drugs to school those saying Yes among male-only
schools were highest in Caroni 79.6% followed by Victoria at 60.6%.Co-ed schools varied from
50% to 70% with the highest being in the South eastern district. In female-only schools the
response was least in Caroni and from 20-40% in other schools.
To the question: Were there drugs in the area around the school? The responses from all schools
varied from 25% to 70% with St George East being the highest at male-only schools; with
female-only schools in St George East and St Patrick showing the least at approximately 25%.
Whether students were dealing among themselves or outside the school, the perception was
highest for the male-only school in Caroni at 63.5% and around 50% in other male-only school.
In co-ed schools the responses were also around 50% and in all girl schools the responses varied
from 15%-30%.
Seeing a student selling or dealing drugs brought a response of 51% at the male-only school in
Caroni. Female-only schools were least from 1.5 % to 11.9% and co-ed schools from 25 % to
30%. Seeing a student using drugs at school had a similar trend with 30% to 55% at male-only
school, highest in Caroni; 6% to 15% at female- only schools, the highest being in Victoria, and
30% to 45% in co-educational schools.
33 | P a g e
Table 3.12 Frequency on perception of respondents stating Yes on drugs in the school
environment by Education district and type of school by gender.
Frequency = Yes/(Yes + No + Don’t Know ); Questionnaire responses with ‘no answer’ excluded
Frequency School Caroni North POS & St. St. South Victoria Tobago
of Drugs at Type East Environs George Patrick East
Schools by East
gender
Drugs at Male 74.5% 34.6% 32.8% 29.4% 41.9%
your school only
Female 1.8% 5.6% 5.9% 5.7% 2.1%
only
Co-ed 34.5% 32.5% 32.7% 32.3% 20.7% 39.2% 38.1% 20.5%
Students Male 79.6% 58.8% 53.4% 51.9% 60.6% 0.0%

bring drugs only
to school Female 13.8% 29.6% 24.7% 41.4% 20.5%
only
Co-ed 58.0% 58.2% 60.4% 61.3% 50.3% 68.7% 58.8% 50.7%
Drugs in Male 46.9% 50.4% 69.1% 41.2% 49.1%

the area only
around Female 52.6% 67.8% 26.2% 29.4% 46.9%
school only
Co-ed 46.5% 51.9% 52.4% 51.3% 44.1% 42.5% 50.5% 41.0%
Students Male 63.5% 49.6% 50.0% 42.3% 47.2%

try to buy only
/deal drug
Female 22.4% 28.8% 14.1% 20.0% 26.7%
among
only
themselves
Co-ed 49.4% 49.3% 53.4% 51.0% 45.1% 52.4% 51.6% 44.1%
Seen a Male 51.0% 29.5% 15.5% 25.0% 17.3%

student only
selling or Female 5.2% 2.6% 3.5% 1.5% 11.9%
dealing only
drugs at or
around Co-ed 25.9% 27.6% 30.6% 26.9% 19.9% 26.1% 30.7% 22.8%
school
Seen a Male 54.1% 37.1% 32.8% 36.5% 27.9%

student only
using drugs Female 6.9% 14.1% 9.4% 5.8% 14.5%
at or only
around
school Co-ed 32.1% 36.6% 42.7% 36.9% 23.9% 44.1% 39.4% 24.6%
34 | P a g e
The respondents were questioned on the reactions of their friends toward drug use, Table 3.13
shows the frequency of the extent to which their friends would be involved on the issue of drug
use. Of 51.2% of respondents, all their friends would convince them to stop smoking marijuana,
and 48.5% would disapprove of them smoking it. Among their friends 45.3% did not drink
alcohol regularly nor did 62.1% smoke marijuana regularly.
Table 3.13: Frequency % of the extent their friends would respond on drug use
Response of friends All A lot Some One None

Friends would convince you 51.2% - 37.4% - 11.3%
to stop
smoking marijuana
Friends who would 48.5 - 37.5 - 13.9
disapprove of your
smoking marijuana
Friends who drink alcohol - 10 37.0 53.0 45.3
regularly
Friends who smoke marijuana - 7.2 23.1 7.5 62.1
regularly
5.4 Risk Perception and Curiosity
Table 4.1 compares the risk perception on how harmful various drugs would be if used
sometimes or frequently. It is evident that students detected a difference in the harmful nature of
drugs as in Table 4.1, as the ratings increased from not harmful, through slightly harmful, to
moderately harmful, and then very harmful. For those drugs that were considered not harmful,
the frequency in responses decreased minimally when drugs were used sometimes in comparison
to when used frequently; as an example, only slight differences in frequency (drinking alcohol
frequently 5.2%, getting drunk 5%) were detected, when alcohol was perceived to be not
harmful, but larger increments in rating [from 51.2% to 60.6%] when the drug was perceived to
be very harmful. Cigarette smoking was rated as very harmful when used sometimes, by 38.8%,
but when in frequent use by 77.9%.
35 | P a g e
Table 4.1: Perception of harmful effects of drug use
Drug use Not harmful Slightly harmful Moderately Harmful Very harmful
Smoking cigarettes
Sometimes 4.8 19.5 31.0 38.8
Frequently 2.5 3.7 10.2 77.9
Drinking alcohol
Frequently 5.2 13.5 24.8 51.2
Getting drunk 5.0 10.1 18.5 60.6
Taking tranquilizers/
stimulants
Sometimes 2.8 4.9 19.3 57.5
Frequently 2.8 2.9 8.7 70.3
Inhaling solvents
Sometimes 3.7 12.5 28.8 41.2
Frequently 3.5 4.6 15.3 64.0
Smoking marijuana
Sometimes 12.9 14.6 25.4 41.5
Frequently 8.1 7.9 13.1 64.6
Consuming cocaine/crack
Sometimes 3.0 3.7 31.0 38.8
Frequently 2.6 1.9 10.2 77.9
Consuming coca paste
Sometimes 3.3 5.3 16.7 68.8
Frequently 2.6 2.8 5.6 80.3
Using ecstasy
Sometimes 3.5 7.0 18.8 49.7
Frequently 3.0 3.6 8.3 64.9
Inhaling second hand 3.9 10.6 20.4 58.3
Cigarette smoke
Inhaling second hand 7.6 9.2 17.9 56.4
Marijuana smoke
The same data in Table 4.1, broken down by gender, have been shown in Table 4.2. In terms of
gender awareness, generally, more girls than boys rated drug use as moderately harmful or very
harmful whether in use sometimes or frequently. Marijuana was rated by the highest proportion
of male students- 15% as the drug in the category of not harmful when used sometimes.
It would be of concern that the results indicated a number of students who did not know whether
certain drugs were harmful. In descending frequencies among these were coca paste - 27.1%,
ecstasy- 21.1%, taking tranquilizers - 15.6 % inhaling solvents - 13.9%, inhaling second hand
marijuana smoke - 12.6%, consuming cocaine - 9.5%, and crack- 8%.
36 | P a g e
Table 4.2: Perception of harmful effects of drug use by gender
Not harmful Slightly harmful Moderately Harmful Very harmful

Drug Use
M F M F M F M F
Smoking cigarettes
Sometimes 5.9 3.8 20.6 18.5 27.5 34.4 39.2 38.5
Frequently 3.4 1.8 3.9 3.6 10.8 9.6 75.2 80.6
Drinking alcohol
Frequently 6.7 3.8 14.1 12.9 24.6 25.0 48 54
Getting drunk 6.3 3.8 10.6 9.7 18.2 18.9 57.9 63.2
Taking
tranquilizers/stimulants 3.7 1.8 5.0 4.8 17.3 21.1 55.1 59.6
Sometimes 3.8 1.8 4.1 1.8 8.6 8.8 65.0 75.2
Frequently
Inhaling solvents
Sometimes 5.1 2.4 13.5 11.5 25.7 31.7 39.9 42.5
Frequently 5.0 2.3 5.3 4.0 16.5 14.3 58.8 68.9
Smoking marijuana
Sometimes 15.7 10.2 15.8 13.2 21.7 27.1 39.1 43.9
Frequently 11.1 5.3 8.9 6.9 13.5 12.9 58.8 70.0
Consuming
cocaine/crack 4.2 1.8 3.9 3.6 13.8 18.9 68.5 69.2
Sometimes 3.7 1.6 2.6 1.2 3.7 1.6 76.9 83.6
Frequently
Consuming coca paste
Sometimes 4.2 2.8 6.2 4.5 13.9 19.2 47.3 47.9
Frequently 4.4 1.9 3.6 2.3 8.8 7.9 54.7 61.3
Using ecstasy
Sometimes 4.8 2.2 8.2 5.8 16.7 20.9 48.5 50.8
Frequently 4.4 1.7 4.4 2.8 8.6 8.1 61.3 68.3
Inhaling second hand
Cigarette smoke 5.4 2.5 11.5 4.8 19.0 21.7 55.7 60.6
Inhaling second hand
Marijuana smoke 9.5 5.8 10.1 8.3 17.5 18.5 51.8 60.5
Chart 4.1 and Table 4.3 compare the responses on the students’ curiosity about trying drugs.
Approximately 3 in 10 or 33.6 % of students would try an illicit drug and 28.3% would try
marijuana, 5.6% would try cocaine.
Table 4.3: Frequency % of respondents stating curiosity about trying drugs
Frequency of curiosity about trying drugs Yes No Maybe

