Healthy Youth Development: Richmond Region
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fort Nelson ! Dawson Creek ! Healthy Youth Hazelton ! ! Prince Rupert ! Prince Kitimat ! George Quesnel Bella ! Williams Coola ! Lake Development Golden ! Lillooet ! Kamloops ! Whistler ! Kelowna Cranbrook Richmond ! ! Nelson ! Richmond Victoria Region Highlights from the 2003 Adolescent Health Survey III The McCreary Centre Society The McCreary Centre Society 3552 East Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C. V5K 2A7 www.mcs.bc.ca Healthy Youth Development: Richmond Region Regional Results from the 2003 Adolescent Health Survey III © The McCreary Centre Society, 2004 ISBN: 1-895438-67-5 3552 East Hastings Street Vancouver, B.C. V5K 2A7 Tel: (604) 291-1996 Fax: (604) 291-7308 E-mail: [email protected] www.mcs.bc.ca The Adolescent Health Survey is a project of Project team The McCreary Centre Society, a non- Roger S. Tonkin government, non-profit organization commit- Board Chair ted to improving the health of B.C. youth Aileen Murphy through research, education and Managing Director community-based projects. Founded in 1977, the Society sponsors and promotes a wide Minda Chittenden Research Associate range of activities and research to address unmet health needs of young people. Areas of Philippa Jackson interest include: Research Assistant • Health risk behaviours Jesse Dostal Research/Administrative Assistant • Disease prevention and health promotion • Youth participation and leadership skills Alison Liebel Communications Coordinator development Rita Green Survey Consultant The McCreary Centre Society acknowledges the support of the Province of British Columbia, Dodie Katzenstein Ministry of Children and Family Development, Communications Consultant Ministry of Health Services, Inter-Ministry Advisory Committee, AHS Project Advisory Richmond — Regional coordinators and Committee, staff of participating school districts, administrators and B.C.’s public health nurses. Thank you to the youth of British Columbia who Cathy Houldson Linda Ireland responded to the Adolescent Health Survey. Your Margie Basaraba-Luciuk Anne Lacey amazing levels of participation and attention to Debbie Brow Chris Salgado completing the survey are greatly appreciated. Betty Charnaw Karen Stephen Judy Dale Susanna Suen The views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the official policy of the Province of British Jennifer Hill Columbia. Healthy Youth Development: Richmond Region was written by Dodie Katzenstein and designed by Alison Liebel. Inside this report Some Definitions: Regions and Geographic Areas 4 Key Provincial Findings 6 Location Matters: How Greater Vancouver Compares 8 About the Survey 10 Family Background 12 Substance Use 13 Sexual Behaviour 17 Physical Health 19 Injuries 22 Emotional Health 24 Violence & Safety 27 School 29 Community & Leisure 30 Healthy Youth Development 33 Geographic Comparisons 38 AHS III Resources 41 References 42 Some definitions: Regions & geographic areas This report is part of a series of regional reports (Due to low school district participation in the from the 2003 Adolescent Health Survey (AHS Fraser Valley, 2003 results are not available for that area.) III), conducted by The McCreary Centre Society. The Adolescent Health Survey is the most exten- These regional reports are not intended to point sive study ever conducted of the physical and out deficiencies in youth health status in differ- emotional health of B.C. youth, and of factors ent parts of the province, or to imply that par- that can influence health during adolescence and ents, schools or service providers in some throughout life. regions are not meeting the needs of their youth. Regional data are released at the request of Regions and geographic areas schools, professionals and community agencies; Richmond is one of 16 administrative areas, those who work with young people have ex- called Health Service Delivery Areas (HSDAs), pressed an interest in knowing the survey results established by the B.C. government in 2001. AHS as specifically as possible for their region. It is III regional reports have been produced for most hoped that information from the various regions of the HSDAs, with sufficient data collected from will enable recognition of health promotion and 13 of the administrative areas. The reports in- prevention efforts that are working well, and clude data from all 140 questions on the 2003 also of issues on which more effort is needed to survey. improve youth health. All three Adolescent Health Surveys (1992, The Richmond School District (#38) is the 1998, 2003) drew a sample of students from only school district in the Richmond Region. each of eight geographic areas (Greater Vancou- ver, Capital, Fraser Valley, Interior, Kootenay, Upper Island, Northwest and Northeast) to enable consistent reporting of survey results for separate parts of the province. In this report, the word “region” is used to refer to the HSDA of Richmond. The Richmond region is located in the Greater Vancouver geographic area. 4 Healthy Youth Development: Richmond Region Defining Geographic Areas and Regions The 1992 AHS drew a sample of students from each of eight geographic areas: Greater Vancou- ver, Capital, Fraser Valley, Interior, Kootenay, Upper Island, Northwest 8 and Northeast. This allowed 1. Greater Vancouver reporting of survey results for 2. Capital 7 separate areas of the province. In 3. Fraser Valley this report, the same eight geo- 4. Interior graphic areas (with a few minor 5. Kootenay realignments) are used to report 6. Upper Island some AHS III survey results, 7. Northwest 6 5 enabling tracking of trends since 8. Northeast 4 the 1992 survey. 