Appendix A: State Estimation Methodology

This report includes estimates of 22 substance use measures (see Section A.1) using the combined data from the 2003 and 2004 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (NSDUHs). In addition to the 21 substance use measures for which age group–specific State estimates were produced and documented in the 2003 State report (Wright & Sathe, 2005), there is a new measure, past year nonmedical pain reliever use, introduced in this report. Also included in this report are estimates of change between 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 State estimates. This report is similar to the 2000 and 2001 State reports (Wright, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a, 2003b) that contained age group–specific State estimates obtained by pooling 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA)⁸ data, respectively. The 2001 State report also contained estimates of change between the 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 data for the 12 common substance use measures. As discussed in Chapter 1 (Section 1.1), several changes were introduced to the survey in 2002; thus, estimates for 2001 and prior years are not comparable with estimates from 2002 and later years.

The survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes (SWHB) methodology used in the production of State estimates from the 1999–2003 surveys also was used in the production of the 2003-2004 State estimates. The SWHB methodology is described in Appendix E of the 2001 State report (Wright, 2003b) and by Folsom, Shah, and Vaish (1999). The list of predictors used in the 2003-2004 small area estimation (SAE) modeling is given in Section A.2. The methodology used to select relevant predictors remains similar to the one used in prior years and is described in brief in Section A.3. The goals of SAE modeling, general model description, and the implementation of SAE modeling remain the same and are described in Appendix E of the 2001 State report (Wright, 2003b). At the end of this appendix, tables showing the 2002, 2003, 2004, pooled 2002-2003, and pooled 2003-2004 survey response rates are included (Table s A.1 to A.12).

Small area estimates obtained using the SWHB methodology are design consistent (i.e., for States with large sample sizes, the small area estimates are close to the robust design-based estimates). The State small area estimates when aggregated by using the appropriate population totals result in national small area estimates that are very close to the national design-based estimates. However, for numerous reasons (including internal consistency), it is desirable to have national small area estimates exactly match the national design-based estimates. Beginning in 2002, exact benchmarking was introduced as described in Section A.4. The definition and explanation of the formula used in estimating the marijuana incidence rate is given in Section A.5.

Included in this report for the first time are estimates of underage (ages 12 to 20) alcohol use and binge alcohol use. For all other outcomes the age groups of interest were 12 to 17, 18 to 25, and 26 or older. As alcohol consumption is expected to differ significantly across the 18 to 25 age group due to the legalization of alcohol at age 21, it was decided that it would be useful to produce small area estimates for persons aged 12 to 20. A short description of methodology used to produce underage drinking estimates is described in Section A.6.

Section A.7 discusses how serious psychological distress (SPD) estimates were produced. The methodology used to produce estimates of change between the 2002-2003 and the 2003-2004 State estimates is described in Section A.8.

A.2 Predictors Used in Mixed Logistic Regression Models

Local area data used as potential predictor variables in the mixed logistic regression models were obtained from several sources, including Claritas Inc., the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Uniform Crime Reports), Health Resources and Services Administration (Area Resource File), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services [N-SSATS]), and the National Center for Health Statistics (mortality data). The list of major sources and potential data items used in the modeling are provided in the following text and lists.

Claritas. The demographic data package called Building Block Basic, Age by Race for 2002 with projections to 2007.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. The 2000 census (demographic and socioeconomic variables) and 2002 food stamp participation rates.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Report (UCR) arrest totals from http://fisher.lib.Virginia.EDU/collections/stats/crime/. The most current data used are 2002 for most counties, with previous years' data substituted in a few cases.

Health Resources and Services Administration. Some variables relating to income and employment from the Area Resource File (ARF) February 2003 and February 2004 release from the Bureau of Health Professions, Office of Research and Planning.

National Center for Health Statistics. Mortality data using International Classification of Diseases, 10^th revision (ICD–10), 1999–2002. The ICD–10 death rate data are from the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies. National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS), formerly known as the Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS). The 2003-2004 data on drug and alcohol treatment rates are from Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc.

The following lists provide the specific independent variables that were potential predictors in the models.

Claritas Data
Description	Level
% Population aged 0–19 in block group	Block group
% Population aged 20–24 in block group	Block group
% Population aged 25–34 in block group	Block group
% Population aged 35–44 in block group	Block group
% Population aged 45–54 in block group	Block group
% Population aged 55–64 in block group	Block group
% Population aged 65+ in block group	Block group
% Blacks in block group	Block group
% Hispanics in block group	Block group
% Other race in block group	Block group
% Whites in block group	Block group
% Males in block group	Block group
% Females in block group	Block group
% American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut in tract	Tract
% Asian, Pacific Islander in tract	Tract
% Population aged 0–19 in tract	Tract
% Population aged 20–24 in tract	Tract
% Population aged 25–34 in tract	Tract
% Population aged 35–44 in tract	Tract
% Population aged 45–54 in tract	Tract
% Population aged 55–64 in tract	Tract
% Population aged 65+ in tract	Tract
% Blacks in tract	Tract
% Hispanics in tract	Tract
% Other race in tract	Tract
% Whites in tract	Tract
% Males in tract	Tract
% Females in tract	Tract
% Population aged 0–19 in county	County
% Population aged 20–24 in county	County
% Population aged 25–34 in county	County
% Population aged 35–44 in county	County
% Population aged 45–54 in county	County
% Population aged 55–64 in county	County
% Population aged 65+ in county	County
% Blacks in county	County
% Hispanics in county	County
% Other race in county	County
% Whites in county	County
% Males in county	County
% Females in county	County

2000 Census Data
Description	Level
% Population who dropped out of high school	Tract
% Housing units built in 1940–1949	Tract
% Persons 16–64 with a work disability	Tract
% Hispanics who are Cuban	Tract
% Females 16 years or older in labor force	Tract
% Females never married	Tract
% Females separated/divorced/widowed/other	Tract
% One-person households	Tract
% Female head of household, no spouse, child 18	Tract
% Males 16 years or older in labor force	Tract
% Males never married	Tract
% Males separated/divorced/widowed/other	Tract
% Housing units built in 1939 or earlier	Tract
Average persons per room	Tract
% Families below poverty level	Tract
% Households with public assistance income	Tract
% Housing units rented	Tract
% Population 9–12 years of school, no high school diploma	Tract
% Population 0–8 years of school	Tract
% Population with associate's degree	Tract
% Population some college and no degree	Tract
% Population with bachelor's, graduate, professional degree	Tract
Median rents for rental units	Tract
Median value of owner-occupied housing units	Tract
Median household income	Tract

Uniform Crime Report Data
Description	Level
Drug possession arrest rate	County
Drug sale/manufacture arrest rate	County
Drug violations' arrest rate	County
Marijuana possession arrest rate	County
Marijuana sale/manufacture arrest rate	County
Opium cocaine possession arrest rate	County
Opium cocaine sale/manufacture arrest rate	County
Other drug possession arrest rate	County
Other dangerous non-narcotics arrest rate	County
Serious crime arrest rate	County
Violent crime arrest rate	County
Driving under influence arrest rate	County

Other Categorical Data
Description	Source	Level
=1 if Hispanic, =0 otherwise	Sample	Person
=1 if non-Hispanic Black, =0 otherwise	Sample	Person
=1 if non-Hispanic Other, =0 otherwise	Sample	Person
=1 if male, =0 if female	Sample	Person
=1 if MSA with 1 million +, =0 otherwise	2000 Census	County
=1 if MSA with <1 million, =0 otherwise	2000 Census	County
=1 if Non-MSA Urban, =0 otherwise	2000 Census	Tract
=1 if Urban Area, =0 if Rural Area	2000 Census	Tract
=1 if no Cubans in tract, =0 otherwise	2000 Census	Tract
=1 if no arrests for dangerous non-narcotics, =0 otherwise	UCR	County

Miscellaneous Data
Variable Description	Source	Level
Alcohol death rate, underlying cause	NCHS-ICD-10	County
Cigarettes death rate, underlying cause	NCHS-ICD-10	County
Drug death rate, underlying cause	NCHS-ICD-10	County
Alcohol treatment rate	N-SSATS (formerly called UFDS)	County
Alcohol and drug treatment rate	N-SSATS (formerly called UFDS)	County
Drug treatment rate	N-SSATS (formerly called UFDS)	County
% Families below poverty level	ARF	County
Unemployment rate	ARF	County
Per capita income (in thousands)	ARF	County
Average suicide rate (per 10,000)	ARF	County
Food stamp participation rate	Census Bureau	County
Single state agency maintenance of effort	National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD)	State
Block grant awards	SAMHSA	State
Cost of Services Factor Index	SAMHSA	State
Total Taxable Resources Per Capita Index	U.S. Department of Treasury	State

A.4 Benchmarking the Age Group–Specific Small Area Estimates

The self-calibration built into the SWHB solution ensures that the population-weighted average of the State small area estimates will closely match the national design-based estimates. Given the self-calibration ensured by the SWHB solution, for State reports prior to 2002, the standard Bayes prescription was followed; specifically, the posterior mean was used for the SAE point estimate, and the tail percentiles of the posterior distribution were used for the prediction interval limits.

Singh and Folsom (2001) extended Ghosh's (1992) results on constrained Bayes estimation to include exact benchmarking to design-based national estimates. In the simplest version of this constrained Bayes solution where only the design-based mean is imposed as a benchmarking constraint, each of the State-by-age group small area estimates (for 2003-2004) is adjusted by adding the common factor image representing delta _a = (D_a - P_a), where D_a is the design-based national prevalence estimate and P_a is the population-weighted mean of the State small area estimates (P_sa) for age group-a. The exactly benchmarked State-s and age group-a small area estimates then are given by image representing theta _sa = P_sa + image representing delta _a. Experience with such additive adjustments suggests that the resulting exactly benchmarked State small area estimates always will be between 0 and 100 percent because the SWHB self-calibration ensures that the adjustment factor is small relative to the size of the State-level small area estimates.

Relative to the Bayes posterior mean, these benchmark-constrained State small area estimates are biased by the common additive adjustment factor. Therefore, the posterior mean-squared error for each benchmarked State small area estimate has the square of this adjustment factor added to its posterior variance. To achieve the desirable feature of exact benchmarking, this constrained Bayes adjustment factor was implemented for the State-by-age group small area estimates. The associated credible intervals can be recentered at the benchmarked small area estimates on the logit scale with the symmetric interval end points based on the posterior root mean-squared errors. The adjusted 95 percent prediction intervals (PIs) (Lower_sa, Upper_sa) are defined below:

Lower_sa = exp(L_sa)/[1 + exp(L_sa)] and Upper_sa = exp(U_sa)/[1 + exp(U_sa)],

where

L_sa = log[ image representing theta _sa/(1 - _sa)] - 1.96 * image representing the square root of M S E sub s a ,

U_sa = log[ image representing theta _sa/(1 - _sa)] + 1.96 * image representing the square root of M S E sub s a , and

MSE_sa = (log[P_sa/(1 - P_sa)]- log[ image representing theta _sa/(1 - _sa)])² + posterior variance of log[P_sa/(1 - P_sa)].

The associated posterior coverage probabilities for these benchmarked intervals are very close to the prescribed 0.95 value because the State small area estimates have posterior distributions that can be approximated exceptionally well by a Gaussian distribution.

A.5 Calculation of Average Annual Incidence of Marijuana Use

Incidence rates typically are calculated as the number of new initiates of a substance during a period of time (such as in the past year) divided by an estimate of the number of person years of exposure (in thousands). The incidence definition used in this report employs a simpler form of the at-risk-population based on the model-based methodology. This model-based average annual incidence rate is defined as follows:

Average annual incidence rate = {(Number of marijuana initiates in past 24 months) /
[(Number of marijuana initiates in past 24 months * 0.5) +
Number of persons who never used marijuana]} / 2.

In this report, the incidence rate is expressed as a percentage or rate per 100 person years of exposure. Note that this estimate uses a 2–year time period to accumulate incidence cases from each annual survey. By assuming further that the distribution of first use for the incidence cases is uniform across the 2–year interval, the total number of person years of exposure is 1 year on average for the incidence cases plus 2 years for all the "never users" at the end of the time period. This approximation to the person years of exposure permits one to recast the incidence rate as a function of two population prevalence rates, namely, the fraction of persons who first used marijuana in the past 2 years and the fraction who had never used marijuana. Both of these prevalence estimates were estimated using the SWHB estimation approach.