Illicit drugs 33.6 % 56.9% 9.6%
Marijuana 28.3 62.2 9.5
Cocaine 5.6 90.7 3.7
Crack 3.6 93.5 3.0
Ecstasy 8.3 86.2 5.5
37 | P a g e
In comparison with the 33.6% who admitted to being curious about trying drugs, and the 9.6 %
who were not sure, 56.9% were not curious about using drugs. Marijuana was the specific drug
which attracted the curiosity of 28.3%, and to a lesser extent cocaine – 5.6%, and crack- 3.6%.
The frequency of 8.3% was reported for curiosity about using ecstasy. Additionally, 19.1%
stated that if given the opportunity, they would try an illicit drug, 64.9% stated No, and 16%
were not sure.
Chart 4.1 Curiosity about trying drugs

Yes No Maybe
90.7 93.5
86.2
62.2
56.9
33.6
28.3
9.6 9.5 5.6 8.3 5.5
3.7 3.6 3
Illicit drugs Marijuana Cocaine Crack Ecstasy
5.5 Access to illicit drugs and supply
In Table 5.1, marijuana was the drug that was easily accessible to 42.5% of respondents, while
21% would not be able to access it; 15% of the respondents would find cocaine easy to access,
while 32.4% would find it hard to access. In Chart 5.1, crack was also easily accessible to 11 %
of the respondents, but 62.9 % would not be able to obtain it. Among the other drugs, ecstasy
was easy to access by 9.5%, LSD by 6%, and heroin by 9.6%.
38 | P a g e
Table 5.1: Respondents’ access to drugs, showing frequency %
Access to drug Hard Easy Not able

Marijuana 9.9 42.5 21.0
Cocaine 16.0 15.8 32.4
Crack 16.7 11.0 35.2
Ecstasy 16.9 9.5 35.1
LSD 16.7 6.4 35.7
Heroin 16.2 9.6 33.7
Chart 5.1: Percentage of Participants' Access to drugs

Hard Easy Not able
42.5
35.2 35.1 35.7

32.4 33.7
21
16 15.8 16.7 16.9 16.7 16.2
9.9 11 9.5 9.6
6.4
Marijuana Cocaine Crack Ecstasy LSD Heroin
In Chart 5.2, drugs that were offered to 1.5%-1.7% of the sample were ecstasy, heroin, and LSD
occurring within 30 days, at one month, and one year. Marijuana was constantly offered to 8.3%
of the students in the past month, and to 12.8 % in the past year.
39 | P a g e
Chart 5.2: When students were offered drugs
One year One month 30 days Never
1.4
Heroin 1.5
1.5
95.4
1.5
LSD 1.5
1.5
96.2
1.7
Ecstasy 1.7
1.7
94.8
1.8
Crack 1.5
1.5
95.4
2.7
Cocaine 2.1
2
93.2
8.3
Marijuana 10.3
12.8
68.5
Table 5.2 indicates the percentage of students who were not offered drugs at any time, by any
one. It becomes obvious that marijuana is offered most often.
Table 5.2: Frequency % of respondents not offered drugs in any circumstance
Drug Not offered anywhere % Not offered anytime % Not offered by anyone %
Marijuana 64.2 62.5 67.3
Cocaine 86.6 93.2 92.5
Crack 88.8 95.4 95.1
Ecstasy 88.5 94.8 94.7
LSD 89.9 90.7 96.0
Heroin 88.8 95.4 95.1
A proportion of students, 67.7% were never offered marijuana, however, as to where it was
offered, the response was mostly at school, 6.5%, or on the block also 6.5%, but also at home
5.3%, with friends, 4%, and to a lesser extent, 3.2% at social events as in Chart 5.3. Cocaine was
never offered to 92.6% of the students but was also offered to 1.7% on the block, and to1.6% at
school.
40 | P a g e
Chart 5.3 Where students were offered drugs
Heroin
LSD
Ecstasy
Crack
Cocaine
Marijuana
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Marijuana Cocaine Crack Ecstasy LSD Heroin
Social Event 3.2 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.7
Sport 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2
Friend 4 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.5
Block 6.5 1.7 1.4 1 1 1.4
School 6.5 1.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7
Home 5.3 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.4
Never 67.7 92.6 95 94.8 96.2 94.9
In Chart 5.4, Friends are seen as the source offering the highest percent of every drug. In the case
of marijuana, it is offered to as many as 18.5% by friends. Someone known to the students could
also offer marijuana at 7.4%. Relatives or family members at 4.6% offer marijuana.
41 | P a g e
Chart 5.4 Who offered students drugs
LSD
Ecstasy
Crack
Cocaine
Marijuana
0 20 40 60 80 100
Marijuana Cocaine Crack Ecstasy LSD
Someone not known 2.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1
Someone known 7.4 2.1 1.5 1.2 1.3
Friend 18.4 3.1 1.6 2.2 1.2
Relative/family 4.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4
Never 0 92.5 95.1 94.7 96
Of all the drugs, as indicated, marijuana was offered most frequently, and mostly by friends,
18.4%, as in Chart 5.2; the other drugs were also offered by friends but to a lesser extent, 1.2% to
3.1%. Less than 3% of the respondents were consistently offered the drugs marijuana, cocaine or
crack in the past month or thirty days, by someone not known, as detailed in Chart 5.4.
5.6 Age of first use

In up to 2% of the students, drug use began as early as 5 years old. A fluctuating pattern existed
among many of the drugs used. Tracing the age of first use, for cigarettes it was recorded at 5
years for 0.9% of the students, increased to 10 year old, fell at 11 years old, to rise again to 16.3
% at 14, and then fall steadily from 15 to 18 years old. First use of alcoholic drinks was also at 5
years old among 2% of the students; first use increased steadily peaking between 13- 15 years
old for 88.2 % of those who admitted to having used alcoholic beverages. For first use of
42 | P a g e
marijuana, 0.7% started at age 5, the number of students gradually increased and rose as students
approached the teens; 14% at 13, 21.5% at 14, and 18.1% at 15 years old; the mean age of first
use of marijuana was 13.6 years. The mean age for first use of marijuana at 13.6 years stands out
in comparison with the other drugs with mean ages near 12 years old. Marijuana had the median
of 14 years. Inhalant use, however, began even earlier with a mean of 10.4 years, and a median
of 10 years, showing that pre-teens as well as early adolescents were being exposed to drug use.
The youngest reported age of first use of cocaine was 6 years old. The mean and the median age
of first use of cocaine were 10 and 14 years old respectively.
Table 6.1 Mean and median of age of first use
Drug Mean Median

Cigarettes 12.4 13
Alcoholic drinks 12.2 12
Stimulants 12.2 13
Inhalants 10.4 10
Marijuana 13.6 14
Coca paste 11.7 12
Cocaine 12.2 13
Illicit drugs 11.9 13
5.7 Prevalence of drug use
The following definitions were used in interpreting the results on prevalence of drug use from
the data.
 Prevalence measures the proportion of the total number of persons/ cases in a population
with no regard to time, or when subjects may have been exposed to a risk factor.
 Lifetime prevalence: the use of a particular drug at least once during the respondent’s
lifetime.
 Past year / one year prevalence: the use of a particular drug at least once during the year
preceding the survey
43 | P a g e
 Past month/ one-month prevalence: use of a particular drug at least once during the month
preceding the survey; this is also an indicator of the current use.
In Table 7.1, use of alcoholic beverages has the highest prevalence whether lifetime-66.9%, one-
year- 49.4%, or one-month- 27.6%; 27.6% was the highest in one-month prevalence among the
drugs.
Table 7.1: Frequency % of drug use against lifetime > 2%, one-year, one-month prevalence
N=4053 Lifetime % One-year One-month

