TABLE 2—
Site-Specific Sample Characteristics: Baltimore, MD; Birmingham, AL; Chicago, IL; and Durham, NC, 2008–2010
| Variable | Youths | Adults |
| Baltimore | ||
| No. | 30 | 7 |
| Age, y | 14–17 | 31–63 |
| % female | 100 | 100 |
| Economic status | 37% received free lunch | Not assessed |
| Education status | 9th–12th grade | 14% < college degree |
| Birminghama | ||
| No. | … | 25 |
| Age, y | … | 18–74 |
| % female | … | 92 |
| Economic status | … | 28% received public assistance |
| Education status | … | 22% < college degree |
| Chicagoa | … | |
| No. | … | 25 |
| Age, y | … | 17–59 |
| % female | … | 85 |
| Economic status | … | 75% received public assistance |
| Education status | … | 91% < college degree |
| Durhamb | ||
| No. | 12 | 18 |
| Age, y | Not assessed | 32–58 |
| % female | Not assessed | 81 |
| Economic status | Not assessed | 19% received public assistance |
| Education status | 6th–8th grade | 88% < college degree |
| Total sample size, no. | 42 | 75 |
a
No youths were interviewed in Chicago and Birmingham.
b
Demographic surveys in Durham were completed only by parents; data were missing for 2 parents; youth participants were not asked to complete demographic surveys.