The count of persons who first used marijuana in the past 2 years is based on a "moving" 2–year period that ranges over 3 calendar years. Subjects were asked when they first used marijuana. If a person indicated first use of marijuana between the day of the interview and 2 years prior, the person was included in the count. Thus, it is possible for a person interviewed in the first part of 2004 to indicate first use as early as the first part of 2002 or as late as the first part of 2004. Similarly, a subject interviewed in the last part of 2004 could indicate first use as early as the last part of 2002 or as late as the last part of 2004. Therefore, in the 2004 survey, the reported period of first use ranged from early 2002 to late 2004 and was "centered" in 2003. About half of the 12 to 17 year olds who reported first use in the past 24 months reported first use in 2003, while a quarter each reported first use in 2002 and 2004. Persons who responded in 2004 that they had never used marijuana were included in the count of "never used." Similarly, reports of first use in past 24 months from the 2003 survey ranged from early 2000 to late 2003 and were centered in 2002. Half of the 12 to 17 year olds who reported first use in the past 24 months reported first use in 2002, while a quarter each reported first use in 2000 and 2003. Note that only incidence rates for marijuana use are provided in this report.

A.7 Serious Psychological Distress

In 2004, SPD was measured using the K6 screening instrument for nonspecific psychological distress (Furukawa, Kessler, Slade, & Andrews, 2003; Kessler et al., 2003). In previous NSDUH reports, the K6 scale was referred to as a measure of serious mental illness (SMI). SMI was first measured by the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) in 2001 for all persons aged 18 or older. SAMHSA's official definition of adults with SMI, based on a notice published in the Federal Register (SAMHSA, Center for Mental Health Services, 1993), is as follows:

Pursuant to section 1912(c) of the Public Health Service Act, adults with serious mental illness (SMI) are persons: (1) age 18 and over and (2) who currently have, or at any time during the past year, had a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria specified within DSM-IV or their ICD-9-CM equivalent (and subsequent revisions) with the exception of DSM-IV "V" codes, substance use disorders, and developmental disorders, which are excluded, unless they co-occur with another diagnosable serious mental illness. (3) That has resulted in functional impairment which substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.

In prior NSDUH reports, the K6 scale was used to measure SMI according to the above definition. The K6 consists of six questions that ask respondents how frequently they experienced symptoms of psychological distress during the 1 month in the past year when they were at their worst emotionally. The use of this scale for SMI was based on a methodological study designed to evaluate several screening scales for measuring SMI in NSDUH. These scales consisted of a truncated version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF) scale (Kessler, Andrews, Mroczek, Üstün, & Wittchen, 1998), the K10/K6 scale of nonspecific psychological distress (Furukawa et al., 2003), and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS) (Rehm et al., 1999).

In the 2003 NSDUH, the mental health module contained a truncated version of the CIDI-SF scale, the K10/K6 scale, and the WHO-DAS scale to mirror the questions used by Kessler et al. (2003). Thus, the module contained a broad array of questions about mental health (i.e., panic attacks, depression, mania, phobias, generalized anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and use of mental health services) that preceded the K6 items, and the four extra questions in the K10 scale were interspersed among the items in the K6 scale. To create a score, the responses to six items on the K6 scales were coded from 0 to 4. Summing across all the responses resulted in a score with a range from 0 to 24. Respondents with a total score of 13 or greater were classified as having a past year SMI. This cutpoint was chosen to equalize false positives and false negatives.

In the 2004 NSDUH, however, the sample of respondents aged 18 or older was split evenly between the "long-form" module, which included all items in the mental health module used in the 2003 NSDUH (sample A), and a "short-form" module consisting only of the K6 items (sample B). The short-form version was introduced to reduce interview time, removing questions that were not needed for estimation of SMI, and to provide space for a new module on depression. Inclusion of the long-form version in half of the sample was to measure the impact on the K6 responses of changing the context of the K6.

Results from the 2004 NSDUH showed large differences at the national level between the two samples in both the K6 total score and the proportion of respondents with a K6 total score of 13 or greater. These differences were most pronounced in the 18 to 25 age group. These differences suggested that the K6 scale was not context-independent; that is, respondents appeared to respond to the K6 items differently depending on whether the scale was preceded by a broad array of other mental health questions. There were other concerns as well. For example, the face validity of the K6 scale suggests that it may be more useful as a measure of psychological distress or of affective-mood and anxiety-type disorders. A direct consequence of these concerns was that a decision was made that the K6 would no longer be used to measure SMI. However, the K6 data are still useful as an indicator of psychological distress (see Section B.4.4 of OAS, 2005c).

The 2004 national SPD estimates therefore were based only on data from sample A (respondents who got the long-form module). For the purpose of producing State-level estimates for this report, however, an adjusted measure of SPD, which was produced for the entire sample of respondents aged 18 or older in 2004, was used, and SMI data from 2003 were pooled with data using this adjusted measure of SPD from 2004. The adjustment made to the SPD score on the short-form module is described in brief here.

A logistic regression model was used to estimate differences between the short- and long-form SPD prevalence rates (i.e., propensities). Several demographic and drug use covariates were included in the model, and it was found that the propensities varied according to race/ethnicity and age group. Five propensity strata based on race/ethnicity and age group were constructed from the results of this analysis. Tests suggested that a gross adjustment approach might be more appropriate than an item-based adjustment approach. As a consequence, the cumulative distribution function (CDF) (gross) adjustment method was applied within each of the five propensity strata, and the method appeared to work quite well in adjusting the marginal estimates of a number of important demographic and drug use variables. This method also was shown to be fairly robust to the way the propensity strata were defined.

Consideration also was given to the use of this logistic regression model to provide adjustments, as well as to provide propensity estimates. However, although this approach was useful for estimating propensities, it was not useful in determining how to adjust individual short-form respondents' SPD prevalence rates to match those of long-form respondents within covariate profiles. Using this approach, the only way to match prevalence rates would be to use long-form prevalence estimates in place of short-form prevalence estimates within covariate profiles. This is equivalent to discarding all short-form data after the logistic regression model has been fitted. A similar argument applies to the use of polytomous logistic regression models to estimate differences between short- and long-form SPD scores.

Before the CDF adjustment method was developed, consideration also was given to ad hoc adjustments to differences between short- and long-form SPD scores within covariate profiles, estimated from, say, polytomous regression models. For example, if the average difference between short- and long-form SPD scores for a particular covariate profile (e.g., white females aged 12 to 17 in the West) was 1.7, then all short-form SPD scores would be reduced by that amount in the profile. However, there are a couple of problems with this ad hoc approach. First, this approach is equivalent to shifting the entire distribution of short-form scores to the left, creating a set of adjusted values ranging from –1.7 to 22.3 instead of 0 to 24. Second, although this approach might force SPD scores to match on average within a profile, there is no guarantee that they would match at the SPD cutpoint of 13, which defines prevalence rates. A variation to this approach would be to multiply short-form scores by a factor that forced the scores to match on average, but this is equivalent to rescaling the short-form distribution so that all scores are shrunk toward zero. Neither of these ad hoc methods was optimal. Hence, the CDF adjustment method was used to transform the distribution of scores obtained from the short-form module to match that of the long-form module such that the distributional properties of the SPD scores from the short-form module matched the distributional properties of the SPD scores from the long-form module, without the scores matching exactly.

Adjusted short-form SPD scores and prevalence rates (based on the CDF adjustment method) were not used to derive national estimates for the 2004 survey. National estimates used a much finer categorization for some of the demographic and substance use variables than were used in the creation of the adjusted SPD outcome, and at these finer categorizations some notable discrepancies were observed between adjusted short-form and corresponding long-form prevalence rates. For this reason, national estimates of SPD scores and prevalence rates were derived from only long-form data.

Adjusted short-form SPD scores and prevalence rates were used to derive State-level estimates based on pooled 2003 and 2004 survey data. Because State-level estimates used a much coarser categorization of demographic and substance use variables than national estimates, the problem of discrepancies observed at the finer categorization of national estimates did not occur. In addition, unlike national estimates, which were based on large sample sizes, State-level estimates were typically based on small sample sizes. Hence, it was necessary to use all the data available, including the adjusted short-form data. For details on how the CDF adjustment was implemented, see Aldworth, Chromy, Foster, Heller, and Novak (2005).

A.8 Measuring Change in State Estimates between 2002-2003 and 2003-2004

The estimates of change between State estimates displayed in Appendix C are based on the 2002 through 2004 NSDUHs. The State estimates for 2002-2003 are the previously published model-based small area estimates (see Wright & Sathe, 2005). The State estimates for 2003-2004 are the small area estimates given in Appendix B. The moving average State prevalence estimates for the overlapping 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 time periods were obtained from independent applications of RTI's SWHB methodology; that is, the 2003-2004 models were fit independently of the previously fitted 2002-2003 models. This independent analysis approach was followed because there was no desire to revise the previously published estimates. Moreover, the same fixed predictor variables were used in the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 models, but annual updates were made when more current versions became available. The age group–specific fixed predictor variables were defined at five levels (namely, person-level, 2000 decennial census block group-level, tract-level, county-level, and State-level). Also, each age group model had 51 State-level random effects and 300 substate region–level random effects.

To estimate change in State estimates, let image representing pi _sa(1) and _sa(2) denote 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 prevalence rates, respectively, for State-s and age group-a. The change between _sa(1) and _sa(2) is defined in terms of the log-odds ratio (lor_sa) as opposed to the simple difference because the posterior distribution of the lor_sa is closer to Gaussian than the posterior distribution of the simple difference ( image representing pi _sa(2) – _sa(1)). The lor_sa is defined as

Equation A-1 . D

The p value given in the Appendix C tables is computed to test the null hypothesis of no change (i.e., image representing pi _sa(2) = _sa(1) or equivalently lor_sa = 0. An estimate of lor_sa is given by

Equation A-2 , D

where the p_sa₍₁₎ are previously published 2002-2003 State estimates and the p_sa₍₂₎ are the 2003-2004 State estimates presented in this report (see Appendix B). To compute the variance of The estimate of the log-odds ratio, lor hat, sub s and a , i.e., Variance v of the estimate of the log-odds ratio, lor hat, sub s and a , let Theta 1 hat is defined as the ratio of p 1 sub s and a and 1 minus p 1 sub s and a and Theta 2 hat is defined as the ratio of p 2 sub s and a and 1 minus p 2 sub s and a , then

Equation A-7 , D

where covariance between the logarithm of Theta 1 hat and the logarithm of Theta 2 hat. denotes the covariance between and . This covariance is defined in terms of the associated correlation as follows:

Equation A-11 . D

Note that the variance of the logarithm of Theta 1 hat and used here to calculate Variance v of the estimate of the log-odds ratio, lor hat, sub s and a are the same variances used in calculating the previously published 2002-2003 prediction intervals (PIs) and the 2003-2004 PIs given in this report, respectively.

The correlation between logarithm of Theta 1 hat and logarithm of Theta 2 hat was obtained by simultaneously modeling the 2002, 2003, and 2004 NSDUH data. This simultaneous modeling approach was adopted based on the results of the validation study (see Appendix E, Section E.2., of Wright, 2003b) conducted for measuring change in 1999–2000 and 2000-2001 State estimates. For this simultaneous model, four age groups by 3 years (i.e., 12 subpopulation–specific models) were fitted, each with its own set of fixed and random effects. In this case, the general covariance matrices for the State and substate random effects were 12 by 12 matrices corresponding to the 12 element (age group by year) vectors of random effects. Note that the survey-weighted Bernoulli-type log likelihood employed in SWHB methodology was appropriate for this simultaneous model because the 12 age group by year subpopulations were nonoverlapping. The correlation [ logarithm of Theta 1 hat , logarithm of Theta 2 hat ] was approximated by the correlation calculated using the posterior distributions of log[ image representing pi _sa(1) /(1 - _sa(1))] and log[_sa(2) /(1 - _sa(2))] from the simultaneous model.

To calculate the p value for testing the null hypothesis of no change (lor_sa = 0), it was assumed that The estimate of the log-odds ratio, lor hat, sub s and a, is assumed to follow a normal distribution with mean zero and variance v of the estimate of the log-odds ratio, lor hat, sub s and a. . Then, the p value = P[Z abs(z)], where Z is a standard normal random variate, Quantity z is the estimate of the log-odds ratio, lor hat, sub s and a, divided by the square root of the variance v of the estimate of the log-odds ratio, lor hat, sub s and a. , and abs(z) denotes the absolute value of Z.