Alcoholic Drinks 66.9 49.4 27.6
Solvents & 15.5 6.8 4.3
Inhalants
Marijuana 16.5 10.7 6.2
Cocaine 2.9 1.5 0.9
Crack 2.2 1.2 .7
Any illegal drug 30.5 16.5 9
Initial use of drugs, or ever use of drugs has been indicated in Table 7.1; again, the drug of
highest prevalence being alcoholic beverages. The lifetime prevalence of drug use decreases
from alcoholic beverages 66.9%, through cigarettes 28.8%, marijuana 16.5%, solvents and
inhalants 15.5%, stimulants 4%, tranquilizers 2.9%, cocaine 2.9%, and crack 2.2%. Table 7.2
highlights the drugs for which lifetime prevalence was less than 2%.
Table 7.2: Drugs with lifetime prevalence less than 2%
Prevalence:
Drugs Lifetime <2%,
N=4053
Heroin 1.3
Opium 1.1
Morphine 1.8
Hallucinogens 1.2
Hashish 1.3
Ecstasy 1.6
44 | P a g e
In Table 7.3 the lifetime prevalence increases across the age-groups, the lowest prevalence being
in the 11-14 age-group, most likely as students become more aware of, or more exposed to
drugs. Marijuana however, escalates from a prevalence of 7.8% to 21.0% between the age
groups 11-14, and 15-16.
Table 7.3: Age group and lifetime prevalence of drug use
Age/Drug Use 11-14 15-16 17+

Prevalence
Alcoholic 50.3 75.5 82.3
beverage % % %
Solvents/Inhalants 14.1 17.7 14.0
Marijuana 7.8 21.0 21.8
Stimulant 2.9 4.7 4.5
Cocaine 2.3 3.0 2.9
Crack 1.9 2.0 2.0
Other 3.9 5.7 3.9
Any illegal 22.1 36 33.1
The lifetime prevalence of alcoholic beverages increases across all the age groups from 50.3% to
82.3%. In Table 7.4, it is evident that cigarette use has its lowest mean prevalence at 18.4% in
Form 2, increases to 28.9% at Form 4, and then to the highest prevalence of 41.7% at Form 5.
Solvents and inhalants have a relatively high mean prevalence of 12.4% among Form 2 students
as well. It can be pinpointed in Table 7.4 that between Form 2 and Form 4, marijuana use
becomes more popular among students, whereas there is a more gradual increase of use of other
drugs, except cigarettes, as students advance through the Forms.
45 | P a g e
Table 7.4: Lifetime prevalence of drug use by Form/ class
Drug Form 2 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6

Alcoholic 48.5 71.3 76.7 80.7
beverage
Cigarettes 18.4 28.9 41.7 27.3
Marijuana 8.1 17.9 23.3 19.4
Cocaine 2.7 3.1 3.3 2.0
Crack 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.0
Solvents/Inhalants 12.4 16.4 17.3 17.2
Stimulant 2.9 3.7 3.7 5.7
Tranquilizers 3.0 3.3 2.8 2.1
Illegal substance 20.7 32.9 37.2 34.8
Lifetime prevalence is highest at 80.7% for alcoholic beverages at Form 6; 41.7% for cigarettes
at Form 4, at 23.3% for marijuana at Form 5, at 17.3% for solvents and inhalants from Form 5 to
Form 6, and 37.2% for any illegal drug at Form 5. From Form 2 to Form 5, use of all drugs
generally increases but could decline from Form 5.
Table 7.5: Lifetime prevalence by gender
Drug Male Female nd Total

Cigarettes 34.4 23.6 38.4 28.8
Alcoholic 64.9 69.0 59.1 66.9
Drinks
Tranquilizers 3.5 2 .4 4.4 2.9
Stimulants 4.4 3.6 3.2 3.9
Solvents and 14.9 18.0 12.6 15.5
Inhalants
Marijuana 20.8 12.4 22.4 16.5
Cocaine 3.5 3.9 5.1 2.9
Heroin 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.3
Opium 1.4 0.8 1.9 1.1
Morphine 1.9 1.6 1.9 2.9
Hallucinogens 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.2
Hashish 1.7 0.8 2.0 1.3
Crack 2.9 1.4 5.7 2.2
Ecstasy 1.9 1.1 1.3 1.6
Other drugs 5.8 3.6 4.9 4.6
Nd= no data
46 | P a g e
Chart 7.1 Mean lifetime prevalence by Form/ class
Illegal substance
Tranquilizers
Stimulant
Form 6
Solvents/Inhalants Form 5
Form 4
Drug
Crack Form 2
Cocaine
Marijuana
Cigarettes
Alcoholic Beverage
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage by Form/class
Mean lifetime prevalence is higher for females over males for alcoholic drinks as well as for
solvents and inhalants; also slightly so for cocaine. Males have been exposed to opium and
hallucinogens more than females.
47 | P a g e
Table 7.6: Lifetime prevalence by Type of School
Drug Public Private Other Total

School School
Cigarettes 30.5 25.5 23.9 28.8
Alcoholic 68.2 60.0 29.4 66.9
Drinks
Stimulants 3.7 3.6 5.3 3.9
Solvents and 15.0 13.6 18.3 15.5
Inhalants
Marijuana 16.6 17.0 15.7 16.5
Coca paste 1.1 2.1 0.9 1.2
Cocaine 2.8 3.1 2.9 2.9
Heroin 1.3 1.8 1.0 1.3
Opium 1.1 1.5 0.7 1.1
Morphine 1.5 3.2 2.4 2.9
Hallucinogens 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.2
Hashish 1.2 1.9 1.3 1.3
Crack 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.2
Ecstasy 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.6
Other drugs 4.4 4.8 5.6 4.6
Students at public schools and ‘other’ assisted schools demonstrate a higher mean prevalence of
drug use than those at private schools, but in comparison, the number of private schools
represented in the sample was the smallest. The prevalence of alcoholic drinks was similar for
public (68.2%) and private schools (60%) but approximately twice that in ‘other’ assisted
schools (29.4%). For marijuana use the prevalence varies only slightly for all schools, at an
average of 16.5%. Morphine, opium, heroin, and hashish appear to be slightly more prevalent at
private schools, although the actual number of students represented by these results has been
comparatively very small.
5.8 Incidence of drug use
Incidence has been defined as a measure of a rate as it quantifies the number of new users during
a specific time period, e.g. past year – one-year, or past month – one-month. If the incidence rate
increases then this is evidence that a risk factor promotes the incidence.
48 | P a g e
The incidence of drug use in Table 8.1 is highest for alcoholic drinks both for one-year (41.1%),
and one-month (23.2%). Cigarettes (10.7% - one-year) and marijuana (8%- one-year) follow on.
Use of solvents and inhalants is also being initiated by new users (7.4%). [The survey was
conducted one month after the major school vacation in July-August, and this may be
instructive.]
Table 8.1: One-year and one-month incidence of drug use (frequency and %)
Drug use Incidence of use of drugs

One-year One-month
N N
% %
Alcoholic 2556.1 41.1 1949.8 23.2
drinks
Cigarettes 3318.6 10.7 3082.9 3.9
Tranquilizers 3998.8 1.7 3962.4 0.8
Stimulants 4001.1 1.8 3971.6 1.1
Solvents & 3768.5 7.4 3657.6 4.5
Inhalants
Marijuana 3736.2 8.0 3575.7 3.9
Cocaine 4008.5 1.3 3977.9 0.6
Crack 4025.9 1.2 4002.3 0.6
Ecstasy 4025.2 1.4 3996.6 0.7
Other Drugs 2952.9 52.0 2246.1 36.9
Any illegal 3448.7 13.9 3202.0 7.2
drug
A majority of users in the age-group 15-16 have initiated using a range of drugs as indicated in
Table 8.2, but introduction to drug use continues at 17+; the main drugs being alcohol, cigarettes,
marijuana, and solvents and inhalants in that order. The risk of cocaine and crack use remains
almost steady across all age-groups.
Table 8.2: One-year incidence of drug use by age-group
Drugs use/age-group 11-14 15-16 17+

Alcoholic drink 28.6 % 49.4 % 59 %
Solvent/Inhalant 7.9 7.9 4.8
Marijuana 4.5 10.1 9.9
Cocaine 1.5 1.1 1.5
Crack 1.1 0.9 1.2
Tranquilizer 1.6 1.3 1.4
Stimulant 1.6 2.1 1.1
Energy Drink 48.3 58.8 50.3
49 | P a g e
Any Illegal substance 11 15.9 14.6
One-year incidence rates for use of alcoholic beverages in Table 8.3, shows a larger proportion
of females 43%, than males 39.7% initiating use. One-year incidence of cigarette use shows
approximately twice the proportion of males 14.5 % to females, 7.7%, as well as for marijuana,
males 10.6%, and females 5.7%. Incidence of solvents and inhalants was almost the same for
males and females at 7.2%. Cocaine and crack at 2 % attracted up to four times as many more
males as females.
Table 8.3: One-year incidence and gender
Drugs Male Female Total