6 3 1 2 NOTE: The term “geographic area” refers to one of eight areas of the province as defined in the 1992 Adolescent Health Survey. The term “region” as used in this report refers to the Ministry of Health Services’ Health Service Delivery Areas. The Richmond region is located in the Greater Vancouver geographic area. Geographic Areas and School Districts Health Service 1. Greater Vancouver 4. Interior Qualicum #69 Delivery Areas Langley #35A Revelstoke #19B Alberni #70 Northern: Surrey #36 Vernon #22 Comox Valley #71 Northwest Delta #37 Central Okanagan #23 Campbell River #72 Northeast Richmond #38 Okanagan Similkameen #53 Cowichan Valley #79 Northern Interior Vancouver #39 Nicola-Similkameen #58 Vancouver Island West #84 New Westminster #40 Okanagan Skaha #67 Vancouver Island North #85 Interior: Burnaby #41 Kamloops/Thompson #73 Thompson Cariboo Shuswap A 7. Northwest Maple Ridge #42 Gold Trail #74 Okanagan Haida Gwaii/ Coquitlam #43 N. Okanagan-Shuswap #83 Kootenay Boundary Queen Charlotte #50 North Vancouver #44 East Kootenay West Vancouver #45 5. Kootenay Prince Rupert #52 Southeast Kootenay #5 Bulkley Valley #54 Vancouver Island: 2. Capital Rocky Mountain #6 Coast Mountains #82 North Vancouver Island Greater Victoria #61 Kootenay Lake #8 Stikine #87 Central Vancouver Island Sooke #62 Arrow Lakes #10 Nisga’a #92 South Vancouver Island Saanich #63 Kootenay-Columbia #20 Gulf Islands #64 Boundary #51 8. Northeast Vancouver Coastal: Cariboo-Chilcotin #27 North Shore/Coast Garibaldi 3. Fraser Valley 6. Upper Island Quesnel #28 Vancouver Chilliwack #33 Sunshine Coast #46 Prince George #57 Richmond Abbotsford #34 Powell River #47 Peace River South #59 Mission #75 Howe Sound #48C Peace River North #60 Fraser: Fraser-Cascade #78 Central Coast #49 Fort Nelson #81 Fraser North Nanaimo-Ladysmith #68 Nechako Lakes #91D Fraser South Fraser East A Reassigned from Fraser Valley in 1992 to Greater Vancouver for the 1998 survey. B Reassigned from Kootenay in 1992 to the Interior for the 1998 survey. C Reassigned from Interior in 1992 to the Upper Island for the 1998 survey. D Reassigned from Northwest in 1992 to the Northeast for the 1998 survey. The McCreary Centre Society 5 Key provincial findings AHS III shows that the health of B.C.’s youth Top marks overall has gradually improved over the past decade. In many respects, young people in the Dramatic decrease in smoking province are in better health and taking fewer The most dramatic news out of the 2003 Adoles- risks than youth five or ten years ago. These cent Health Survey was an 18% drop in smoking trends are especially encouraging among early among B.C. youth since 1998, a very positive adolescents. All three surveys show that most development since smoking is linked to serious young people are healthy, exercise regularly, feel health risks. close to their families, enjoy school, and have high aspirations for the future. The majority of Most youth have good health students appear to be coping well with the tran- Almost nine out of ten B.C. teenagers report sition through adolescence. having good or excellent physical health, consist- ent with the survey results from five years ago. A provincial report Healthy Youth Development: Highlights from the 2003 Adolescent Health Youth are waiting longer to have sex Survey III was released in April 2004 and out- Many B.C. youth are waiting longer to have sex, lines “Top marks” for youth health in B.C. and especially girls. Another positive development is areas for improvement. The report is available a gradual decline in early sexual activity among online at www.mcs.bc.ca. younger adolescents over the past decade. Among sexually active youth, more are practising safe sex. Substance use has decreased Substance use among B.C. youth declined slightly in the past five years for alcohol, marijuana, and harder drugs. Youth are waiting longer to try alcohol, especially young teens, and marijuana use decreased slightly. Fewer injuries Injuries from motor vehicle accidents have de- clined, and some injury prevention behaviours have improved. Drinking and driving decreased significantly among young licensed drivers in B.C., though seatbelt use declined. 6 Healthy Youth Development: Richmond Region Abuse has declined • Youth with a health condition or disability, Physical and sexual abuse of B.C. youth has and those who look older than their age are declined over the past decade, especially the at higher risk. number of girls reporting sexual abuse. A history • Youth who moved three or more times in the of abuse is associated with a range of negative past year feel less connected to their families outcomes for youth.