**Table A.1 Sample Sizes, Weighted Screening and Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State, for Persons Aged 12 or Older: 2002**
State	Total Selected DUs	Total Eligible DUs	Total Completed Screeners	Weighted DU Screening Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Weighted Overall Response Rate
Overall	178,013	150,162	136,349	90.72%	80,581	68,126	235,143,245	78.56%	71.27%
Alabama	2,403	2,028	1,852	91.31%	1,103	960	3,686,602	81.85%	74.74%
Alaska	2,408	1,898	1,751	92.13%	1,067	915	496,025	82.05%	75.59%
Arizona	2,346	1,908	1,770	92.66%	1,078	924	4,361,020	79.66%	73.81%
Arkansas	2,540	2,102	2,005	95.28%	1,054	877	2,216,033	76.09%	72.50%
California	8,425	7,601	6,816	89.60%	4,363	3,599	28,231,483	74.93%	67.14%
Colorado	2,099	1,827	1,664	91.01%	1,087	914	3,655,496	81.67%	74.32%
Connecticut	2,718	2,440	2,227	91.44%	1,188	977	2,827,588	76.73%	70.16%
Delaware	2,585	2,116	1,908	89.64%	1,159	964	665,926	78.55%	70.42%
District of Columbia	3,701	3,100	2,608	84.08%	979	864	482,635	84.79%	71.29%
Florida	10,742	8,622	7,723	89.47%	4,340	3,653	13,832,088	77.23%	69.10%
Georgia	2,206	1,896	1,660	87.50%	1,066	897	6,842,168	77.76%	68.04%
Hawaii	2,276	1,942	1,759	90.38%	1,111	925	962,485	76.50%	69.14%
Idaho	2,033	1,634	1,515	92.80%	1,052	907	1,074,515	82.81%	76.86%
Illinois	9,263	8,181	6,986	85.45%	4,613	3,729	10,258,735	75.32%	64.36%
Indiana	2,261	1,961	1,856	94.61%	1,123	945	5,019,711	77.60%	73.42%
Iowa	2,252	1,939	1,835	94.68%	1,028	894	2,440,614	84.42%	79.93%
Kansas	1,933	1,683	1,579	93.86%	1,041	898	2,202,285	81.96%	76.92%
Kentucky	2,641	2,273	2,155	94.79%	1,098	909	3,395,143	79.55%	75.41%
Louisiana	2,189	1,816	1,701	93.64%	1,070	930	3,607,669	84.44%	79.07%
Maine	2,828	2,290	2,082	90.85%	1,017	906	1,104,764	87.35%	79.36%
Maryland	1,984	1,801	1,610	89.42%	1,039	919	4,449,299	81.71%	73.07%
Massachusetts	2,567	2,216	1,930	86.95%	1,142	916	5,387,071	71.93%	62.55%
Michigan	9,820	8,073	7,414	91.75%	4,432	3,792	8,255,399	81.82%	75.06%
Minnesota	2,173	1,895	1,765	93.09%	996	873	4,154,504	83.23%	77.48%
Mississippi¹	2,261	1,750	1,508	86.58%	988	839	2,307,320	77.37%	66.99%
Missouri	2,725	2,236	2,098	93.87%	1,039	890	4,656,459	82.05%	77.02%
Montana	2,772	2,174	2,057	94.64%	1,075	914	759,543	81.98%	77.58%
Nebraska	1,954	1,746	1,652	94.59%	1,042	891	1,411,983	82.01%	77.57%
Nevada¹	2,534	2,069	1,956	94.67%	1,147	954	1,742,004	73.54%	69.62%
New Hampshire	2,597	2,154	1,966	91.27%	1,092	910	1,065,165	78.10%	71.28%
New Jersey	2,554	2,290	2,042	89.28%	1,065	854	7,075,581	74.61%	66.61%
New Mexico¹	1,950	1,586	1,236	77.38%	794	674	1,500,281	81.83%	63.32%
New York	10,480	9,032	7,516	83.31%	4,615	3,716	15,882,822	73.14%	60.94%
North Carolina	2,289	1,940	1,792	92.57%	1,046	902	6,726,205	80.99%	74.98%
North Dakota	2,307	1,873	1,770	94.52%	1,011	913	527,574	84.91%	80.26%
Ohio	9,194	7,970	7,476	93.76%	4,221	3,554	9,369,125	78.58%	73.68%
Oklahoma	2,300	1,932	1,791	92.64%	1,100	922	2,822,615	78.63%	72.84%
Oregon	2,456	2,158	2,019	93.43%	1,071	917	2,916,974	80.74%	75.44%
Pennsylvania	10,104	8,482	7,710	90.86%	4,251	3,606	10,298,942	79.56%	72.29%
Rhode Island	2,458	2,117	1,883	89.14%	1,107	925	896,699	74.12%	66.07%
South Carolina	2,332	1,824	1,729	94.77%	1,091	913	3,371,646	80.90%	76.67%
South Dakota	2,053	1,717	1,632	95.03%	1,013	914	619,768	86.83%	82.52%
Tennessee	2,732	2,357	2,212	92.82%	1,057	920	4,766,688	83.26%	77.28%
Texas	7,730	6,408	5,960	93.05%	4,212	3,649	17,207,615	82.73%	76.98%
Utah	1,487	1,336	1,264	94.52%	990	889	1,807,003	84.94%	80.29%
Vermont	2,410	1,914	1,803	94.36%	1,013	896	525,061	88.02%	83.06%
Virginia	2,426	2,104	1,873	89.03%	1,069	884	5,862,299	75.20%	66.95%
Washington	2,454	2,002	1,832	91.35%	1,079	901	4,962,300	78.20%	71.44%
West Virginia	2,763	2,299	2,169	94.33%	1,059	898	1,527,885	79.91%	75.38%
Wisconsin	2,152	1,709	1,587	92.87%	1,029	887	4,511,335	82.44%	76.56%
Wyoming	2,146	1,741	1,645	94.49%	1,059	907	413,099	79.40%	75.02%
¹ Smaller sample sizes and response rates were attained in Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico because the review of completed records determined a number of those interviews to be fraudulent. These interviews were consequently dropped. DU = dwelling unit. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002.

**Table A.2 Sample Sizes, Weighted Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State and Three Age Groups: 2002**
State	12–17				18–25				26+
State	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate
Overall	26,230	23,659	24,753,586	89.99%	27,216	23,271	31,024,280	85.16%	27,135	21,196	179,365,379	75.81%
Alabama	361	331	378,922	92.11%	370	324	497,362	86.86%	372	305	2,810,318	79.54%
Alaska	393	353	70,050	90.00%	353	305	58,061	85.24%	321	257	367,914	79.65%
Arizona	360	330	477,791	91.87%	346	303	593,368	86.21%	372	291	3,289,861	76.81%
Arkansas	385	340	232,228	88.68%	287	256	299,329	89.70%	382	281	1,684,476	71.97%
California	1,439	1,304	3,119,651	90.54%	1,459	1,224	3,910,445	83.32%	1,465	1,071	21,201,387	70.93%
Colorado	349	309	386,275	88.67%	380	317	488,328	82.92%	358	288	2,780,893	80.55%
Connecticut	369	335	297,332	90.70%	423	341	314,467	82.08%	396	301	2,215,789	74.39%
Delaware	392	350	64,655	88.74%	344	285	87,670	83.05%	423	329	513,601	76.54%
District of Columbia	354	326	33,553	91.52%	284	256	73,858	89.63%	341	282	375,224	83.16%
Florida	1,335	1,213	1,332,058	91.10%	1,523	1,317	1,526,407	86.35%	1,482	1,123	10,973,623	74.40%
Georgia	339	309	740,287	91.81%	332	281	931,197	85.79%	395	307	5,170,684	74.28%
Hawaii	337	306	106,624	92.14%	351	300	123,983	85.94%	423	319	731,877	72.94%
Idaho	346	314	128,019	89.27%	348	302	162,155	87.73%	358	291	784,341	80.82%
Illinois	1,475	1,304	1,081,426	88.16%	1,620	1,301	1,366,021	79.82%	1,518	1,124	7,811,288	72.73%
Indiana	351	323	537,937	90.92%	415	346	699,137	84.53%	357	276	3,782,636	74.38%
Iowa	343	312	247,154	91.07%	315	278	348,675	89.36%	370	304	1,844,784	82.50%
Kansas	324	301	242,248	93.27%	374	321	316,706	86.26%	343	276	1,643,332	79.59%
Kentucky	376	325	317,845	84.53%	342	288	457,462	84.10%	380	296	2,619,836	78.11%
Louisiana	344	311	408,864	91.56%	359	310	533,943	86.92%	367	309	2,664,863	82.83%
Maine	337	310	107,138	92.04%	336	295	128,854	88.23%	344	301	868,772	86.65%
Maryland	376	346	472,125	91.83%	331	302	525,127	90.68%	332	271	3,452,047	78.58%
Massachusetts	402	353	502,081	87.86%	350	285	670,475	84.04%	390	278	4,214,516	68.13%
Michigan	1,458	1,301	892,683	89.81%	1,570	1,371	1,078,221	87.65%	1,404	1,120	6,284,494	79.57%
Minnesota	318	289	447,909	90.45%	352	317	564,444	90.66%	326	267	3,142,151	80.71%
Mississippi¹	342	312	257,043	91.28%	314	274	346,485	87.36%	332	253	1,703,792	72.96%
Missouri	364	328	489,034	90.34%	335	289	621,802	85.99%	340	273	3,545,624	80.20%
Montana	383	348	82,057	91.77%	309	262	101,662	85.48%	383	304	575,825	80.05%
Nebraska	353	317	152,803	90.07%	327	280	202,014	86.69%	362	294	1,057,166	79.90%
Nevada¹	396	359	182,000	91.12%	356	308	208,607	86.18%	395	287	1,351,398	69.19%
New Hampshire	344	300	112,627	88.19%	405	343	126,521	84.89%	343	267	826,017	75.60%
New Jersey	324	290	712,611	89.35%	383	308	775,060	79.98%	358	256	5,587,910	71.75%
New Mexico¹	235	213	176,221	89.25%	296	250	207,372	85.15%	263	211	1,116,688	80.02%
New York	1,426	1,241	1,564,858	86.12%	1,649	1,344	2,026,299	80.59%	1,540	1,131	12,291,665	70.20%
North Carolina	354	325	677,525	89.91%	341	292	866,820	84.88%	351	285	5,181,860	79.25%
North Dakota	357	337	54,725	94.54%	332	307	81,994	92.38%	322	269	390,856	81.86%
Ohio	1,358	1,221	991,716	89.83%	1,429	1,224	1,217,589	85.83%	1,434	1,109	7,159,820	75.66%
Oklahoma	362	308	305,129	84.00%	385	333	408,904	85.11%	353	281	2,108,583	76.37%
Oregon	354	322	297,634	90.31%	361	308	379,401	85.13%	356	287	2,239,939	78.69%
Pennsylvania	1,395	1,243	1,025,357	89.15%	1,489	1,293	1,270,338	86.58%	1,367	1,070	8,003,247	77.15%
Rhode Island	365	334	83,814	91.12%	357	306	124,681	84.64%	385	285	688,204	70.20%
South Carolina	339	304	336,271	90.47%	412	343	458,511	82.93%	340	266	2,576,865	79.24%
South Dakota	359	343	70,145	95.94%	320	286	89,870	89.15%	334	285	459,753	85.02%
Tennessee	381	352	472,625	91.52%	260	228	610,807	87.69%	416	340	3,683,257	81.42%
Texas	1,347	1,224	2,004,787	90.81%	1,427	1,251	2,477,451	87.79%	1,438	1,174	12,725,377	80.50%
Utah	316	309	227,575	97.46%	324	289	363,300	88.95%	350	291	1,216,128	81.15%
Vermont	339	312	53,892	92.84%	367	314	68,583	86.88%	307	270	402,586	87.51%
Virginia	297	278	600,443	93.43%	412	341	728,869	83.24%	360	265	4,532,987	71.75%
Washington	298	264	530,187	86.66%	361	304	640,479	84.62%	420	333	3,791,634	76.00%
West Virginia	339	305	139,243	89.85%	336	292	193,439	87.55%	384	301	1,195,204	77.58%
Wisconsin	317	280	482,456	87.97%	380	338	613,508	87.26%	332	269	3,415,371	80.85%
Wyoming	323	295	45,958	91.71%	385	339	58,222	88.37%	351	273	308,919	75.91%
¹ Smaller sample sizes and response rates were attained in Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico because the review of completed records determined a number of those interviews to be fraudulent. These interviews were consequently dropped. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002.