Alcoholic drinks 39.7 43.0 41.1
Solvents and 7.4 7.2 7.3
Inhalants
Cocaine 2.3 0.5 1.3
Crack 2.0 0.3 1.1
Ecstasy 2.2 0.6 1.4
Any illegal drug 16.0 11.9 13.8
Mean one-month incidence was highest for alcoholic drinks at approximately 23%, solvents and
inhalants followed at 4%, and stimulants at 1%. In comparing males with females, however,
males produced the higher incidence sometimes 3 to 5 fold, as with cocaine and ecstasy. Mean
one-month incidence of alcoholic drinks is almost the same for both males and females at 23%.
For the mean incidence of marijuana use, the male to female ratio was 3:1, males being at 6.1%
as in Table 8.4.
50 | P a g e
Table 8.4: One-month incidence of drug use by gender
Drug use Male Female Total

Alcoholic 23.6 23.1 23.2
drinks
Solvents and 4.7 4.3 4.5
Inhalants
Cocaine 1.0 0.2 0.6
Crack 1.1 0.05 0.6
Ecstasy 1.1 0.3 0.7
Any illegal 8.7 5.9 7.2
drug
In Table 8.5, mean one-year incidence doubles for alcoholic drinks from Form 2 to 5, use of
solvents and inhalants fluctuates only slightly from Form 2 to Form 6 while use of crack and
cocaine decreases only slightly during the same period.
Table 8.5: One-year incidence of drug use by Form/ class
Drugs use Form 2 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6 Total

Cigarettes 6.9 14.8 16.2 8.8 10.7
Alcoholic 28.1 45.6 52.7 51.7 41.1
drinks
Solvents and 7.5 8.8 6.7 5.2 7.4
Inhalants
Marijuana 5.1 9.9 10.0 7.7 8.0
Cocaine 1.8 1.8 0.9 0.4 1.3
Crack 1.4 1.5 0.8 0.5 1.1
Ecstasy 1.3 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.4
Tranquilizers 2.1 2.1 1.2 0.7 1.7
Stimulants 1.8 2.4 1.8 0.8 1.8
Any illegal 11.0 16.0 15.8 12.9 13.9
drug
Among all the respondents, there is a similar trend in incidence rates for cigarettes, and alcoholic
drinks, across all types of schools, however, in Table 8.6, the slightly differing one-year mean
51 | P a g e
incidence, existing in private schools, especially for marijuana use may be due to the smaller
number of private schools in the sample; incidence of marijuana use is indicated as 7.9% in
public schools, and 9.7% in private schools. Private schools also indicate smaller incidence rates
for cocaine, crack, ecstasy, and tranquilizers.
Table 8.6: One-year incidence of drug use and Type of school
Drug use Public Private Other Total

Cigarettes 11.3 10.9 8.6 10.7
Alcoholic 43.4 31.7 36.3 41.1
drinks
Solvents and 7.7 3.8 7.7 7.4
Inhalants
Marijuana 7.9 9.7 8.0 8.0
Cocaine 1.5 0.5 1.2 1.3
Crack 1.2 0.12 1.2 1.2
Ecstasy 1.4 0.12 1.9 1.4
Stimulants 1.7 1.8 2.3 1.8
Any illegal 14.0 12.4 14.0 14.0
drug
Profile of use of prescription drugs among student users: Between the prescription drugs--
tranquilizers and stimulants, one-year mean incidence of tranquilizers and stimulants was 4 times
less in private schools, at 0.47% in public schools in Table 8.5, again, private schools were in
smaller number in the sample. It was evident that the use of tranquilizers and stimulants
decreased from Form 4 onward, as in Table 8.9. It is also evident that these drugs can be
accessed without a prescription, as well as from various sources as in Table 8.7. Tranquilizer use
without a medical prescription also started at 5 years old among 1.9% of the students, fluctuated
at 9, rose at 12, but peaked at 15. Similarly, use of stimulants started at 5 years old among 2.5%
of the students, fluctuates, and also peaked among 15year olds.
52 | P a g e
Table 8.7: Profile of use of tranquilizers and stimulants
Frequency Tranquilizers Stimulants
Never used without prescription 80.9 % 80.2%

Used in the past 30 days 0.8 1.1
More than one month less than 1 year 0.9 0.7
More than one year 1.3 1.3
Used without prescription in the past 28.6 22.1
12 months
Yes, used within the past 30 days 41.6 50.2
There is a similar pattern, between use of tranquilizers and stimulants in the past 12 months, in
terms of exposure, use, access, and availability without prescription. Tranquilizers and stimulants
were obtained from the medical or licensed health practitioner- 21.9%, but also at home – 18.4%
and from the pharmacist, 13.7%, on the street- 11.8%, and from friends, 8.4%, Table 8.8.
Table 8.8: Access to tranquilizers and stimulants
Sources of Access Tranquilizers Stimulants

Medical doctor or licensed health 21.9 % 23.4 %
practitioner
On the street 11.8 10.8
At home 18.4 14.1
From a friend 8.4 13.1
From the pharmacist 13.7 14.4
From other sources 25.9 24.2
At the local level, substances are used that possess the potential for psycho-activity: energy
drinks, stout, and hemp. The incidence of energy drinks was 48.3% for the age group 11-14,
58.8% for the 15- 16 years, and 50.3% for the 17+, in Table 8.2. A number of students have been
using energy drinks several times during the past month, and week, and some every day. The use
of stout is as well as hemp is implied in Table 8.9 to a lesser extent.
53 | P a g e
Table 8.9: Frequency of use of potential psychoactive substances
Frequency Energy drinks % Stout % Hemp %

Never used 22.7 71.8 92.4
Used in the past 12 71.5 49.1 43.0
months
Once in the past 12 21.4 35.7 29.9
months
Several times in the past 44.9 44.1 32.5
12 months
month
week
Everyday 3.3 2.2 11.3
Used in the past 30 days 60.4 48.9 49.9
5.9 Patterns of Alcohol Use
Students obtained alcoholic drinks mainly from friends -26% but next from parents/ guardians-
18.9% and other relatives 17% and to a lesser extent from brothers/sisters – 3.8% as in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: From whom do students usually obtain alcohol
Whom Frequency
%
Friends 26.0
Parents/ 18.9
Guardian
Brother/sister 3.8
Other 17.0
relative
Street vendor 3.0
Shop 9.4
Other 22.2
Alcohol is used mainly at social events and at home, 33.2% and 32.0%, as in Table 9.2. It was
evident in Table 9.3 that alcoholic drinks were consumed most frequently on weekends, although
taken a few times during the week. A valid percentage of 10.1% or 1 in 10 of those who use
alcohol has reported getting drunk on one day during the past month.
54 | P a g e
Table 9.2: Where alcohol is used, presented in decreasing frequency%
Where alcohol Frequency %

is used
At other social 33.2
event
At home 32.0
Other 21.4
At friends 4.5
home
On the block 3.8
At sporting 2.9
events
At school 2.1
Table 9.3: Frequency of use of specific alcoholic substances over the past 30 days
Alcoholic Daily Several days Weekend A few times Never

beverage
Beer 3.7 3.6 13.0 36.7 43.1
Wine 1.8 3.5 8.1 33.5 53.1
Hard 3.0 3.9 15.7 40.2 37.2
Liquor
Table 9.3 covers the use of alcohol over the past 30 days among those who used alcohol, these
students were using drinks with from 4% alcohol upwards. Binge drinking has been defined as,
in Table 9.4. To the question: Over the past two weeks, how many times have you consumed five
(5) or more alcoholic drinks in one (1) sitting? Of those who had used alcoholic beverages,
63.4% never engaged in binge drinking, 16.9% engaged in binge drinking only once, 12% for 2
to 3 times, and the remainder up to 5 times and over.
Table 9.4: Binge Drinking
Frequency % respondents
of drinking
Not once 63.4
Only once 16.9
2-3 times 12.0
4-5 times 2.5
>5 times 5.3
55 | P a g e
5.10 Use Related Risks
In comparing the sources of the drug for use, shown in Table 10.1, it turns out that friends are the
main source for alcoholic drinks, and especially for marijuana. Parents and other relatives also
are indicated as the sources of drugs provided to students.
Table 10.1: Comparison of drug users sources by frequency %
Drug Friends Parent Brother/ Other Street Other

sister Relative pusher
Alcoholic drink 26 18.7 3.8 17 9.4 22.2
Marijuana 60.3 3.8 3.4 8.2 14.8 9.5
Cocaine 34.4 7.2 17.7 14.0 6.7 19.9
Crack 32.5 20.2 8.2 9.6 8.9 20.7
In Table 10.2, it was evident that a ratio of less than 1 in 4 students recognised a number of the
synthetic drugs.
Table 10.2: Drugs recognized as synthetic drugs
Drug Frequency %
recognized synthetic drug
Ecstasy 21.8
Amphetamine 11.0
PCP 9.5
Methamphetamine 13.1
GHB 9.7
Table 10.3: Comparison of drug users’ frequency of drug use as percentage
Drug Use Just once Several times Several times Several times Everyday
over 12 months A month a week
Marijuana 25 36.9 17 10.7 10.4
Cocaine 22.7 21.2 22.4 14.6 19.1
Crack 23.5 16.1 13.7 24.1 22.6
Solvents and inhalants 35.6 34.9 16.8 6.6 6.1
Table 10.3 provides a comparison of drug use frequency by current users of a number of
substances. Among those students who use drugs, (22%- 36%) have tried them only once.
56 | P a g e
There is also evidence of frequent use of solvents and inhalants, crack, cocaine, and marijuana,
and these are among those substances which are usually thought of as being most addictive.
In Table 10.4, Use of marijuana before noon, and use when alone are shown. Among the
marijuana users, 9.1% smoked it fairly often before noon, and 10.7% very often; 8.4% smoked
marijuana alone fairly often, and 20.3% very often.
Table 10.4 Pattern of marijuana use as frequency %
Times used Smoked marijuana before noon Smoked marijuana alone