**Table A.3 Sample Sizes, Weighted Screening and Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State, for Persons Aged 12 or Older: 2003**
State	Total Selected DUs	Total Eligible DUs	Total Completed Screeners	Weighted DU Screening Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Weighted Overall Response Rate
Overall	170,762	143,485	130,605	90.72%	81,631	67,784	237,682,009	77.39%	70.21%
Alabama	2,071	1,712	1,558	91.14%	1,029	879	3,699,723	79.60%	72.55%
Alaska	2,314	1,814	1,666	91.97%	1,098	883	505,278	75.00%	68.98%
Arizona	2,159	1,757	1,662	94.64%	1,057	897	4,473,518	81.20%	76.85%
Arkansas	2,258	1,850	1,767	95.53%	1,092	922	2,228,670	79.84%	76.27%
California	7,687	6,858	6,015	86.86%	4,471	3,600	28,673,990	73.76%	64.07%
Colorado	2,225	1,855	1,709	92.06%	1,103	911	3,701,560	78.79%	72.53%
Connecticut	2,623	2,288	2,073	90.56%	1,128	933	2,880,493	76.25%	69.06%
Delaware	2,419	1,936	1,774	91.59%	1,105	911	671,922	75.12%	68.80%
District of Columbia	3,692	3,078	2,576	83.69%	1,116	949	476,873	80.38%	67.27%
Florida	10,451	8,453	7,575	89.77%	4,414	3,541	14,145,707	73.68%	66.14%
Georgia	2,112	1,734	1,612	92.81%	1,088	902	6,951,437	79.46%	73.74%
Hawaii	2,259	1,953	1,767	90.25%	1,142	928	1,013,259	73.21%	66.07%
Idaho	1,998	1,596	1,509	94.45%	1,112	912	1,099,895	77.63%	73.32%
Illinois	9,163	8,128	6,803	83.45%	4,652	3,711	10,319,948	74.36%	62.05%
Indiana	2,046	1,741	1,637	94.11%	1,082	903	5,049,910	79.37%	74.69%
Iowa	2,035	1,829	1,721	94.16%	993	884	2,448,928	85.81%	80.79%
Kansas	2,042	1,744	1,638	93.94%	1,041	875	2,209,221	81.11%	76.20%
Kentucky	2,266	1,991	1,878	94.25%	1,102	908	3,381,254	75.69%	71.34%
Louisiana	2,084	1,757	1,637	93.12%	1,095	943	3,618,197	81.80%	76.17%
Maine	2,827	2,240	2,045	91.21%	1,094	928	1,113,100	82.07%	74.86%
Maryland	1,899	1,673	1,475	88.04%	1,000	863	4,510,290	82.58%	72.70%
Massachusetts	2,413	2,129	1,878	88.16%	1,220	964	5,377,359	75.04%	66.16%
Michigan	9,000	7,447	6,709	90.14%	4,353	3,667	8,316,442	79.06%	71.26%
Minnesota	2,029	1,801	1,673	92.73%	1,052	909	4,193,331	82.14%	76.17%
Mississippi	2,196	1,732	1,650	95.33%	1,078	899	2,311,859	78.81%	75.13%
Missouri	2,495	2,042	1,912	93.64%	1,105	932	4,683,914	81.99%	76.77%
Montana	2,384	1,871	1,766	94.40%	1,068	911	767,946	79.57%	75.12%
Nebraska	1,996	1,716	1,622	94.51%	1,071	918	1,418,952	79.62%	75.25%
Nevada	2,071	1,751	1,663	94.91%	1,072	902	1,818,116	79.78%	75.71%
New Hampshire	2,015	1,688	1,568	92.94%	1,112	910	1,082,138	76.29%	70.90%
New Jersey	2,564	2,287	1,981	86.56%	1,126	883	7,118,305	72.97%	63.17%
New Mexico	2,260	1,822	1,740	95.42%	1,132	944	1,520,180	77.03%	73.50%
New York	9,973	8,575	7,205	83.97%	4,609	3,634	15,948,708	71.96%	60.42%
North Carolina	2,239	1,852	1,753	94.65%	1,086	904	6,805,722	79.21%	74.98%
North Dakota	2,072	1,714	1,619	94.57%	977	867	525,140	87.43%	82.69%
Ohio	8,874	7,690	7,246	94.17%	4,313	3,559	9,433,820	75.91%	71.49%
Oklahoma	2,455	1,972	1,812	91.80%	1,042	871	2,846,785	78.62%	72.17%
Oregon	2,102	1,853	1,760	94.94%	1,095	912	2,970,969	79.79%	75.75%
Pennsylvania	9,866	8,252	7,482	90.76%	4,214	3,572	10,356,055	80.56%	73.12%
Rhode Island	2,255	1,991	1,772	88.58%	1,141	914	903,348	75.20%	66.61%
South Carolina	2,205	1,807	1,723	95.45%	1,109	920	3,384,520	79.64%	76.02%
South Dakota	2,154	1,749	1,660	94.78%	980	881	621,498	86.26%	81.76%
Tennessee	2,290	1,978	1,864	94.27%	1,004	856	4,823,157	79.89%	75.32%
Texas	7,901	6,466	6,079	94.03%	4,231	3,566	17,432,369	79.14%	74.42%
Utah	1,623	1,392	1,325	95.14%	995	898	1,816,737	87.98%	83.71%
Vermont	2,638	2,047	1,909	93.19%	1,092	917	530,133	79.87%	74.43%
Virginia	2,168	1,908	1,667	87.33%	1,076	907	5,951,031	78.61%	68.65%
Washington	2,475	2,033	1,920	94.43%	1,128	941	5,053,331	78.65%	74.28%
West Virginia	2,923	2,384	2,236	93.83%	1,058	871	1,534,650	78.86%	74.00%
Wisconsin	2,282	1,793	1,655	92.28%	1,046	887	4,546,217	77.76%	71.76%
Wyoming	2,214	1,756	1,659	94.48%	1,032	885	416,105	84.33%	79.67%
DU = dwelling unit. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003.

**Table A.4 Sample Sizes, Weighted Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State and Three Age Groups: 2003**
State	12–17				18–25				26+
State	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate
Overall	25,387	22,696	24,995,357	89.57%	27,259	22,941	31,728,286	83.47%	28,985	22,147	180,958,366	74.63%
Alabama	324	297	382,688	92.61%	394	340	501,543	86.10%	311	242	2,815,492	76.33%
Alaska	348	298	68,750	86.80%	378	314	67,522	82.66%	372	271	369,006	71.30%
Arizona	346	314	493,252	91.48%	377	317	611,163	84.15%	334	266	3,369,104	78.82%
Arkansas	352	320	233,744	91.18%	356	301	304,728	85.42%	384	301	1,690,198	77.24%
California	1,381	1,236	3,161,827	89.71%	1,463	1,195	3,928,708	81.65%	1,627	1,169	21,583,456	69.91%
Colorado	327	292	385,020	88.53%	379	305	499,513	79.29%	397	314	2,817,027	77.43%
Connecticut	313	279	292,982	88.47%	423	353	331,774	83.64%	392	301	2,255,738	73.62%
Delaware	344	305	68,298	88.69%	373	315	89,106	84.55%	388	291	514,518	71.54%
District of Columbia	370	326	32,832	88.64%	373	326	73,453	87.28%	373	297	370,589	78.33%
Florida	1,377	1,203	1,360,537	87.23%	1,418	1,171	1,626,149	81.73%	1,619	1,167	11,159,021	71.02%
Georgia	342	308	756,648	88.43%	323	267	959,782	84.93%	423	327	5,235,007	77.32%
Hawaii	388	353	100,981	90.91%	329	275	121,594	83.63%	425	300	790,684	69.33%
Idaho	331	299	128,037	90.50%	348	287	166,977	81.40%	433	326	804,881	74.87%
Illinois	1,423	1,238	1,083,365	86.69%	1,537	1,242	1,395,959	81.48%	1,692	1,231	7,840,623	71.43%
Indiana	338	308	545,217	90.65%	365	292	710,330	79.87%	379	303	3,794,364	77.73%
Iowa	329	304	245,539	89.91%	333	292	353,759	87.71%	331	288	1,849,631	84.81%
Kansas	317	280	240,109	87.93%	363	309	322,145	84.48%	361	286	1,646,967	79.40%
Kentucky	349	306	337,609	86.98%	349	293	451,685	83.75%	404	309	2,591,960	72.97%
Louisiana	353	321	405,066	92.36%	382	335	541,507	86.50%	360	287	2,671,623	79.32%
Maine	345	304	110,584	87.73%	388	330	132,168	86.27%	361	294	870,349	80.84%
Maryland	318	292	481,268	90.86%	280	237	547,577	83.87%	402	334	3,481,445	81.21%
Massachusetts	344	303	514,569	88.08%	414	324	674,611	76.98%	462	337	4,188,180	73.23%
Michigan	1,336	1,196	898,823	89.25%	1,536	1,323	1,104,530	86.20%	1,481	1,148	6,313,089	76.36%
Minnesota	393	357	445,182	91.19%	311	270	581,147	85.52%	348	282	3,167,002	80.08%
Mississippi	310	284	257,972	93.11%	347	293	348,335	85.15%	421	322	1,705,552	75.67%
Missouri	363	312	493,755	86.13%	385	329	635,283	85.62%	357	291	3,554,877	80.74%
Montana	308	272	81,338	88.05%	395	350	105,014	88.66%	365	289	581,594	76.60%
Nebraska	325	295	152,127	91.02%	404	351	207,187	86.79%	342	272	1,059,638	76.51%
Nevada	306	278	187,341	90.35%	364	312	222,655	86.49%	402	312	1,408,120	77.26%
New Hampshire	328	288	114,288	88.06%	399	332	132,490	83.61%	385	290	835,361	73.63%
New Jersey	326	288	726,704	88.67%	373	287	807,111	75.67%	427	308	5,584,490	70.62%
New Mexico	354	319	177,001	90.44%	365	316	213,899	87.67%	413	309	1,129,280	73.13%
New York	1,392	1,232	1,559,994	88.11%	1,534	1,227	2,046,657	80.51%	1,683	1,175	12,342,057	68.43%
North Carolina	324	285	693,740	88.12%	420	352	884,534	84.21%	342	267	5,227,448	77.02%
North Dakota	285	259	54,050	91.09%	309	276	82,629	89.55%	383	332	388,461	86.51%
Ohio	1,356	1,199	984,255	88.08%	1,435	1,229	1,244,999	85.43%	1,522	1,131	7,204,566	72.56%
Oklahoma	374	329	300,218	88.45%	316	272	413,370	84.45%	352	270	2,133,197	75.75%
Oregon	345	313	296,519	90.45%	377	309	390,879	82.15%	373	290	2,283,571	78.02%
Pennsylvania	1,367	1,232	1,030,859	90.72%	1,350	1,160	1,309,752	85.92%	1,497	1,180	8,015,444	78.25%
Rhode Island	361	308	86,777	85.36%	375	313	127,775	84.68%	405	293	688,797	71.97%
South Carolina	343	307	354,988	89.36%	373	311	458,297	82.69%	393	302	2,571,235	77.80%
South Dakota	301	281	69,339	94.03%	344	315	92,111	92.37%	335	285	460,048	83.73%
Tennessee	346	324	474,491	93.33%	270	223	632,850	80.82%	388	309	3,715,817	77.93%
Texas	1,279	1,153	2,033,118	90.38%	1,414	1,222	2,546,961	86.63%	1,538	1,191	12,852,291	75.82%
Utah	304	286	231,320	94.61%	321	301	357,456	94.31%	370	311	1,227,961	85.08%
Vermont	351	306	53,957	87.12%	355	306	71,119	85.94%	386	305	405,058	77.88%
Virginia	324	298	614,433	91.96%	368	311	749,393	82.44%	384	298	4,587,205	76.33%
Washington	369	344	527,057	93.61%	390	321	666,923	82.04%	369	276	3,859,351	75.89%
West Virginia	324	281	139,083	86.58%	371	306	195,671	82.42%	363	284	1,199,896	77.34%
Wisconsin	291	271	482,916	92.43%	405	349	627,502	85.36%	350	267	3,435,798	74.33%
Wyoming	343	313	44,796	92.11%	308	255	60,007	84.13%	381	317	311,302	83.18%
Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003.

**Table A.5 Sample Sizes, Weighted Screening and Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State, for Persons Aged 12 or Older: 2004**
State	Total Selected DUs	Total Eligible DUs	Total Completed Screeners	Weighted DU Screening Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Weighted Overall Response Rate
Overall	169,514	142,612	130,130	90.92%	81,973	67,760	240,514,815	77.00%	70.01%
Alabama	1,991	1,611	1,477	91.72%	1,055	880	3,740,924	74.76%	68.57%
Alaska	1,902	1,525	1,399	91.61%	1,078	894	511,059	79.21%	72.57%
Arizona	2,226	1,858	1,750	94.21%	1,119	903	4,616,821	77.92%	73.41%
Arkansas	2,369	1,933	1,833	94.83%	1,062	900	2,259,150	80.09%	75.95%
California	7,911	6,957	6,192	88.60%	4,631	3,725	29,016,735	72.88%	64.57%
Colorado	2,207	1,822	1,712	93.92%	1,135	934	3,735,710	77.90%	73.17%
Connecticut	2,493	2,209	2,013	90.99%	1,098	897	2,901,872	75.85%	69.02%
Delaware	2,253	1,954	1,794	91.90%	1,144	932	688,666	77.70%	71.41%
District of Columbia	3,155	2,606	2,242	86.24%	1,041	903	466,433	82.55%	71.19%
Florida	10,456	8,488	7,581	88.99%	4,526	3,662	14,478,448	73.89%	65.75%
Georgia	2,141	1,752	1,597	91.32%	1,054	890	7,063,198	80.38%	73.41%
Hawaii	1,959	1,715	1,575	91.94%	1,088	903	1,014,184	77.42%	71.18%
Idaho	2,015	1,704	1,607	94.31%	1,051	902	1,125,089	82.42%	77.74%
Illinois	8,457	7,458	6,342	85.01%	4,444	3,575	10,387,581	75.12%	63.86%
Indiana	2,176	1,833	1,742	95.05%	1,085	891	5,098,367	77.64%	73.79%
Iowa	1,990	1,745	1,641	94.14%	1,039	890	2,468,073	81.10%	76.35%
Kansas	2,294	1,953	1,841	94.22%	993	828	2,226,734	78.58%	74.04%
Kentucky	2,372	2,059	1,949	94.67%	1,144	933	3,421,489	73.82%	69.88%
Louisiana	2,106	1,713	1,614	94.17%	1,082	933	3,646,863	81.16%	76.43%
Maine	2,731	2,168	2,025	93.40%	1,064	896	1,127,062	81.46%	76.08%
Maryland	2,122	1,855	1,617	86.77%	1,039	901	4,557,984	81.39%	70.63%
Massachusetts	2,218	1,895	1,686	89.13%	1,087	877	5,380,703	76.92%	68.56%
Michigan	9,530	7,969	7,155	89.78%	4,490	3,670	8,364,197	75.61%	67.88%
Minnesota	2,001	1,714	1,578	91.98%	1,066	907	4,237,627	83.72%	77.00%
Mississippi	1,931	1,549	1,482	95.71%	1,053	914	2,341,802	80.45%	77.00%
Missouri	2,190	1,872	1,764	94.23%	1,104	897	4,751,346	77.96%	73.46%
Montana	2,511	1,990	1,874	94.18%	1,080	907	781,536	79.58%	74.95%
Nebraska	2,044	1,729	1,629	94.21%	1,072	897	1,430,465	80.70%	76.03%
Nevada	1,903	1,641	1,552	93.71%	1,053	888	1,898,843	78.32%	73.39%
New Hampshire	2,348	1,908	1,765	92.38%	1,114	904	1,095,589	76.40%	70.58%
New Jersey	2,764	2,359	2,033	85.50%	1,153	886	7,172,774	72.04%	61.60%
New Mexico	2,190	1,799	1,719	95.54%	1,072	922	1,552,672	80.98%	77.37%
New York	10,475	8,940	7,372	82.28%	4,585	3,638	15,978,304	73.79%	60.72%
North Carolina	2,185	1,733	1,635	94.33%	1,029	869	6,927,805	79.39%	74.89%
North Dakota	2,576	2,128	2,020	94.95%	1,071	911	530,030	81.21%	77.11%
Ohio	8,599	7,463	7,026	94.14%	4,404	3,613	9,489,788	76.91%	72.40%
Oklahoma	2,382	1,889	1,769	93.71%	1,054	867	2,867,524	76.21%	71.42%
Oregon	2,234	1,931	1,825	94.50%	1,108	910	3,001,872	76.30%	72.10%
Pennsylvania	9,599	8,236	7,448	90.44%	4,360	3,590	10,399,693	77.05%	69.68%
Rhode Island	2,030	1,785	1,588	89.11%	1,126	911	907,154	76.31%	68.00%
South Carolina	2,392	1,946	1,844	94.73%	1,042	885	3,437,860	81.78%	77.47%
South Dakota	2,024	1,674	1,594	95.24%	1,034	893	630,156	82.20%	78.30%
Tennessee	2,387	2,049	1,933	94.37%	1,023	896	4,888,070	85.51%	80.70%
Texas	7,923	6,599	6,254	94.72%	4,334	3,631	17,783,855	79.21%	75.03%
Utah	1,718	1,464	1,389	94.70%	1,040	910	1,851,896	83.73%	79.28%
Vermont	2,689	1,954	1,820	93.02%	1,087	924	534,195	81.75%	76.04%
Virginia	2,060	1,773	1,587	89.40%	1,080	902	6,027,395	79.88%	71.41%
Washington	1,998	1,769	1,677	94.81%	1,086	886	5,134,850	75.97%	72.03%
West Virginia	2,721	2,173	2,049	94.31%	1,058	909	1,543,726	79.17%	74.67%
Wisconsin	2,338	1,944	1,805	92.86%	1,118	917	4,597,266	77.89%	72.33%
Wyoming	2,228	1,819	1,715	94.28%	1,018	857	423,382	81.54%	76.88%
DU = dwelling unit. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2004.

**Table A.6 Sample Sizes, Weighted Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State and Three Age Groups: 2004**
State	12–17				18–25				26+
State	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate
Overall	25,141	22,309	25,214,390	88.56%	27,408	23,075	32,193,946	83.87%	29,424	22,376	183,106,479	74.22%
Alabama	335	300	380,438	88.15%	317	277	506,024	87.42%	403	303	2,854,462	70.97%
Alaska	343	301	68,234	87.37%	376	308	71,635	80.38%	359	285	371,190	77.66%
Arizona	355	307	504,134	86.71%	356	280	632,441	79.72%	408	316	3,480,247	76.36%
Arkansas	336	301	232,624	89.62%	372	312	309,270	83.12%	354	287	1,717,256	78.00%
California	1,408	1,251	3,256,862	88.81%	1,523	1,259	3,971,071	82.89%	1,700	1,215	21,788,802	68.82%
Colorado	339	309	392,567	92.63%	435	358	502,509	81.78%	361	267	2,840,634	75.05%
Connecticut	351	310	297,475	88.74%	341	290	340,627	82.95%	406	297	2,263,770	72.90%
Delaware	344	296	67,017	86.70%	402	330	91,920	81.90%	398	306	529,729	75.84%
District of Columbia	324	291	33,936	90.50%	369	328	67,513	88.13%	348	284	364,984	80.63%
Florida	1,422	1,248	1,392,381	88.13%	1,426	1,197	1,690,586	83.29%	1,678	1,217	11,395,480	70.76%
Georgia	310	281	770,391	90.24%	384	325	974,428	85.42%	360	284	5,318,379	77.85%
Hawaii	314	290	100,117	92.32%	374	313	121,874	84.55%	400	300	792,193	74.27%
Idaho	310	279	127,641	90.53%	362	318	170,720	87.99%	379	305	826,729	80.03%
Illinois	1,316	1,166	1,096,436	89.10%	1,483	1,214	1,405,081	81.40%	1,645	1,195	7,886,063	72.15%
Indiana	339	284	547,820	80.66%	370	321	712,431	87.14%	376	286	3,838,117	75.51%
Iowa	354	319	241,677	90.80%	322	283	354,834	89.24%	363	288	1,871,562	78.38%
Kansas	309	279	235,602	90.08%	331	278	326,635	84.04%	353	271	1,664,497	75.58%
Kentucky	338	297	336,208	88.01%	379	324	454,337	85.35%	427	312	2,630,944	70.36%
Louisiana	315	288	401,563	91.61%	384	345	546,374	89.71%	383	300	2,698,926	77.88%
Maine	325	292	109,324	88.79%	378	310	136,314	82.23%	361	294	881,424	80.39%
Maryland	331	311	490,535	94.06%	350	299	564,517	86.07%	358	291	3,502,932	78.60%
Massachusetts	320	280	511,108	87.59%	372	304	678,194	81.46%	395	293	4,191,401	74.97%
Michigan	1,441	1,273	906,283	88.40%	1,503	1,266	1,113,043	83.80%	1,546	1,131	6,344,871	72.25%
Minnesota	346	305	440,475	87.61%	333	280	594,051	85.11%	387	322	3,203,101	82.96%
Mississippi	292	276	255,992	94.84%	415	367	350,329	88.32%	346	271	1,735,480	76.64%
Missouri	349	296	488,189	84.08%	355	293	650,694	81.04%	400	308	3,612,463	76.59%
Montana	320	277	78,581	87.14%	373	324	108,216	85.88%	387	306	594,739	77.30%
Nebraska	266	236	149,210	88.31%	413	342	210,327	82.97%	393	319	1,070,927	79.27%
Nevada	307	281	197,330	89.52%	356	307	234,194	87.69%	390	300	1,467,319	75.18%
New Hampshire	340	292	115,175	86.06%	335	285	136,081	83.41%	439	327	844,334	74.06%
New Jersey	308	265	741,001	83.21%	393	297	825,494	76.88%	452	324	5,606,279	70.03%
New Mexico	341	315	173,978	91.56%	333	296	222,316	88.48%	398	311	1,156,379	77.93%
New York	1,345	1,144	1,583,424	85.11%	1,564	1,275	2,048,409	81.31%	1,676	1,219	12,346,471	71.15%
North Carolina	336	307	710,225	91.75%	338	285	893,651	84.47%	355	277	5,323,929	76.67%
North Dakota	350	314	51,236	89.71%	368	315	83,256	84.18%	353	282	395,539	79.50%
Ohio	1,418	1,243	982,106	87.60%	1,428	1,186	1,258,053	83.17%	1,558	1,184	7,249,629	74.37%
Oklahoma	325	288	293,667	89.22%	386	324	417,990	85.22%	343	255	2,155,867	72.18%
Oregon	349	311	297,975	88.86%	365	309	394,016	85.49%	394	290	2,309,881	72.97%
Pennsylvania	1,314	1,177	1,037,595	89.81%	1,433	1,197	1,321,982	84.56%	1,613	1,216	8,040,116	74.30%
Rhode Island	342	285	87,882	85.57%	377	326	127,105	86.38%	407	300	692,166	73.19%
South Carolina	349	307	357,948	87.80%	292	258	463,134	89.41%	401	320	2,616,779	79.59%
South Dakota	277	257	67,385	91.02%	387	346	94,182	89.49%	370	290	468,590	79.79%
Tennessee	295	273	476,738	91.61%	341	298	640,352	88.72%	387	325	3,770,980	84.21%
Texas	1,350	1,205	2,044,166	89.33%	1,444	1,236	2,607,359	85.92%	1,540	1,190	13,132,330	76.31%
Utah	348	324	227,860	93.80%	343	301	354,811	86.85%	349	285	1,269,225	80.91%
Vermont	354	318	53,165	89.86%	350	295	70,039	87.11%	383	311	410,991	79.80%
Virginia	296	268	619,572	89.10%	374	310	765,684	80.74%	410	324	4,642,140	78.68%
Washington	345	301	527,781	86.17%	378	311	685,109	80.79%	363	274	3,921,960	73.76%
West Virginia	313	285	137,455	91.56%	355	319	194,513	90.54%	390	305	1,211,758	76.03%
Wisconsin	382	339	474,936	89.82%	342	273	638,512	80.49%	394	305	3,483,818	75.77%
Wyoming	305	267	42,970	89.29%	328	281	61,714	86.59%	385	309	318,699	79.61%
Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2004.