Never 36.1 38.9
Rarely 24.5 11.6
From time to time 19.7 20.8
Fairly often 9.1 8.4
Very often 10.7 20.3
Over one third of those using marijuana, never smoked it before noon or alone. Around 10.7%
smoked marijuana very often before noon as well as 20.3% smoke it alone.
57 | P a g e
Table 10.5: Use-related risks for alcohol and illicit drugs over 12 months
How often students have experienced or

been in the following situations because of 2.
1. 3. 4. 5.
drinking alcohol or using illicit drugs, over Rarely
Never Sometimes Often Almost
the past 12 months /Seldom
always
Getting a low grade on an important test/ 79 9.1 9.5 1.4 1.0
exam or school project
Getting into some kind of trouble with the 93.8 2.9 2.0 0.5 0.8
police
Getting into any angry argument or fight 81.3 8.0 7.4 2.2 1.2
Memory loss 84.3 7.4 5.5 1.7 1.1
Problems with your family/relatives/ 81.6 8.1 6.3 1.8 2.2

households
Having someone taking sexual advantage of 94.5 2.1 1.6 0.6 1.1
you.
Taking sexual advantage of someone. 94.6 2.0 1.6 0.6 1.1
Trying without success to stop drinking 91.0 3.0 2.8 1.2 2.0
alcohol or taking illicit drugs
Self-harm (such as self-cutting, burning, 90.8 3.6 2.9 1.1 1.6

hitting, etc.)
Seriously thinking about committing suicide 89.4 3.6 3.4 1.5 2.1
From Table 10.5, of interest are the percentages admitting never experiencing use-related
behaviours with a frequency of less than 90%:
 Getting a low grade in an important test 79%

 Getting into an argument of fight 81.3%
 Problems with family/ relatives/ household 81.6 %
 Memory loss 84.3%
 Seriously thinking about suicide 89.4%
It is evident that getting a low grade in tests indicates that implicitly, the use of drugs (never,
79%) would be influencing student performance more than any other risk-behaviour. Memory
58 | P a g e
loss (never, 84.3%) would also affect student performance. Problems with their family and
student violence would also represent other problem areas for the student. Conversely in Table
10.6, those who admit to use-related behaviours , though small in number, are having problems
with family and friends, almost always, and are having difficulty in stopping the use of alcohol,
among other use-behaviours.
Chart 10.1 Use-Related Risks
Seriously thinking about committing suicide
Self-harm (such as self-cutting, burning, hitting,…
Taking sexual advantage of someone.
Having someone taking sexual advantage of you.
Problems with your family/relatives/ households
Memory loss
Getting into any angry argument or fight
Getting into some kind of trouble with the police
Getting a low grade on an important test/ exam…
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Almost always Often Sometimes Rarely /Seldom Never
59 | P a g e
Table 10. 6: Effect of use of alcohol and illicit drugs over 12 months
Experience Almost Always Often Sometimes

Low grades in a test 1.0 1.4 9.5
Trouble with police 0.8 0.5 0.5
Angry argument or fight 1.2 2.2 7.4
Memory loss 1.1 1.5 4.8
Problem with family/friend 2.2 1.8 6.3
Sexual advances or sexual 1.2 0.6 1.6
liberties
Taking sexual advantage of 1.1 0.6 1.6
someone
Trying to stop without 2.0 1.2 2.8
success
Self-harm 1.6 1.1 2.9
Seriously thinking about 2.1 1.5 3.4
suicide
5.11 Accuracy of Statements
A total of 72.3% of the respondents provided positive responses to the query ‘If you tried
marijuana once in your lifetime, would you say so in this questionnaire’; 24.9% stating Yes I
have just said so, 39.6% definitely yes, and 17.8% probably yes.
Similarly, a total of 76.2% gave positive responses to the query ‘If you tried crack once in your
lifetime, would you say so in this questionnaire’, 15.1% stated Yes, I have just said so, 42.5%
definitely yes, and 18.6% probably yes.
A total of 4176 students were respondents in this survey. There were items where some students
by choice did not respond. The denominator would change in these cases and the statistical
system would adjust for these cases. In some instances, percentages would therefore not add to
100% when corrections are performed. It must be noted that some items related to prevalence or
incidence when performed from data from different questions, have produced only slightly
different values. In several instances therefore mean values were utilized in the analysis. It is
therefore important to give consideration to trends and not exact values.
60 | P a g e
5.12 Comparative findings, surveys of 2006, 2013
Results of the survey conducted in 2006 were compared with results on the 2013 survey. It was
however, not possible to compare all the items that were measured because certain questions
were slanted in different ways. Comparison was possible for data mainly on the use of alcohol,
cigarettes, marijuana, inhalants, and tranquilizers. The results have been placed in the layout that
follows.
Demographics
Survey 2006 2013 Comment

Sample size 3909 4176 These numbers represent the
number of respondents, although
both surveys had aimed at 5000+
participants.
Number of 56 71 Many more schools participated.
schools In both cases, classes were
selected and the questionnaire
was administered to entire
classes
Gender
Male 44.1 % 48.1 % The gender ratio compared well
Female 54.2 % 51.9 % in both surveys
Type of school
All-male 13.6 % 14.5 % The selection was proportionate
All-female 14.4 % 16.9 % to the numbers of schools in the
Co-ed 72 % 68 % various education districts
Age group
11-14 46.3 % 36.3 % There is a smaller percentage in
15-16 33.3 % 39.8 % the 11-14 age group in 2013.
17+ 16.6 % 19.4 %
In-School characteristics
Experience/ Impressions 2006 2013 Comment

Working while at school 15.2 % 13.5 %
Repeated year at school 16.3 %
Very likely to complete school 86.2 %
Male 71.5 %
Female 81.7 %
Very likely to go to University 52.3% Question should
Male 35.2 % be about the
Female 51.1 % tertiary level
61 | P a g e
Access to drugs
Easy access to 2006 2013 Comment

Marijuana 37.8 % 42.5 % Marijuana remained the easiest drug to
Cocaine 18.1 15.8 access and more students have found it
Crack 16.3 11.0 accessible in 2013. There has been a
Ecstasy 11.2 9.5 reduction in easy access to cocaine, to
LSD - 6.4 crack, and to ecstasy.
Heroin - 9.6
Curiosity to use drugs
‘Yes’ to Curiosity about 2006 2013 Comment

trying drugs
Illicit drugs 33.6 % The curiosity about trying
Marijuana 19.5 % 28.3 drugs has increased over
Cocaine 3.7 5.6 the period of time
Crack 3.3 3.6
Ecstasy 2.7
Offer to buy drugs
Who offered 2006 2013 Comment