**Table A.7 Sample Sizes, Weighted Screening and Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State, for Persons Aged 12 or Older: 2002-2003**
State	Total Selected DUs	Total Eligible DUs	Total Completed Screeners	Weighted DU Screening Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Weighted Overall Response Rate
Overall	348,775	293,647	266,954	90.72%	162,212	135,910	236,412,627	77.97%	70.74%
Alabama	4,474	3,740	3,410	91.23%	2,132	1,839	3,693,162	80.75%	73.66%
Alaska	4,722	3,712	3,417	92.05%	2,165	1,798	500,651	78.39%	72.16%
Arizona	4,505	3,665	3,432	93.64%	2,135	1,821	4,417,269	80.40%	75.28%
Arkansas	4,798	3,952	3,772	95.40%	2,146	1,799	2,222,351	77.97%	74.38%
California	16,112	14,459	12,831	88.24%	8,834	7,199	28,452,737	74.34%	65.59%
Colorado	4,324	3,682	3,373	91.53%	2,190	1,825	3,678,528	80.24%	73.44%
Connecticut	5,341	4,728	4,300	90.97%	2,316	1,910	2,854,040	76.50%	69.60%
Delaware	5,004	4,052	3,682	90.65%	2,264	1,875	668,924	76.87%	69.69%
District of Columbia	7,393	6,178	5,184	83.89%	2,095	1,813	479,754	82.57%	69.27%
Florida	21,193	17,075	15,298	89.62%	8,754	7,194	13,988,898	75.42%	67.59%
Georgia	4,318	3,630	3,272	90.17%	2,154	1,799	6,896,803	78.64%	70.91%
Hawaii	4,535	3,895	3,526	90.31%	2,253	1,853	987,872	74.86%	67.61%
Idaho	4,031	3,230	3,024	93.67%	2,164	1,819	1,087,205	80.16%	75.08%
Illinois	18,426	16,309	13,789	84.44%	9,265	7,440	10,289,341	74.83%	63.19%
Indiana	4,307	3,702	3,493	94.36%	2,205	1,848	5,034,811	78.51%	74.08%
Iowa	4,287	3,768	3,556	94.41%	2,021	1,778	2,444,771	85.10%	80.35%
Kansas	3,975	3,427	3,217	93.90%	2,082	1,773	2,205,753	81.55%	76.58%
Kentucky	4,907	4,264	4,033	94.50%	2,200	1,817	3,388,199	77.58%	73.32%
Louisiana	4,273	3,573	3,338	93.37%	2,165	1,873	3,612,933	83.10%	77.59%
Maine	5,655	4,530	4,127	91.03%	2,111	1,834	1,108,932	84.60%	77.01%
Maryland	3,883	3,474	3,085	88.72%	2,039	1,782	4,479,795	82.16%	72.90%
Massachusetts	4,980	4,345	3,808	87.56%	2,362	1,880	5,382,215	73.50%	64.36%
Michigan	18,820	15,520	14,123	90.94%	8,785	7,459	8,285,920	80.41%	73.13%
Minnesota	4,202	3,696	3,438	92.92%	2,048	1,782	4,173,917	82.68%	76.83%
Mississippi¹	4,457	3,482	3,158	91.05%	2,066	1,738	2,309,589	78.12%	71.13%
Missouri	5,220	4,278	4,010	93.76%	2,144	1,822	4,670,187	82.02%	76.90%
Montana	5,156	4,045	3,823	94.52%	2,143	1,825	763,745	80.81%	76.38%
Nebraska	3,950	3,462	3,274	94.55%	2,113	1,809	1,415,467	80.81%	76.40%
Nevada¹	4,605	3,820	3,619	94.79%	2,219	1,856	1,780,060	76.75%	72.76%
New Hampshire	4,612	3,842	3,534	92.10%	2,204	1,820	1,073,652	77.14%	71.05%
New Jersey	5,118	4,577	4,023	87.85%	2,191	1,737	7,096,943	73.75%	64.79%
New Mexico¹	4,210	3,408	2,976	86.36%	1,926	1,618	1,510,230	79.39%	68.56%
New York	20,453	17,607	14,721	83.66%	9,224	7,350	15,915,765	72.55%	60.70%
North Carolina	4,528	3,792	3,545	93.61%	2,132	1,806	6,765,963	80.14%	75.02%
North Dakota	4,379	3,587	3,389	94.55%	1,988	1,780	526,357	86.19%	81.49%
Ohio	18,068	15,660	14,722	93.97%	8,534	7,113	9,401,472	77.23%	72.57%
Oklahoma	4,755	3,904	3,603	92.22%	2,142	1,793	2,834,700	78.62%	72.51%
Oregon	4,558	4,011	3,779	94.16%	2,166	1,829	2,943,971	80.26%	75.57%
Pennsylvania	19,970	16,734	15,192	90.81%	8,465	7,178	10,327,498	80.06%	72.70%
Rhode Island	4,713	4,108	3,655	88.86%	2,248	1,839	900,023	74.65%	66.33%
South Carolina	4,537	3,631	3,452	95.11%	2,200	1,833	3,378,083	80.27%	76.34%
South Dakota	4,207	3,466	3,292	94.90%	1,993	1,795	620,633	86.56%	82.15%
Tennessee	5,022	4,335	4,076	93.47%	2,061	1,776	4,794,923	81.58%	76.25%
Texas	15,631	12,874	12,039	93.53%	8,443	7,215	17,319,992	80.94%	75.70%
Utah	3,110	2,728	2,589	94.83%	1,985	1,787	1,811,870	86.50%	82.03%
Vermont	5,048	3,961	3,712	93.78%	2,105	1,813	527,597	83.70%	78.49%
Virginia	4,594	4,012	3,540	88.20%	2,145	1,791	5,906,665	76.93%	67.85%
Washington	4,929	4,035	3,752	92.88%	2,207	1,842	5,007,815	78.42%	72.84%
West Virginia	5,686	4,683	4,405	94.09%	2,117	1,769	1,531,267	79.40%	74.70%
Wisconsin	4,434	3,502	3,242	92.57%	2,075	1,774	4,528,776	80.13%	74.18%
Wyoming	4,360	3,497	3,304	94.48%	2,091	1,792	414,602	81.81%	77.29%
Note: To compute the pooled 2002-2003 weighted response rates, the two samples were combined, and the individual-year weights were used for the pooled sample. Thus, the response rates presented here are weighted across 2 years of data rather than being a simple average of the 2002 and 2003 individual response rates. ¹ Smaller sample sizes and response rates were attained in Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico in 2002 because the review of completed records determined a number of those interviews to be fraudulent. These interviews were consequently dropped. DU = dwelling unit. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002 and 2003.

**Table A.8 Sample Sizes, Weighted Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State and Three Age Groups: 2002-2003**
State	12–17				18–25				26+
State	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate
Overall	51,617	46,355	24,874,472	89.78%	54,475	46,212	31,376,283	84.31%	56,120	43,343	180,161,872	75.22%
Alabama	685	628	380,805	92.36%	764	664	499,453	86.47%	683	547	2,812,905	77.99%
Alaska	741	651	69,400	88.47%	731	619	62,791	83.85%	693	528	368,460	75.27%
Arizona	706	644	485,521	91.67%	723	620	602,265	85.15%	706	557	3,329,482	77.74%
Arkansas	737	660	232,986	89.91%	643	557	302,029	87.50%	766	582	1,687,337	74.60%
California	2,820	2,540	3,140,739	90.12%	2,922	2,419	3,919,577	82.48%	3,092	2,240	21,392,421	70.41%
Colorado	676	601	385,648	88.60%	759	622	493,921	81.06%	755	602	2,798,960	79.01%
Connecticut	682	614	295,157	89.62%	846	694	323,120	82.88%	788	602	2,235,763	74.02%
Delaware	736	655	66,477	88.72%	717	600	88,388	83.80%	811	620	514,059	74.11%
District of Columbia	724	652	33,192	90.09%	657	582	73,655	88.48%	714	579	372,907	80.72%
Florida	2,712	2,416	1,346,297	89.13%	2,941	2,488	1,576,278	83.99%	3,101	2,290	11,066,322	72.68%
Georgia	681	617	748,467	90.08%	655	548	945,489	85.36%	818	634	5,202,846	75.87%
Hawaii	725	659	103,803	91.52%	680	575	122,789	84.82%	848	619	761,280	71.13%
Idaho	677	613	128,028	89.90%	696	589	164,566	84.54%	791	617	794,611	77.77%
Illinois	2,898	2,542	1,082,396	87.42%	3,157	2,543	1,380,990	80.66%	3,210	2,355	7,825,956	72.07%
Indiana	689	631	541,577	90.78%	780	638	704,733	82.13%	736	579	3,788,500	76.11%
Iowa	672	616	246,347	90.49%	648	570	351,217	88.54%	701	592	1,847,207	83.63%
Kansas	641	581	241,178	90.61%	737	630	319,425	85.37%	704	562	1,645,149	79.50%
Kentucky	725	631	327,727	85.79%	691	581	454,574	83.93%	784	605	2,605,898	75.48%
Louisiana	697	632	406,965	91.95%	741	645	537,725	86.71%	727	596	2,668,243	81.04%
Maine	682	614	108,861	89.84%	724	625	130,511	87.24%	705	595	869,560	83.60%
Maryland	694	638	476,696	91.35%	611	539	536,352	87.15%	734	605	3,466,746	79.97%
Massachusetts	746	656	508,325	87.97%	764	609	672,543	80.52%	852	615	4,201,348	70.71%
Michigan	2,794	2,497	895,753	89.53%	3,106	2,694	1,091,376	86.92%	2,885	2,268	6,298,792	77.93%
Minnesota	711	646	446,545	90.82%	663	587	572,795	88.02%	674	549	3,154,577	80.40%
Mississippi¹	652	596	257,508	92.18%	661	567	347,410	86.29%	753	575	1,704,672	74.39%
Missouri	727	640	491,394	88.24%	720	618	628,542	85.79%	697	564	3,550,250	80.48%
Montana	691	620	81,697	89.94%	704	612	103,338	87.09%	748	593	578,710	78.40%
Nebraska	678	612	152,465	90.55%	731	631	204,600	86.74%	704	566	1,058,402	78.19%
Nevada¹	702	637	184,670	90.73%	720	620	215,631	86.34%	797	599	1,379,759	73.33%
New Hampshire	672	588	113,457	88.12%	804	675	129,505	84.22%	728	557	830,689	74.56%
New Jersey	650	578	719,658	89.01%	756	595	791,085	77.76%	785	564	5,586,200	71.15%
New Mexico¹	589	532	176,611	89.85%	661	566	210,636	86.39%	676	520	1,122,984	76.48%
New York	2,818	2,473	1,562,426	87.12%	3,183	2,571	2,036,478	80.55%	3,223	2,306	12,316,861	69.31%
North Carolina	678	610	685,632	89.01%	761	644	875,677	84.54%	693	552	5,204,654	78.20%
North Dakota	642	596	54,387	92.84%	641	583	82,312	90.99%	705	601	389,658	84.24%
Ohio	2,714	2,420	987,986	88.97%	2,864	2,453	1,231,294	85.63%	2,956	2,240	7,182,193	74.08%
Oklahoma	736	637	302,673	86.17%	701	605	411,137	84.77%	705	551	2,120,890	76.06%
Oregon	699	635	297,076	90.38%	738	617	385,140	83.63%	729	577	2,261,755	78.35%
Pennsylvania	2,762	2,475	1,028,108	89.95%	2,839	2,453	1,290,045	86.25%	2,864	2,250	8,009,346	77.70%
Rhode Island	726	642	85,295	88.17%	732	619	126,228	84.66%	790	578	688,500	71.06%
South Carolina	682	611	345,629	89.90%	785	654	458,404	82.81%	733	568	2,574,050	78.51%
South Dakota	660	624	69,742	94.99%	664	601	90,990	90.77%	669	570	459,901	84.40%
Tennessee	727	676	473,558	92.42%	530	451	621,828	84.19%	804	649	3,699,537	79.69%
Texas	2,626	2,377	2,018,953	90.59%	2,841	2,473	2,512,206	87.21%	2,976	2,365	12,788,834	78.18%
Utah	620	595	229,447	96.01%	645	590	360,378	91.50%	720	602	1,222,045	83.21%
Vermont	690	618	53,924	90.00%	722	620	69,851	86.39%	693	575	403,822	82.35%
Virginia	621	576	607,438	92.67%	780	652	739,131	82.83%	744	563	4,560,096	74.06%
Washington	667	608	528,622	90.12%	751	625	653,701	83.29%	789	609	3,825,493	75.95%
West Virginia	663	586	139,163	88.23%	707	598	194,555	84.94%	747	585	1,197,550	77.47%
Wisconsin	608	551	482,686	90.21%	785	687	620,505	86.32%	682	536	3,425,585	77.65%
Wyoming	666	608	45,377	91.90%	693	594	59,114	86.23%	732	590	310,110	79.45%
Note: To compute the pooled 2002-2003 weighted response rates, the two samples were combined, and the individual-year weights were used for the pooled sample. Thus, the response rates presented here are weighted across 2 years of data rather than being a simple average of the 2002 and 2003 individual response rates. ¹ Smaller sample sizes and response rates were attained in Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico in 2002 because the review of completed records determined a number of those interviews to be fraudulent. These interviews were consequently dropped. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002 and 2003.