Respondents drugs
Marijuana 19.5 %
Friends 18.4 The figures are somewhat similar for both
Someone known 7.4 surveys.
Family / relative 2.3
Someone not 4.6
known
Cocaine 3.7 Slightly less respondents had been offered
Friend 3.1 cocaine in 2013
Someone known 2.1
Family / relative 0.8
Crack 3.3 Less crack is offered in 2013
Friend 1.6 Crack is offered to less respondents in
Someone known 1.5 2013
Family / relative
Ecstasy 2.7
Friend 2.2
Someone not 1.4
known
62 | P a g e
Drug use prevalence and incidence
Cigarettes
2006 2013 Comment
Lifetime 28.7% 28.8 % These values have remained in 2006 and 2013
prevalence
Male 34.4 34.4
Female 23.7 23.6
Annual 11.4 13.9 In 2013, more students had ever used or been exposed
prevalence to cigarettes. In both years more males than females
Male 13.8 18.1 had ever used cigarettes
Female 9.2 10.0
Current use 5.6 7.1 Current use prevalence is higher in 2013, and especially
prevalence so among males
Male 7.2 9.8
Female 4.2 4.5
One year 7.6 10.7 More students initiated the use of cigarettes during this
incidence period in 2013, and the values provide twice time the
Male 9.2 14.2 rate for males as for females.
6.3 7.7
Female
One-month 2.5 3.9 More males over females have initiated the use of
incidence cigarettes within the past month before the
Male 3.1 6.6 questionnaire was administered
Female 2.0 1.5
Mean age of 11.9 12.4 Students are exposed to using drugs at a slightly older
first use age by 2013.
Median age 12.3 13
of first use
Perceived harm of smoking frequently
Very 82.7 77.9 % In 2013, fewer students are of the opinion that smoking
harmful cigarettes are very harmful in frequent use.
Not harmful 1.6 2.5 %
63 | P a g e
Alcoholic beverages
2006 2013 Comment
Lifetime 83.7 % 66.9% There is a decrease in prevalence in 2013 from 2006
prevalence
Male 82.9 64.9
Female 84.4 69.0
Annual 69.4 % 49.4% The annual prevalence has decreased over a period of
prevalence time
Male 70.3 46.3
Female 69.9 52.4
Current use 44.9 % 27.6% The current use prevalence has also decreased in 2013
prevalence
Male 57.4 26.5
Female 42.6 28.7
One year 57.5 % 41.1% The one-year incidence is relatively high for alcoholic
incidence beverages.
Male 39.7
Female 43.0
One-month 31.3% 23.2 The one-month incidence is relatively high
incidence (beer)
Male 23.5
Female 23.1
Mean age of 10.9 12.3 In 2013, first use is beginning at a later mean age in 2013
first use than in 2006
Median age of 11 13
first use
Perceived harm
If used 57.4 51.2 Perceived harm of alcoholic drinks has remained almost
frequently the same but the use of hard liquor has increased.
Use of alcoholic drinks
Beer on 11.8 % 13%
weekends
Wine on 8.4 8.1
weekends
Hard liquor 7.8 15.7
on
weekends
Binge drinking Binge drinking has increased slightly in 2013, with more
Never 68.4 63.4 use, once and over 5 times.
once 13.0 16.9
>5 times 4.3 5.3
64 | P a g e
Inhalants
2006 2013 Comment
Lifetime prevalence 26.4 % 15.5% There has been a reduction in the prevalence of inhalants.
Male 28.9 14.9 Fewer males have used the substance in 2013.
Female 23.2 16.0
Annual prevalence 13.3 6.8 Annual prevalence has decreased, and more females than
Male 11.0 6.3 males have used this substance
Female 15.2 7.2
Current use prevalence 7.5 4.2 The reduction in current use is almost 50% in 2013
Male 8.8 4.1
Female 5.8 4.4
One year incidence 9.8 7.3
Male 7.4
Female 7.2
One-month incidence 5.5 4.5
Male 4.7
Female 4.3
Mean age of first use 10 10.4 The mean and median age have remained almost the
Median age of first use 10 10.0 same. Inhalants have been used the earliest among the
drugs
Perceived harm of using frequently
Very harmful 63.1 64 Inhalants are perceived by respondents to be the least
Not harmful 2.4 3.5 harmful of the drugs in use
65 | P a g e
Marijuana
2006 2013 Comment
Lifetime prevalence 12 % 16.5% There has been an increase in the prevalence of marijuana use
Male 18 20.8 in 2013
Female 7.4 12.4
Annual prevalence 6.5% 10.7% There has been an increase in annual prevalence, more males
Male 13.6 than females have been using marijuana.
Female 8.0
Current use 2.8 % 6.2 % There has been an increase in current prevalence in 2013 for
prevalence the same period in 2006
Male 8.4
Female 4.2
One year incidence 3.8 % 8.0 %
Male 10.5
Female 5.7
One-month incidence 1.2 % 3.9 %
Male 6.1
Female 2.0
Mean age of first use 13 13.6
Median age of first 13 14
use
Perceived harm of smoking frequently
Very harmful 49.7% 64.6
%
Not harmful 3.6 8.1
Inhaling second hand smoke
Very harmful 56.4
%
Not harmful 7.6 %
Other illegal drugs

Lifetime 2006 2013 Comment
prevalence
cocaine 0.9 % 2.9 % There has been a two - fold to three - fold obvious increase in
the use of all the illegal drugs
ecstasy 0.9 1.6
crack 0.8 2.2
morphine 0.7 1.8
heroin 0.6 1.3
hashish 0.5 1.3
hallucinogens 0.5 1.2
opium 0.2 1.1
66 | P a g e
Sources of Drugs 2006 2013 Comment
Source for alcohol
Friends 17.3% 26% There is a shift, in that alcohol is provided in 2013 more by
Parents 21.4 18.7 % friends than from parents as in 2006
Other relative 19.6 17.0%
Source for Marijuana is provided by fewer friends in 2013 than in 2006

marijuana
Friends 37.6% 18.4%
Street pusher 22.5 % 9.7
Other relatives 5.7% 4.6
Sources for
cigarettes
Friends 34.1 %
Street vendors 38%
Parents / family 6.6%
67 | P a g e
6. Achievement of Objectives and Discussion
The Survey Results have indicated that the following objectives of the survey have been
achieved:
 prevalence of psychoactive substance use by secondary school students in Trinidad and

Tobago: once in a lifetime, over the past 12 months, and over the past 30 days.
 prevalence of psychoactive substance use by: gender, age, grade level, type of school
(public, private or semi-private), and Education district.
 patterns of use of the various substances.
 students’ family patterns and parental involvement in students’ life at school and their
development
 aspects related to the use of psychoactive substances: exposure to supply and use, risk
perception, among others of interest.
The results capture the socio-demography of the secondary schools of Trinidad and Tobago. In
general, the results confirm the prevalence of psychoactive substance to which the community of
secondary schools have been exposed, even from their earliest years at the primary school level.
Their relationships with friends, parents, and teachers as well as their opinion of their parents
have also been disclosed. It becomes evident that some parents are not too vigilant over their
children and their studies. Some students are aware of the presence of these drugs, some of
which are quite accessible.
Data indicate that students are not fully aware of the risks of drug use. To a lesser extent
students do not assess the harmful nature of the drugs whether on occasional or frequent use.
Drug use also appears among their family members and friends who could be the sources for
access to their use; especially from parents, relatives and friends who provide alcohol. Alcohol
in particular has the highest prevalence among the drugs, followed by cigarettes, marijuana, and
the use of solvents and inhalants. Some students would imbibe alcohol to a level of drunkenness,
or binge drinking. Students appear to have a natural curiosity for using drugs during the
adolescent years, and marijuana appears as one of the main attractants. Marijuana also appears
to be quite available, and accessible to students.
Prevalence data demonstrate early and fluctuating consumption of drugs, and incidence figures
suggest that risks to constant exposure remain among various age groups. Drug use by gender
and age has detected some patterns of use; specifically, the 15 year old and Form 4 students are
most at risk to drug use. Less that 2% of the students are using cocaine and crack, or stimulants
68 | P a g e
and tranquilizers; and lesser yet are using synthetic drugs, not even being aware of drugs that are
synthetic. There is evidence that drug use not only affects school performance but places users at
risk to harm themselves and others, causing upsets not only at school but at home among their
relatives. Drug use should now be perceived as a precursor of violence and truancy among a
small proportion of students in the school setting. With respect to use of alcohol, psychological
harm to students appears to have already set in, with a proportion of students who use alcohol
admitting to feelings of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, addiction, and sexual infliction to or with
others. It is instructive to guidance counsellors in the school setting who must now incorporate
the unsuspected role of alcohol on student performance and inter-personal reactions in the
school- home interface.
The results strongly suggest that both Parents and Teachers in the school system have to be more
vigilant about not only drug prevention, but protection of students from potential harm of drugs
that could be circulating in and around the school environment. The evidence calls for further
training of security personnel attached to schools, and indeed all school personnel. The school
should also cast an eye on the live-in arrangements for students starting at their registration.
Within the cultural context students sometimes are in different live-in arrangements from the
typical nuclear family.
The results throw a light on the need for parent education. Not only do parents require drug
education, but they are in need of parenting education on how to transverse the course of the
adolescent years with their children. Information on drugs for parents must be provided to all
who can be involved in the parenting role- guardians, step-fathers and step-mothers, and other
relatives. The survey results show that a number of parents are not closely involved with their
children in this period of their schooling, when parents should actually be seen in partnership
with the schools. There are areas of concern in terms of students’ whereabouts, TV shows
watched, as well as in terms of giving students quality time with their peers. The extent to which
parents should provide supervision of children throughout their adolescent years may require
input from counsellors. As students have become more expert than parents with their use of
technologies, there are dangers lurking in the area of access to drugs as well. With the drug
education that has been provided since 2006, there are only slight shifts in prevalence, and
growing shifts in incidence, sometimes to the detriment of the students. Alcoholic drinks and
69 | P a g e
inhalants have demonstrated declines in prevalence and incidence, however, marijuana and other
drugs have increased in prevalence.
The drug education provided to students must continue to be dynamic and age-related as the
risks of drug use would be different at different age levels. The harmful nature of drugs must be
stressed and supported with facts and evidence. In this regard the attraction for marijuana use
among adolescents should be taken into account in discussions on legalization of this drug.
70 | P a g e
7. APPENDIX
71 | P a g e
APPENDIX A
Work Plan with Adjustments
Feb' Mar' Apr' May' Jun' July' Aug' Sept' Oct' Nov- Dec' Jan' Feb' Mar' Apr' Mar' Apr' May' Jun' Jul'
Activity 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Planning
Budgeting
Question-
naire
Data
Collection
Report
Preparation
Evaluation
72 | P a g e
APPENDIX B
Excerpt from SIDUC Protocol on: Prevalence and Incidence:
The first output table with respect to these variables refers to lifetime prevalence and age of
first use.
73A. Have you ever consumed any of these substances? 74. Age at first use?
INDICATE THE ANSWER FOR EACH DRUG WITH AN (X)
NO YES
1. Tranquilizers without medical prescription Years old
2. Stimulants without medical prescription Years old
3. Inhalants (e.g. Glue, Diesel, Fuel, other Years old

Solvents)
4. Marijuana Years old
5. Coca paste Years old
6. Cocaine Years old
7. Heroin Years old
8. Opium Years old
9. Morphine Years old
10. Hallucinogens Years old
11. Hashish Years old
12. Crack Years old
13. Ecstasy Years old
14. Other drugs: Years old

………………………………….
73 | P a g e
Year and month prevalence, incidence
For each one of the drugs, there is a series of questions that make it possible to estimate the
prevalence of use over the past year and over the past month, as well as the incidence over the
past year and over the past month (that is, the proportion of new cases in each one of these
periods of time).
75a. Have you ever sniffed inhalants such as 75b. Have you used inhalants once over the
glue, whiteout, paint, thinner, etc. past 12 months?
0. I have never used inhalants (Go to 1.YES

#76a)
2.NO (Go to #76a)
1. Over the past 30 days
2. More than one month ago, but less

than one year ago
3. More than one year ago
75c. How often have you used inhalants? 75d. Have you used inhalants once over the
past 30 days?
1. Just once
1.YES
2. Several times over the past 12 months
2.NO
3. Several times a month
4. Several times a week
5. Every day
75e. Are you sniffing inhalants in order to get

high?
Yes
No
74 | P a g e
Thus, for example, for marijuana, question 75a makes it possible to estimate the incidence of
use over the past month, as well as over the past year. It is defined as follows:
number of cases in alternativ e 1

Incidence month 
Total cases of the sample  cases in alternativ es 2 or 3
number of cases in alternativ e 1 or 2

Incidence year 
Total cases of the sample  cases in alternativ e 3
Example: sample size=1,000 students. Answer to question 75a:
0 I have never used inhalants 900
1 Over the past 30 days 5
2 More than one month ago, but less than 15

one year ago
3 More than one year ago 80
Total 1.000
Incidence year = (5+15)/(1000-80) = 0.0217 (2.17%)
Incidence month = 5/(1000-80-15)=0.0055 (0.55%)
Questions 75b and 75c make it possible to estimate the prevalence of use over the past year
and over the past month, respectively.
A subject who has used the drug over the past 30 days must necessarily indicate that he/she
has used it over the past 12 months and, therefore, once in his/her lifetime. The answers to
each one of the products being examined make it possible to calculate the proportion of this
drug’s users and non-users, and so on and for the others as well.
75 | P a g e
Marijuana, Cocaine, Cocaine Base Paste, Ecstasy, Heroin, etc.
User Once in lifetime Over the past Over the past 30 Coding
year days
Type 1 Yes Yes Yes User
Type 2 Yes Yes No User
Type 3 Yes No No User
Abstinent No No No Abstinent
This analysis enables the estimation of values that trace the lifetime, annual and monthly
prevalence for each one of the drugs. However, to learn about the lifetime use prevalence of
any drug, these values cannot simply be added up. For example, if the lifetime prevalence of
marijuana is 5%, that of cocaine base paste is 4%, and that of cocaine is 3%, it cannot be said
that the lifetime prevalence of these three products is 12%. That is because in the prevalence
figure for the use of cocaine base paste, there may be a subject who is also included in the
count for the prevalence of marihuana use. In fact, because there are multidrug users, it is
impossible to add up the prevalence for each one of the products being considered. Therefore,
these variables have to be decoded as follows:
76 | P a g e
APPENDIX C – Sample Schools
77 | P a g e
Educational
School Name(New) School Address Phone # Fax # E mail address
Districts
Caroni
Cunupia Secondary Hassarath Road, Cunupia 665-5583 693-2567 cunupia.high@gmail.com
Caroni John Peter Extension, West Caroni

A.S.J.A. Boys' College, Charlieville Savannah Road, Charlieville 671-0408 671-0408 asjabcc@yahoo.con
Caroni
Holy Faith Convent, Couva Southern Main Road, Couva 636-2544 636-2544 holyfaithcouva@gov.tt
Caroni Miracle Ministries Pentecostal High 636-7740

School Southern Main Road, Mc Bean Couva 636-4201 636-4201 principal@miracleministries.org
Caroni Waterloo Secondary Waterloo Road, Carapichima 673-4060 673-0644 raymondjurawan@yahoo.com
Caroni Mc. Leod Trace, Freeport,

Carapichaima East Secondary Carapichima 673-0036 673-0036 caps3979@yahoo.com
Caroni
Couva West Secondary Balisier Road, Couva 636-2552 679-5865 couvajs@tstt.net.tt
Caroni Helen Street, Lange Park, Montrose,

Chaguanas North Secondary Chaguanas 665-4669 671-4591 chagnorthsec@gov.tt
North Eastern
Guaico Secondary Turure Rd, Guaico 668-4924
North Eastern Flamingo Blvd, Phase IV
Malabar Secondary Malabar, Arima 643-2351
North Eastern 668-6722
Manzanilla Secondary Cedar Hill Trace, Manzanilla 668-3175
North Eastern
Swaha Hindu College 3/4 Coalmine Road,Sangre Grande 691-0061 691-0061
North Eastern Graham Trace,Ojoe Road, Sangre

North Eastern College Grande 668-2479 668-2479 noreastcoll@gmail.com
667-9721
North Eastern
Valencia Secondary Oropouche Road, Valencia 667-9650 667-9721 valenciahigh2000@yahoo.com
North Eastern Graham Trace,Ojoe Road, Sangre sansec@tstt.net.tt /

Sangre Grande Secondary Grande 668-2751 668-4366 grandesec@gov.tt
North Eastern Toco Secondary Galera Road, Toco 670-8261 670-8261 armareyes@gmail.com
North Eastern Matelot Community School Paria Main Road,Matelot 670-4477 670-4477
Port of Spain
St. Francois Girls' College St. Francois Valley Road,Belmont 624-3468 623-0223 sfgcattstt.net.tt
78 | P a g e
Educational
Districts
Wendy FitzWilliam
Port of Spain Diego Martin Central Secondary Boulevard,Diamond Vale, Diego
School Martin 632-7771
Port of Spain
Holy Name Convent Port of Spain 2 Queen's Park East, Port of Spain 623-8168 624-4026 hncprincipal@ gmail.com
Port of Spain Morne Coco Rd

St.Anthony’s College Westmoorings 637-6744
Port of Spain 57-59 Pembrooke Street, Port of sjcpos@ tstt.net.tt

St. Joseph's Convent, Port of Spain Spain 625-4501 623-6278 mrodram@gmail.com
Port of Spain
St. Mary's College 75 Fredrick Street, Port of Spain 623-8835 rawleron@hotmail.com
Port of Spain
Tranquillity Secondary 5-7 Victoria Avenue, Port of Spain 625-3264 325-3264 tranquil@tstt.net.tt
Port of Spain
Belmont Boys' Secondary 34A Blemont Circular Road, Belmont 624-3783
Port of Spain
Diego Martin North Secondary St. Lucien Road, Diego Martin 637-4371 633-1740 princpaldmjs@tstt.net.tt
Port of Spain Mucurapo Rd

East Mucurapo Secondary St.James 622-6446
Port of Spain
Success/Laventille Secondary Eastern Main Road, Laventille 623-0534 623-0534
St. George East 662-4314