**Table A.9 Sample Sizes, Weighted Screening and Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State, for Persons Aged 12 or Older: 2003-2004**
State	Total Selected DUs	Total Eligible DUs	Total Completed Screeners	Weighted DU Screening Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Weighted Overall Response Rate
Overall	340,276	286,097	260,735	90.82%	163,604	135,544	239,098,412	77.20%	70.11%
Alabama	4,062	3,323	3,035	91.42%	2,084	1,759	3,720,323	77.03%	70.43%
Alaska	4,216	3,339	3,065	91.79%	2,176	1,777	508,168	77.24%	70.89%
Arizona	4,385	3,615	3,412	94.42%	2,176	1,800	4,545,170	79.41%	74.98%
Arkansas	4,627	3,783	3,600	95.17%	2,154	1,822	2,243,910	79.96%	76.10%
California	15,598	13,815	12,207	87.73%	9,102	7,325	28,845,363	73.31%	64.32%
Colorado	4,432	3,677	3,421	93.00%	2,238	1,845	3,718,635	78.35%	72.87%
Connecticut	5,116	4,497	4,086	90.77%	2,226	1,830	2,891,183	76.05%	69.03%
Delaware	4,672	3,890	3,568	91.75%	2,249	1,843	680,294	76.44%	70.14%
District of Columbia	6,847	5,684	4,818	84.95%	2,157	1,852	471,653	81.43%	69.17%
Florida	20,907	16,941	15,156	89.38%	8,940	7,203	14,312,077	73.78%	65.94%
Georgia	4,253	3,486	3,209	92.03%	2,142	1,792	7,007,318	79.90%	73.53%
Hawaii	4,218	3,668	3,342	91.11%	2,230	1,831	1,013,721	75.27%	68.58%
Idaho	4,013	3,300	3,116	94.39%	2,163	1,814	1,112,492	80.00%	75.51%
Illinois	17,620	15,586	13,145	84.24%	9,096	7,286	10,353,764	74.75%	62.96%
Indiana	4,222	3,574	3,379	94.56%	2,167	1,794	5,074,139	78.51%	74.23%
Iowa	4,025	3,574	3,362	94.15%	2,032	1,774	2,458,501	83.32%	78.45%
Kansas	4,336	3,697	3,479	94.08%	2,034	1,703	2,217,978	79.89%	75.16%
Kentucky	4,638	4,050	3,827	94.45%	2,246	1,841	3,401,372	74.74%	70.59%
Louisiana	4,190	3,470	3,251	93.63%	2,177	1,876	3,632,530	81.48%	76.29%
Maine	5,558	4,408	4,070	92.33%	2,158	1,824	1,120,081	81.79%	75.51%
Maryland	4,021	3,528	3,092	87.38%	2,039	1,764	4,534,137	82.00%	71.65%
Massachusetts	4,631	4,024	3,564	88.65%	2,307	1,841	5,379,031	75.98%	67.36%
Michigan	18,530	15,416	13,864	89.96%	8,843	7,337	8,340,319	77.35%	69.58%
Minnesota	4,030	3,515	3,251	92.34%	2,118	1,816	4,215,479	82.97%	76.61%
Mississippi	4,127	3,281	3,132	95.52%	2,131	1,813	2,326,830	79.62%	76.05%
Missouri	4,685	3,914	3,676	93.94%	2,209	1,829	4,717,630	79.96%	75.11%
Montana	4,895	3,861	3,640	94.30%	2,148	1,818	774,741	79.58%	75.04%
Nebraska	4,040	3,445	3,251	94.36%	2,143	1,815	1,424,708	80.17%	75.65%
Nevada	3,974	3,392	3,215	94.25%	2,125	1,790	1,858,479	79.04%	74.50%
New Hampshire	4,363	3,596	3,333	92.67%	2,226	1,814	1,088,864	76.34%	70.75%
New Jersey	5,328	4,646	4,014	86.02%	2,279	1,769	7,145,540	72.50%	62.37%
New Mexico	4,450	3,621	3,459	95.48%	2,204	1,866	1,536,426	78.99%	75.41%
New York	20,448	17,515	14,577	83.10%	9,194	7,272	15,963,506	72.89%	60.57%
North Carolina	4,424	3,585	3,388	94.49%	2,115	1,773	6,866,763	79.31%	74.93%
North Dakota	4,648	3,842	3,639	94.76%	2,048	1,778	527,585	84.32%	79.91%
Ohio	17,473	15,153	14,272	94.16%	8,717	7,172	9,461,804	76.42%	71.95%
Oklahoma	4,837	3,861	3,581	92.75%	2,096	1,738	2,857,154	77.42%	71.81%
Oregon	4,336	3,784	3,585	94.72%	2,203	1,822	2,986,420	78.06%	73.94%
Pennsylvania	19,465	16,488	14,930	90.60%	8,574	7,162	10,377,874	78.74%	71.34%
Rhode Island	4,285	3,776	3,360	88.84%	2,267	1,825	905,251	75.76%	67.31%
South Carolina	4,597	3,753	3,567	95.09%	2,151	1,805	3,411,190	80.71%	76.75%
South Dakota	4,178	3,423	3,254	95.02%	2,014	1,774	625,827	84.08%	79.89%
Tennessee	4,677	4,027	3,797	94.32%	2,027	1,752	4,855,614	82.79%	78.09%
Texas	15,824	13,065	12,333	94.39%	8,565	7,197	17,608,112	79.18%	74.74%
Utah	3,341	2,856	2,714	94.92%	2,035	1,808	1,834,316	85.85%	81.49%
Vermont	5,327	4,001	3,729	93.10%	2,179	1,841	532,164	80.81%	75.24%
Virginia	4,228	3,681	3,254	88.40%	2,156	1,809	5,989,213	79.26%	70.06%
Washington	4,473	3,802	3,597	94.63%	2,214	1,827	5,094,091	77.29%	73.14%
West Virginia	5,644	4,557	4,285	94.08%	2,116	1,780	1,539,188	79.02%	74.34%
Wisconsin	4,620	3,737	3,460	92.59%	2,164	1,804	4,571,741	77.83%	72.06%
Wyoming	4,442	3,575	3,374	94.38%	2,050	1,742	419,744	82.88%	78.22%
Note: To compute the pooled 2003-2004 weighted response rates, the two samples were combined, and the individual-year weights were used for the pooled sample. Thus, the response rates presented here are weighted across 2 years of data rather than being a simple average of the 2003 and 2004 individual response rates. DU = dwelling unit. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003 and 2004.

**Table A.10 Sample Sizes, Weighted Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates, by State and Three Age Groups: 2003-2004**
State	12–17				18–25				26+
State	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate
Overall	50,528	45,005	25,104,874	89.06%	54,667	46,016	31,961,116	83.67%	58,409	44,523	182,032,422	74.42%
Alabama	659	597	381,563	90.39%	711	617	503,783	86.75%	714	545	2,834,977	73.43%
Alaska	691	599	68,492	87.09%	754	622	69,578	81.47%	731	556	370,098	74.72%
Arizona	701	621	498,693	89.03%	733	597	621,802	81.91%	742	582	3,424,675	77.45%
Arkansas	688	621	233,184	90.40%	728	613	306,999	84.26%	738	588	1,703,727	77.60%
California	2,789	2,487	3,209,345	89.26%	2,986	2,454	3,949,889	82.27%	3,327	2,384	21,686,129	69.35%
Colorado	666	601	388,793	90.64%	814	663	501,011	80.53%	758	581	2,828,830	76.27%
Connecticut	664	589	295,229	88.61%	764	643	336,200	83.29%	798	598	2,259,754	73.26%
Delaware	688	601	67,658	87.73%	775	645	90,513	83.18%	786	597	522,123	73.76%
District of Columbia	694	617	33,384	89.56%	742	654	70,483	87.71%	721	581	367,787	79.44%
Florida	2,799	2,451	1,376,459	87.68%	2,844	2,368	1,658,368	82.54%	3,297	2,384	11,277,251	70.90%
Georgia	652	589	763,519	89.34%	707	592	967,105	85.19%	783	611	5,276,693	77.57%
Hawaii	702	643	100,549	91.59%	703	588	121,734	84.10%	825	600	791,438	71.73%
Idaho	641	578	127,839	90.51%	710	605	168,848	84.70%	812	631	815,805	77.42%
Illinois	2,739	2,404	1,089,901	87.90%	3,020	2,456	1,400,520	81.44%	3,337	2,426	7,863,343	71.80%
Indiana	677	592	546,518	85.62%	735	613	711,380	83.46%	755	589	3,816,240	76.63%
Iowa	683	623	243,608	90.35%	655	575	354,296	88.48%	694	576	1,860,596	81.36%
Kansas	626	559	237,856	88.99%	694	587	324,390	84.26%	714	557	1,655,732	77.57%
Kentucky	687	603	336,908	87.49%	728	617	453,011	84.56%	831	621	2,611,452	71.63%
Louisiana	668	609	403,315	91.98%	766	680	543,941	88.12%	743	587	2,685,275	78.60%
Maine	670	596	109,954	88.24%	766	640	134,241	84.18%	722	588	875,886	80.63%
Maryland	649	603	485,901	92.48%	630	536	556,047	84.99%	760	625	3,492,188	79.95%
Massachusetts	664	583	512,838	87.83%	786	628	676,402	79.19%	857	630	4,189,790	74.10%
Michigan	2,777	2,469	902,553	88.82%	3,039	2,589	1,108,787	84.99%	3,027	2,279	6,328,980	74.33%
Minnesota	739	662	442,828	89.42%	644	550	587,599	85.31%	735	604	3,185,052	81.61%
Mississippi	602	560	256,982	93.98%	762	660	349,332	86.79%	767	593	1,720,516	76.14%
Missouri	712	608	490,972	85.10%	740	622	642,988	83.36%	757	599	3,583,670	78.64%
Montana	628	549	79,960	87.61%	768	674	106,615	87.23%	752	595	588,167	76.95%
Nebraska	591	531	150,669	89.72%	817	693	208,757	84.88%	735	591	1,065,283	77.92%
Nevada	613	559	192,336	89.92%	720	619	228,424	87.10%	792	612	1,437,719	76.21%
New Hampshire	668	580	114,731	87.05%	734	617	134,285	83.51%	824	617	839,848	73.84%
New Jersey	634	553	733,853	85.94%	766	584	816,302	76.28%	879	632	5,595,385	70.32%
New Mexico	695	634	175,489	91.00%	698	612	218,107	88.08%	811	620	1,142,829	75.49%
New York	2,737	2,376	1,571,709	86.61%	3,098	2,502	2,047,533	80.91%	3,359	2,394	12,344,264	69.81%
North Carolina	660	592	701,982	89.97%	758	637	889,092	84.35%	697	544	5,275,688	76.84%
North Dakota	635	573	52,643	90.42%	677	591	82,943	86.83%	736	614	392,000	83.00%
Ohio	2,774	2,442	983,181	87.84%	2,863	2,415	1,251,526	84.30%	3,080	2,315	7,227,097	73.47%
Oklahoma	699	617	296,942	88.82%	702	596	415,680	84.83%	695	525	2,144,532	73.97%
Oregon	694	624	297,247	89.65%	742	618	392,447	83.82%	767	580	2,296,726	75.54%
Pennsylvania	2,681	2,409	1,034,227	90.27%	2,783	2,357	1,315,867	85.23%	3,110	2,396	8,027,780	76.17%
Rhode Island	703	593	87,330	85.47%	752	639	127,440	85.54%	812	593	690,482	72.59%
South Carolina	692	614	356,468	88.56%	665	569	460,716	86.06%	794	622	2,594,007	78.69%
South Dakota	578	538	68,362	92.54%	731	661	93,146	90.92%	705	575	464,319	81.56%
Tennessee	641	597	475,614	92.46%	611	521	636,601	84.82%	775	634	3,743,398	81.19%
Texas	2,629	2,358	2,038,642	89.85%	2,858	2,458	2,577,160	86.27%	3,078	2,381	12,992,311	76.07%
Utah	652	610	229,590	94.21%	664	602	356,134	90.37%	719	596	1,248,593	83.02%
Vermont	705	624	53,561	88.49%	705	601	70,579	86.53%	769	616	408,025	78.85%
Virginia	620	566	617,003	90.55%	742	621	757,538	81.59%	794	622	4,614,672	77.54%
Washington	714	645	527,419	89.87%	768	632	676,016	81.43%	732	550	3,890,656	74.79%
West Virginia	637	566	138,269	89.09%	726	625	195,092	86.36%	753	589	1,205,827	76.67%
Wisconsin	673	610	478,926	91.12%	747	622	633,007	82.89%	744	572	3,459,808	75.05%
Wyoming	648	580	43,883	90.73%	636	536	60,860	85.38%	766	626	315,000	81.30%
Note: To compute the pooled 2003-2004 weighted response rates, the two samples were combined, and the individual-year weights were used for the pooled sample. Thus, the response rates presented here are weighted across 2 years of data rather than being a simple average of the 2003 and 2004 individual response rates. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2003 and 2004.

**Table A.11 Sample Sizes, Weighted Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates among Persons Aged 12 to 20, by State: 2002, 2003, and 2004**
State	2002				2003				2004
State	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate
Overall	36,567	32,794	37,200,835	89.24%	35,468	31,493	37,517,008	88.54%	35,343	31,221	37,736,765	88.01%
Alabama	511	467	587,585	91.22%	491	448	624,780	91.36%	474	424	609,056	88.81%
Alaska	545	492	96,322	90.07%	490	419	97,543	86.51%	484	428	97,677	87.90%
Arizona	486	445	699,214	91.75%	467	419	709,434	90.17%	460	391	692,728	85.11%
Arkansas	492	436	350,404	89.04%	487	436	350,182	89.68%	483	425	360,424	87.61%
California	1,961	1,749	4,652,169	88.72%	1,945	1,712	4,793,532	87.79%	1,975	1,737	4,886,817	87.62%
Colorado	486	429	576,143	87.91%	457	403	562,345	86.11%	490	436	590,904	90.26%
Connecticut	513	460	422,161	89.91%	478	423	428,352	87.94%	482	427	429,774	88.45%
Delaware	536	474	105,693	87.77%	488	425	100,828	86.87%	492	425	103,646	86.64%
District of Columbia	464	432	64,106	93.65%	484	433	57,202	90.35%	439	393	55,748	90.02%
Florida	1,911	1,722	1,932,413	90.10%	1,910	1,658	2,048,669	86.55%	1,943	1,687	2,041,124	86.80%
Georgia	455	405	1,096,267	89.73%	450	402	1,116,747	88.69%	423	376	1,072,483	88.79%
Hawaii	469	419	155,358	90.41%	526	476	154,005	90.33%	434	395	146,333	91.25%
Idaho	465	421	186,467	89.74%	451	399	191,599	88.36%	457	417	208,478	91.75%
Illinois	2,038	1,780	1,606,101	87.07%	1,958	1,688	1,622,676	86.38%	1,880	1,655	1,658,743	88.14%
Indiana	527	477	856,119	88.82%	461	410	805,229	87.52%	479	406	821,329	82.80%
Iowa	472	433	407,912	92.58%	454	414	382,804	89.19%	479	430	387,153	90.72%
Kansas	469	429	370,727	91.68%	466	419	379,463	89.77%	412	369	357,889	90.00%
Kentucky	488	420	473,643	83.76%	487	424	517,645	86.09%	486	426	509,725	87.63%
Louisiana	481	434	628,050	91.33%	503	456	628,632	90.59%	469	434	638,363	93.03%
Maine	478	437	167,452	91.86%	487	427	165,367	87.61%	466	406	161,056	86.28%
Maryland	520	481	700,758	92.50%	412	373	696,774	89.12%	455	418	698,869	91.70%
Massachusetts	523	450	726,357	87.01%	473	406	726,797	85.32%	466	404	761,421	86.79%
Michigan	2,058	1,844	1,337,752	90.07%	1,961	1,750	1,369,113	89.03%	2,022	1,786	1,362,028	88.13%
Minnesota	443	405	660,986	91.01%	514	470	684,381	92.34%	466	410	647,035	87.57%
Mississippi¹	460	418	396,888	90.35%	417	381	380,147	92.90%	434	403	377,607	92.62%
Missouri	487	435	741,043	89.39%	504	434	747,842	86.09%	482	407	739,176	82.71%
Montana	496	441	118,533	89.37%	462	412	124,324	89.19%	476	415	125,547	87.01%
Nebraska	486	436	240,071	90.37%	479	436	234,433	91.22%	398	349	214,257	87.57%
Nevada¹	532	481	264,864	90.26%	427	385	263,304	90.22%	424	381	272,295	89.35%
New Hampshire	496	432	160,899	87.68%	511	452	180,199	88.79%	463	402	171,351	86.24%
New Jersey	489	428	1,060,363	87.68%	446	386	1,002,752	86.27%	446	373	1,040,817	81.91%
New Mexico¹	363	326	270,071	89.22%	480	434	262,302	90.61%	477	437	267,026	90.81%
New York	2,031	1,753	2,337,270	85.37%	1,944	1,705	2,402,951	87.33%	1,923	1,643	2,386,440	85.64%
North Carolina	481	433	991,541	88.87%	479	422	1,041,193	87.77%	462	415	1,040,105	89.50%
North Dakota	497	466	91,095	93.68%	416	382	91,756	92.00%	515	464	91,193	89.71%
Ohio	1,845	1,653	1,441,043	89.37%	1,916	1,687	1,501,608	87.57%	1,965	1,712	1,477,159	86.84%
Oklahoma	514	443	479,049	84.54%	506	442	464,325	86.24%	468	416	451,625	89.08%
Oregon	503	448	458,891	88.35%	472	421	422,957	88.78%	487	425	448,317	87.18%
Pennsylvania	2,009	1,803	1,602,990	89.65%	1,889	1,691	1,560,665	89.95%	1,865	1,661	1,601,008	89.67%
Rhode Island	509	464	133,296	89.73%	490	419	133,702	85.96%	515	443	148,022	87.42%
South Carolina	486	431	533,703	88.60%	451	401	503,091	88.46%	431	384	503,928	89.79%
South Dakota	486	458	109,809	93.72%	436	403	105,738	92.98%	427	396	105,280	91.57%
Tennessee	503	467	797,436	93.05%	446	408	725,796	89.73%	408	379	687,831	92.64%
Texas	1,856	1,681	2,950,235	90.50%	1,773	1,594	2,986,183	90.10%	1,876	1,679	3,070,551	89.67%
Utah	428	413	378,829	95.69%	414	388	355,508	94.04%	466	430	360,286	92.16%
Vermont	480	439	82,118	92.35%	470	419	79,202	89.66%	473	418	79,607	88.84%
Virginia	450	413	864,521	92.09%	464	423	935,590	90.87%	434	389	915,164	87.44%
Washington	448	392	797,499	86.54%	517	466	809,829	90.25%	513	454	863,672	87.17%
West Virginia	470	425	225,498	90.34%	446	385	212,611	86.41%	467	426	227,229	91.82%
Wisconsin	474	421	738,285	87.31%	442	409	704,508	90.90%	503	440	704,083	88.50%
Wyoming	497	453	74,840	91.71%	471	418	70,394	89.10%	429	375	68,388	89.04%
¹ Smaller sample sizes and response rates were attained in Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico in 2002 because the review of completed records determined a number of those interviews to be fraudulent. These interviews were consequently dropped. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

**Table A.12 Sample Sizes, Weighted Interview Response Rates, and Population Estimates among Persons Aged 12 to 20, by State: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004**
State	2002-2003				2003-2004
State	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate	Total Selected	Total Responded	Population Estimate	Weighted Interview Response Rate
Overall	72,035	64,287	37,358,921	88.89%	70,811	62,714	37,626,886	88.27%
Alabama	1,002	915	606,182	91.29%	965	872	616,918	90.08%
Alaska	1,035	911	96,933	88.33%	974	847	97,610	87.21%
Arizona	953	864	704,324	90.94%	927	810	701,081	87.64%
Arkansas	979	872	350,293	89.36%	970	861	355,303	88.63%
California	3,906	3,461	4,722,850	88.25%	3,920	3,449	4,840,174	87.71%
Colorado	943	832	569,244	87.02%	947	839	576,625	88.22%
Connecticut	991	883	425,257	88.92%	960	850	429,063	88.20%
Delaware	1,024	899	103,260	87.32%	980	850	102,237	86.75%
District of Columbia	948	865	60,654	92.06%	923	826	56,475	90.19%
Florida	3,821	3,380	1,990,541	88.29%	3,853	3,345	2,044,897	86.68%
Georgia	905	807	1,106,507	89.21%	873	778	1,094,615	88.74%
Hawaii	995	895	154,682	90.37%	960	871	150,169	90.77%
Idaho	916	820	189,033	89.03%	908	816	200,038	90.11%
Illinois	3,996	3,468	1,614,389	86.72%	3,838	3,343	1,640,709	87.27%
Indiana	988	887	830,674	88.18%	940	816	813,279	85.13%
Iowa	926	847	395,358	90.92%	933	844	384,978	89.96%
Kansas	935	848	375,095	90.72%	878	788	368,676	89.88%
Kentucky	975	844	495,644	84.96%	973	850	513,685	86.86%
Louisiana	984	890	628,341	90.96%	972	890	633,497	91.81%
Maine	965	864	166,409	89.72%	953	833	163,212	86.95%
Maryland	932	854	698,766	90.86%	867	791	697,822	90.45%
Massachusetts	996	856	726,577	86.20%	939	810	744,109	86.08%
Michigan	4,019	3,594	1,353,433	89.55%	3,983	3,536	1,365,570	88.58%
Minnesota	957	875	672,684	91.68%	980	880	665,708	89.98%
Mississippi¹	877	799	388,518	91.56%	851	784	378,877	92.76%
Missouri	991	869	744,442	87.70%	986	841	743,509	84.40%
Montana	958	853	121,428	89.28%	938	827	124,935	88.09%
Nebraska	965	872	237,252	90.80%	877	785	224,345	89.52%
Nevada¹	959	866	264,084	90.24%	851	766	267,799	89.77%
New Hampshire	1,007	884	170,549	88.27%	974	854	175,775	87.56%
New Jersey	935	814	1,031,558	87.00%	892	759	1,021,785	84.06%
New Mexico¹	843	760	266,187	89.88%	957	871	264,664	90.71%
New York	3,975	3,458	2,370,111	86.35%	3,867	3,348	2,394,695	86.48%
North Carolina	960	855	1,016,367	88.31%	941	837	1,040,649	88.66%
North Dakota	913	848	91,425	92.85%	931	846	91,474	90.84%
Ohio	3,761	3,340	1,471,325	88.45%	3,881	3,399	1,489,383	87.21%
Oklahoma	1,020	885	471,687	85.40%	974	858	457,975	87.60%
Oregon	975	869	440,924	88.56%	959	846	435,637	87.95%
Pennsylvania	3,898	3,494	1,581,827	89.80%	3,754	3,352	1,580,836	89.81%
Rhode Island	999	883	133,499	87.85%	1,005	862	140,862	86.72%
South Carolina	937	832	518,397	88.54%	882	785	503,509	89.14%
South Dakota	922	861	107,773	93.35%	863	799	105,509	92.27%
Tennessee	949	875	761,616	91.47%	854	787	706,814	91.17%
Texas	3,629	3,275	2,968,209	90.30%	3,649	3,273	3,028,367	89.89%
Utah	842	801	367,168	94.88%	880	818	357,897	93.10%
Vermont	950	858	80,660	91.03%	943	837	79,404	89.25%
Virginia	914	836	900,055	91.46%	898	812	925,377	89.17%
Washington	965	858	803,664	88.39%	1,030	920	836,750	88.70%
West Virginia	916	810	219,055	88.45%	913	811	219,920	89.25%
Wisconsin	916	830	721,396	89.06%	945	849	704,296	89.70%
Wyoming	968	871	72,617	90.45%	900	793	69,391	89.07%
NOTE: To compute the pooled weighted response rates, the two samples were combined, and the individual-year weights were used for the pooled sample. Thus, the response rates presented here are weighted across 2 years of data rather than being a simple average of the individual response rates. ¹ Smaller sample sizes and response rates were attained in Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico in 2002 because the review of completed records determined a number of those interviews to be fraudulent. These interviews were consequently dropped. Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Appendix A: State Estimation Methodology

A.1 Variables Modeled

A.2 Predictors Used in Mixed Logistic Regression Models

A.3 Selection of Independent Variables for the Models

A.4 Benchmarking the Age Group–Specific Small Area Estimates

A.5 Calculation of Average Annual Incidence of Marijuana Use

A.6 Underage Drinking

A.7 Serious Psychological Distress

A.8 Measuring Change in State Estimates between 2002-2003 and 2003-2004

End Note