Hillview College Tunapuna El Dorado & College Roads, Tunapuna 662-4843
St. George East

Lakshmi Girls' Hindu College Eastern Main Road,St. Augustine 663-1380 663-1380 lakshmigirls@hotmail.com
St George East
St George’s College Cor.Sixth Ave and Tenth St,Barataria 638-8766
St George East
San Juan South Secondary Moreau Rd, San Juan
St. George East 696-0933

Caribbean Union College, St. Joseph Maracas, St. Joseph 696-0932 696-1603 caribucoll@gmail.com
St. George East caronarine@yahoo.com /

Barataria North Secondary Sixth Avenue Extension, Barataria 638-5408 barajsec@tstt.net.tt
St. George East

St. Joseph Secondary Government Farm Road,St. Joseph 662-5544 deartman@htm.com
79 | P a g e
Educational
Districts
St. George East Mt. Hope Secondary Gordon Street, Mt. Hope 638-4997 674-6254 mthopesec@gov.tt.
St. George East

Barataria South Secondary Third Avenue Extension, Barataria 638-3507 765-3622 mitrajogie@gmail.com
St. George East Saddle Road, Bourg Mulatresse,

San Juan North Secondary Lower Santa Cruz 638-3574 bonibis2002@yahoo.com
St. George East Northgate College 7 Wilson Street St. Augustine 645-0772 645-6535 northgate@northgatecollege.com
St. Patrick Shiva Boys' Hindu College 35-37, Clarke Road, Penal 647-2525
St. Patrick Point Fortin East Secondary Cape Deville Road 648-2234 648-0907 pfsss123@gmail.com
St. Patrick Parvati Girls' Hindu College Debe main Road Debe 647-0007 shreyasmile@yahoo.com
St. Patrick
Fyzabad Anglican Secondary Guapo Road, Fyzabad 677-7439 677-5341 fyzbadanglican@yahoo.com
St. Patrick Cedros Secondary Bonasse Village,Cedros 648-1174 690-1381 cedroscomposite@hotmail.com
St. Patrick
Point Fortin West Secondary Reid Road, Egypt Village, Point Fortin 648-3232 648-4951 ptfortinwestsec@gov.tt
St. Patrick
Siparia West Secondary La Brea Trace, Erin Road, Siparia 649-2352 a_zisca@hotmail.com
St Patrick
Siparia East Secondary La Brea Trace,Erin Road Siparia 649-2268
St. Patrick Fyzabad Secondary Siparia Road, Fyzabad 677-7357 677-5357
South Eastern Fifth Company Village, Moruga

Cowen Hamilton Secondary School Road,Moruga 655-2300 655-2301
South Eastern 644-0234

Rio Claro East Secondary Naparima Mayaro Road,Rio Claro 644-2303 644-0234
South Eastern Tableland Secondary Naparima/Mayaro Main Road 656-3911 656-3875 landhi@tstt.net.tt
South Eastern
Barrackpore East Secondary 903-913 Papourie Road,Barrackpore 654-0271
South Eastern
Barrackpore West Secondary Papourie Road,Barrackpore 729-2549 654-3347
South Eastern
Moruga Secondary Tompiere Trace, Basseterre,Moruga 656-4014
South Eastern East Mathilda Junction, St. Julien princessec@tstt.tt /

Princes Town West Secondary Village, Princes Town 655-4245 655-4245 debra_ramrekha@hotmail.com
South Eastern Guaracara Tabaquite Road,

Williamsville Secondary Kumar Village 655-9038 655-9038
80 | P a g e
Educational
Districts
Victoria
A.S.J.A. Girls' College, San Fernando 33-35 Park Street, San Fernando 657-8402 653-3581
Victoria Paradise Pasture, Independence

Naparima College Avenue, San Fernando 652-2415 653-4021 naparimacollege@yahoo.com
Victoria
Presentation College, San Fernando 32-34 Coffee Street, San Fernando 652-2311 652-5389 presentationcollege@hotmail
Victoria City Square, Harris Promenade, San

St. Joseph Convent, San Fernando Fernando 652-3301 652-7591 sjcaf@tstt.net.tt
Palmiste Branch Road,
Victoria DuncanVillage, La Romaine, 657-8012
Southern Academy of S.D.A. San Fernando 657-6036 652-0291 southernacademy1953@gmail.com
Victoria
Marabella North Secondary 11/4 mm Guaracara Tabaquite Road 658-5774 658-5774 Marbellanorthsec@gov.tt
Victoria
Ste. Madeleine Secondary School Corinth Road, Ste. Madeleine 652-3056 652-3057 stemadeleinesec.@gmail.com
Victoria
Pleasantville Secondary 200 Collector Road, Pleasantville 657-9070 657-9070 previl@tstt.net.tt
Tobago Bishop High School, Tobago Mt. Marie Road, Tobago 639-2534 639-3159
Tobago 2-8 Punch Bowl, Sandy River,

Mason Hall Secondary Mason Hall Tobago 635-0449 635-0449 marslyn2co2@yahoo.com
Tobago Speyside Secondary Lucy Vale, Speyside, Tobago 660-4201 660-6150 twp2000@tstt.net.tt
Tobago
Pentecostal Light & Life Foundation Sangster's Hill, Scarborough 639-2596 660-7059
Tobago Shaw Park, Milford Road,

Scarborough Secondary School Scarborough, Tobago 639-4093 639-2467
639-6255
Tobago
Signal Hill Secondary Signal Hill Road, Tobago 639-3407
Tobago
Harmon School of SDA 11 Brieves Road, Rockley , Tobago 639-2592 635-1767 harmonschool@tstt.net.tt
81 | P a g e
82 | P a g e

NADAPP Sec School Drug Report 2013 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NADAPP Sec School Drug Report 2013 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

National Secondary

The Inter-American Drug Abuse Control

in Trinidad and Tobago, 2013

ADAPP Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Programme, Tobago

CICAD Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission

MEM Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism

NADAPP National Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Programme

OAS Organization of American States

OID Inter-American Observatory on Drugs

SIDUC Inter-American Uniform Drug Use Data System

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Table 1.1: Geographic distribution of students participating by Education district

Table 2.7: Students having meals together with parents

Table 2.8: Respondents relationship with father/guardian

Table 2.9: Respondents’ relationships with mother/guardian

Table 2.10: Opinion on fathers’ reaction to student being drunk or tipsy

Table 2.10a: Opinion on fathers’ reaction to male/female student being drunk

Table 2.11: Opinion on mothers’ reaction to student being drunk or tipsy

Table 2.12: Opinion on reaction of mother/ guardian to student smoking marijuana

Table 2.12a: Opinion on reaction of mother/ guardian to male/female student smoking

Table 2.14: Respondents’ relationships with father/guardian

Table 2.15: Respondents’ relationship with mother/guardian

Table 2.17: Drinking habits of father/guardian

Table 2.18: Drinking Habits of mother/guardian

Table 3.1: How happy respondent is at school

Table 3.2: Respondents’ sense of belonging at school

Table 3.3: How often respondents skip school

Table 3.4: Respondents absence from school, regardless of reason

Table 3.5: Respondents relationship with teachers

Table 3.7: Probability of finishing school and continuing to University

Table 3.7a: Probability of finishing school and continuing to University by gender

Table 3.8: Students opinions on drugs in the school environment by gender

Table 7.2: Drugs with lifetime prevalence less than 2%

Table 7.3: Age group and lifetime prevalence of drug use

Table 7.6: Lifetime prevalence by Type of School

Table 8.1: One-year and one-month incidence of drug use frequency %,

Table 8.8: Access to tranquilizers and stimulants

Table 8.9: Frequency of use of potential psychoactive substances

Table 9.1: From whom do students usually obtain alcohol

Table 10.2: Drugs recognized as synthetic drugs

Table 10.3: Comparison of drug users’ frequency of drug use as percentage

Chart 1.1 Geographic Distribution of Participants

The research survey met the following objectives, described as:

Risk Perception and Curiosity

Table: Perceived effects - very harmful drugs if used frequently

Drug if used frequently Very harmful Males Females

Prevalence and Incidence of drug use

Lifetime Past Year Past-month

Alcoholic Drinks 65.2 52.7 73.5

Cigarettes 28.8 13.9 7.1

Tranquilizers 2.9 1.6 0.9

Stimulants 4.0 1.4 1.0

Solvents and Inhalants 15.5 6.8 4.3

Marijuana 16.5 10.7 6.2

Cocaine 2.9 1.5 0.9

Crack 2.2 1.2 .7

Any illegal drug 30.5 16.5 9.9

Table: Mean Incidence of use of drug

Substance Use One-year One-month

Comparison of survey results 2006, 2013

The specific objectives of this survey were to: