Drug-Free Communities (DFC) Support Program National Evaluation

Attachment 4:
Sample Annual Evaluation Report and Executive Summary

National Evaluation of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program
Summary of Core Outcome Findings through 2013
The goals of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program are to
strengthen community collaboration and to reduce youth substance use.
Administered by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with support from the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Drug-Free Communities (DFC) Support Program funds
community coalitions to prevent and reduce youth substance use. The contributions of community coalitions constitute a
critical part of the Nation’s drug prevention infrastructure. They are a catalyst for creating local change where drug
problems manifest and affect the citizens of this country. A summary of findings based on data reported by DFC
grantees presented in full in the 2013 National Evaluation Report.

Long-Term Change in DFC Core Measures
Prevalence of Youth Substance Use Has Declined Significantly in DFC Communities. Prevalence of past 30-day
use declined significantly between the first and the most recent data reports across all substances (alcohol, tobacco,
marijuana) and school levels (middle and high school). This was true for both all DFC grantees ever funded (see Figure
1) and for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 DFC grantees only (see Figure 2). Percentage change decreases were largest for
prevalence of past 30-day use of tobacco, then past 30-day use alcohol. Prevalence of past 30-day use of marijuana
among high school students had the smallest percentage change but was a significant decrease.

FIGURE 1: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN PAST 30-DAY USE:
FIRST REPORT TO MOST RECENT REPORT
(ALL DFC GRANTEES EVER FUNDED)
Middle School

FIGURE 2: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN PAST 30-DAY USE:
FIRST REPORT TO MOST RECENT REPORT
(FY2012 DFC GRANTEES ONLY)

High School

Middle School

0%

0%
-4.9%

-10%
-16.7%

-20%

-20%

20.7%

-27.1%

-30%
-40%

-40%

Alcohol

Tobacco

-3.2%

-10%

-13.6%

-22.5%
-30%

High School

-18.9%

-26.7%

-30.1%
-37.3%

Alcohol

Marijuana

-17.3%

Tobacco

Marijuana

Perceptions of Risk of Tobacco and Alcohol Use Have Changed Significantly in the Desired Direction:
Among all DFC grantees ever funded and among FY2012 DFC grantees, perception of risk for alcohol and
tobacco use and perception of parental disapproval increased significantly among DFC youth at both the middle
and high school levels between the first report and the most recent report.
Changing Perceptions of Youth Marijuana Use: Perception of risk of marijuana use did not change significantly
for either middle school or high school youth between first and most recent report among all DFC grantees ever
funded and among FY2012 DFC grantees only. Perception of parental disapproval of marijuana use did increase
significantly among middle school youth for all DFC grantees ever funded and for FY2012 DFC grantees. Among
high school youth, perception of parental disapproval increased significantly for all DFC grantees ever funded but
not for FY2012 DFC grantees only.

ONDCP | DFC National Outcome Evaluation Status Update
ONDCP seeks to foster healthy individuals and safe communities by effectively leading the Nation’s effort to reduce drug use and its consequences

1

Recent Trends in Change in DFC Core Measures: 2012 Report versus Most Recent Report
The following trends were observed among DFC grantees that reported on outcome data collected in 2012.
Because DFC grantees are required to report outcome data every two years, these recent trends are based on data
from less than half of the FY2012 DFC grantees. Rather than comparing first to most recent data, these trends
focus on comparisons between the 2012 report and the most recent report.
 Prevalence of Past 30-Day Use of Alcohol and Tobacco Declined Significantly in DFC Grantee
Communities: Among DFC grantees that reported data from 2012, there was a significant decline in
prevalence of alcohol use at both the middle school level (-2.3 percentage points) and high school level (-1.8
percentage points) from their next most recent report (most commonly data from 2010). Middle school and high
school tobacco use also decreased significantly (-1.5 and -2.4 percentage points, respectively) during this time
period.
 Prevalence of Past 30-Day Use of Marijuana by Middle School Youth Declined Significantly but
Remained Unchanged in High School Youth. Among DFC grantees that reported data from 2012,
prevalence of marijuana use among middle school decreased significantly (-0.8 percentage points) from their
most recent report. During this same time frame, prevalence of past 30-day use of marijuana by high school
students remained unchanged.

General Trends in Prevalence of Past 30-Day Substance Use Based on Most Recent
While the Significant Declines in Prevalence of Past 30-Day use are Promising, Youth Substance Use
Remains High, Particularly for Alcohol, Suggesting an Ongoing Need for the DFC Program. Within both
middle school and high school youth, nearly twice as many youth report past 30-day use of alcohol as report use
of either tobacco or marijuana. Based on most recent report for FY2012 Grantees, 9% of middle school and 30%
of high school youth report past 30-day use of alcohol. At this same time, similar percentages of middle school
youth report tobacco and marijuana past 30-day use (4.2% and 4.3%, respectively). However, among high school
youth, past 30-day use of tobacco is slightly lower than past 30-day use of marijuana (13.7% and 18.1%,
respectively).

Perception of Peer Disapproval
Perception of Peer Disapproval of Substance Use Declines Between Middle School and High School.
Among middle school youth, over 80% reported perceiving that their peers would think it would be wrong for them
to use a given substance (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, illicit use of prescription drugs). Smaller percentages of
high school youth reported similar perceptions for alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and illicit use of prescription drugs
(56%, 63%, 55% and 74%, respectively). This suggest that youth perceptions of peer disapproval of substance
use decreases from middle to high school.

Findings Related to the Implementation of Prevention Strategies
DFC grantees are encouraged to engage in a range of activities, categorized by 7 strategy types, and clearly do
so. Virtually all DFC coalitions (over 98%) engaged in Providing Information and Enhancing Skills activities, and
many report these as a foundation for work in other strategies. The smallest percentage of DFC grantees
engaged in activities related to Changing Physical Design, although just under three fourths of DFC grantees
engaged in these activities (72%). Slightly more than three-fourths of DFC coalitions (77%) reported engaging in
activities related to Modifying/Changing Policies. Generally, grantees focus on modifying/changing one to two
types of policies at a time. Modifying/Changing Policies related to drug-free schools was engaged in by the
highest percentage of DFC grantees (29%), and these grantees reported being generally successful. Citizen
Enabling/Liability policies had the second highest policy engagement, but lowest number of successes, suggesting
that enacting these types of laws can take considerable effort and time.
NOTE: Given the evaluation design, a causal relationship cannot be claimed with certainty between DFC coalition activities and the outcomes reported here.
However, the results are consistent with expectations that DFC is effective when the program has been implemented as intended. Please see the full report for
additional information.

ONDCP | DFC National Outcome Evaluation Status Update
ONDCP seeks to foster healthy individuals and safe communities by effectively leading the Nation’s effort to reduce drug use and its consequences

2

Drug-Free Communities
Support Program
2013 National Evaluation Report

December 2014

Report Prepared By:
ICF International
9300 Lee Highway
Fairfax, VA 22031
www.icfi.com

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Table of Contents
Drug-Free Communities Support Program ....................................................................................... 1
History and Background............................................................................................................................ 1
Data in 2013 National Evaluation Report.................................................................................................. 1
DFC Potential Reach ................................................................................................................................. 3
DFC Sector Membership........................................................................................................................... 3
Implementation of Strategies and Accomplishments ......................................................................... 5
Providing Information ............................................................................................................................... 5
Enhancing Skills........................................................................................................................................ 7
Providing Support ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers ....................................................................................................... 9
Changing Consequences ........................................................................................................................ 10
Changing Physical Design ...................................................................................................................... 11
Modifying/Changing Policies ................................................................................................................. 12
Summary: Implementation of Strategies ............................................................................................... 13
Interim Core Measures Findings from the Outcome Evaluation ..................................................... 13
2012 Revised Core Measures ................................................................................................................. 13
Percentage Point Change, Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use ..................................................................... 16
All DFC Grantees Ever Funded, Long-term Change. ........................................................................ 16
FY2012 DFC Grantees, Long-term Change. ...................................................................................... 17
Percentage Change, Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use .............................................................................. 18
All DFC Grantees Ever Funded, Long-term Percentage Change. ...................................................... 18
FY2012 DFC Grantees, Long-term Percentage Change .................................................................... 18
Comparison to National Data, Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use .............................................................. 19
Perception of Risk/Harm of Use ............................................................................................................. 20
All DFC Grantees Ever Funded, Long-term Change. ........................................................................ 20
FY2012 DFC Grantees, Long-term Change. ...................................................................................... 20
Perception of Parental Disapproval of Use ............................................................................................. 21
Most Recent Core Measures Findings: Short-Term Change .................................................................. 21
Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use: FY2012 DFC Grantees, Short-term Change. ................................. 21
Perception of Risk: FY2012 DFC Grantees, Short-term Change. ..................................................... 22

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page i

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
Perception of Parental Disapproval: FY2012 DFC Grantees, Short-term Change. ........................... 22
Establishing Baseline Data: Revised and New DFC Core Measures ..................................................... 23
Revised DFC Core Measures ............................................................................................................. 23
Illicit Use of Prescription Drugs. ........................................................................................................ 23
Perception of Peer Disapproval .......................................................................................................... 24
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page i

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Drug-Free Communities Support Program
History and Background
Created through the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, the Drug-Free Communities (DFC)
Support Program funds community coalitions working to reduce substance use among youth and to
create safer and healthier communities. Through this program, youth, parents, schools, law
enforcement, business professionals, faith-based organizations, media, local, state and tribal
government, and other community members join forces as community-based coalitions to meet the
local prevention needs of youth, families, and the communities in which they live. The ultimate
goals for DFC community coalitions are to (1) reduce substance use among youth and (2) increase
collaboration in the community to address substance use and associated problems. 1
The DFC Support Program is funded and directed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP), with support from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), and with additional training and technical assistance from the Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America’s (CADCA) National Coalition Institute. From the beginning of the DFC
Program to the awarding of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 DFC grants that are the focus of this report,
ONDCP has awarded over 2,000 DFC grants to community coalitions across the nation.2 DFC
grantees have included community coalitions in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, Micronesia, and Palau. They represent rural, urban,
suburban, and tribal communities. DFC grantees receive awards of up to $125,000 per year for up
to five years per award, with a maximum of 10 award years. DFC grantees are required to match
Federal funds, thus at a minimum doubling the financial resources available to implement and
enhance community substance use prevention activities and resources.

Data in the DFC 2013 National Evaluation Report
This report is intended to provide an annual update on DFC national evaluation findings. Findings
are reported in two major sections. First, process data on strategies implemented by FY2012 DFC
grantees are presented in order to provide information regarding how DFC grantees engage in
activities to bring about change. Next, outcome data reflecting change on DFC core measures are
provided both for all DFC grantees ever funded and for FY2012 DFC grantees specifically. The
outcomes section of the report also includes a comparison to some national data. , The data in this
report are presented as a reflection of the relationship between being a DFC grantee and change in
outcomes.
Data for the DFC National Evaluation are collected through the Coalition Online Management and
Evaluation Tool (COMET). Progress report data used for grants management and the national
evaluation are collected in COMET in February and August of each year.3 Information about core
measures data submitted into COMET is included later in this report, including definitions of the
core measures. This report contains data submitted by DFC grantees in COMET on activities and
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2013). Drug-Free Communities Support Program. Retrieved on 11/2/13 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/Drug-Free-Communities-Support-Program/
2 Office of National Drug Control Policy (2013). Drug-Free Communities Support Program. Retrieved on 11/2/13 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/Drug-Free-Communities-Support-Program/ In September 2013, FY2013 DFC
grants were awarded, with a total of 619 FY2013 DFC coalitions including 86 new year 1 coalitions. The FY2013
grantees first reported data in February 2014 and are not included in this report.
3 From 2005 to 2011, grantees reported data in May and November. Starting in 2012, the reporting schedule was
changed to February and August to facilitate grantees’ grant renewal process. This report covers data submitted in
August 2013, which covers progress from February-July 2013.
1

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 1

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
outcomes through July 2013.4 Progress report data on coalition activities have been reported since
the first reporting period in 2005 (which reflected activities from October 2004 through March
2005) and core measures outcome data have been reported since 1999.5
In FY2012, ONDCP awarded 60 new DFC grants and 608 DFC continuation grants, bringing the total
number of DFC grantees to 668.6 Two DFC grantees relinquished grants in 2013, which reduced the
total number of DFC grantees in the FY2012 cohort from 668 DFC grantees to 666 DFC grantees,
plus 24 DFC mentoring grantees. These 666 DFC grantees are the primary focus of this report.7
Some analyses provided in this report also include all DFC grantees ever funded, including those
DFC grantees whose funding ended prior to August 2013. Figure 1 provides a map indicating the
location of all 692 FY2012 DFC grantees, including DFC mentoring grantees (6 new and 18
continuation mentoring grantees).8

FIGURE 1: DFC GRANTEES, FY2012
Notes: Two DFC grantees relinquished their grant which reduced the total number of DFC grantees in the
FY2012 cohort from 668 DFC grantees to 666 DFC grantees, plus 24 DFC mentoring grantees.

COMET was revised in 2012. Revisions were designed to reduce burden on grantees and to increase the quality and
usefulness of the data for the evaluation, particularly related to strategies used by grantees.
5 Only core measures data collected since 2002 are included in this report.
6 Office of National Drug Control Policy (2013). Drug-Free Communities Support Program. Retrieved on 11/2/13 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/fy-2012-new-grants.
7 Less than 6% of grantees (37 of the 667 grantees) did not submit their progress report in time for inclusion in this
report. This brings the number of grantees down to 630 for some of the analyses reported here.
8 DFC Mentoring Program grantees use their funds to serve as mentors to new or developing community coalitions that
have never had a DFC grant. Through the DFC Mentoring Program, experienced coalitions share the knowledge and
expertise gained as a DFC grantee with non-grantee communities to help emerging coalitions in their efforts to
reduce local youth substance use and to help the coalition obtain a DFC grant. Mentoring grantee data are not
included in the DFC National Evaluation.

4

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 2

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

DFC Potential Reach
Together, the 666 DFC grantees funded in
DFC grantees identify their catchment areas by zip
FY2012 target 68 million people, which is
code. Each DFC community coalition indicates all
22%
of the population of the United States.
zip codes in which their grant activities are
FY2012 DFC grantees’ “catchment areas”
targeted, and these zip codes were merged with
include
more than 2.6 million middle school
2010 U.S. Census data to provide a rough estimate
students
and 3.7 million high school
of the number of people that DFC may reach and
students. Since the program’s inception, DFC
impact. The total population of all catchment
grantees have targeted areas that cover
areas of DFC grantees funded in FY2012 was
37% of the U.S. population.
approximately 67.6 million, or 21.9% of the
population of the United States. These catchment
areas include approximately 2.6 million middle
school students between the ages of 12-14 and 3.7 million high school students between the ages of
15-18. This is approximately 21.3% of all United States youth at the middle school level and 21.4%
of all youth at the high school level.9 Since DFC grantee data on catchment areas has been collected
(i.e., starting in 2005), DFC community coalitions have targeted areas with a combined population
of approximately 114.3 million, or 37.0% of the U.S. population. That is, slightly more than one in
three persons in the U.S. has lived in a community with a DFC community coalition since 1999.

DFC Sector Membership
To support the DFC goal of increased community collaboration regarding prevention of youth
substance use, DFC grantees are required to engage community members from twelve sectors in
order to conduct their work. DFC grantees are generally successful at this, with 89% reporting
having at least one active member from each sector. Figure 2 provides an overview of the median
number of active members from each of the twelve sectors.
The median number of active members ranged from 1 to 6 per sector. On average, the youth sector
had the highest median number of active members across DFC grantees (6 active members),
followed by the school sector (5 active members. Median number of active members was lowest for
the media sector (1 active member).
In addition to average number of active members, DFC grantees were asked to indicate how
involved on average members from each sector were in coalition activities. Involvement was rated
on a five point scale with 5 indicating very high involvement, 4 indicating high involvement, 3
indicating medium involvement, 2 indicating some involvement, and 1 indicating low involvement
(see Figure 3). On average, no sector was rated as being below medium involvement. The school
sector and law enforcement sector had the highest average level of involvement (4.3) followed by
youth serving organization and other organizations with expertise in substance abuse (4.1).

9

United States Census 2010 data, Summary File 2, retrieved from http://www.census.gov/2010census/.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 3

Median Number
of Active Members

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

6.
0

5.
0
3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0
2.0

2.0
2.0

1.0

FIGURE 2: MEDIAN NUMBER OF ACTIVE MEMBERS BY SECTOR FOR ALL FY2012 DFC GRANTEES AND FOR
FY2012 DFC GRANTEES EXCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 10% WITH HIGHEST ACTIVE MEMBERSHIP RATES

Average Level
of Involvement

Notes: The number of DFC grantees reporting on number of active members by sector was 666. Source: COMET
Membership Data, August 2013

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

4.3

4.3

4.1

3.9

4.1

3.9

3.9

3.7

3.7

3.5

3.4

3.4

FIGURE 3: AVERAGE LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT BY SECTOR FOR ALL FY2012 DFC GRANTEES
Notes: The number of DFC grantees reporting on level of involvement by sector was 666.
Source: COMET Membership Data, August 2013

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 4

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Implementation of Strategies
Every six months, DFC grantees report on activities they have engaged in during the timeframe.
The activities are grouped into CADCA’s Seven Strategies for Community Change10, with any given
activity coded into a single strategy. The seven strategies include providing information, enhancing
skills, providing support, enhancing access/reducing barriers, changing consequences, changing
physical design and modifying/ changing policies. The following provides an overview of the
activities engaged in by FY2012 DFC grantees from February to July 2013.

Providing Information

Quotes from the Field: Providing Information
Activities in this strategy provide individuals
“The [Secure Your Meds] campaign included: 150 radio
with information related to data on youth
awareness messages; 2,250 daily digital billboard
substance use, preventing youth substance
use, and the consequences of youth
messages in strategic locations around our community
substance use. Examples include educational
for 14 days during the campaign; in-kind bus ads; and
presentations, public service
campaign ads and information on Task force website
announcements, brochures, and
and Facebook page.”
presentations during community meetings.
All DFC grantees, except one (99.8%),
reported engaging in providing information activities (see Table 1). Between February 2013 and
July 2013, 593 DFC grantees (94%) disseminated prevention materials (including brochures and
flyers). In addition, more than 140,000 media spots were advertised via print, billboard, television,
radio, and other methods by 534 DFC grantees (85%). Moreover, nearly half of DFC grantees
reported posting new materials on coalition websites that garnered over 823,831 hits.
Over and above providing general prevention information via print and electronic media, DFC
community coalitions also directly engaged youth and adults in their communities to deliver
prevention information. From February 2013 to July 2013, 9,238 face-to-face information sessions
were held. The sessions reached over 103,000 adults and more than 130,000 youth. DFC grantees
also held or contributed to 3,191 special events that served over 700,000 attendees.

10

Seehttp://www.cadca.org/resources/detail/definint-seven-strategies-community-change.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 5

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
TABLE 1: DFC GRANTEES’ ACCOMPLISHMENTS RELATED TO PROVIDING INFORMATION,
FEBRUARY 2013 TO JULY 2013
Number
of DFC
Grantees
Engaged
in
Activity

Activity
Information
Dissemination: Brochures,
593
flyers, posters, etc.
distributed
Media Coverage: TV,
radio, newspaper stories
561
covering coalition
activities
Informational Materials
Produced: Brochures,
553
flyers, posters, etc.
produced
Direct Face-to-Face
542
Information Sessions
Media Campaigns:
Television, radio, print,
534
billboard, bus or other
posters aired/placed
Special Events: Fairs,
523
celebrations, etc.
Social Networking: Posts
495
on social media sites (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter)
Information on Coalition
301
Website: New materials
posted
Summary: Providing Information

Percentage of DFC
Grantees Engaged

629

Number of
Completed
Activities

Number
of Adults
Served

Number
of Youth
Served

94.1%

1,781,730

--a

--a

89.0%

8,243

--a

--a

87.8%

173,486

--a

--a

86.0%

9,238

84.8%

142,325

83.0%

3,191

78.6%

38,628

47.8%

6,066

99.8%

2,162,907

103,950
--a

132,752
--a

385,422

308,201

1,004,790

433,940
followers

followers
823,831
hitsb
N/A

--a
N/A

Notes: The number of DFC grantees was 630. In some cases, the same youth or adults may have participated in multiple
activities.
a Data on number of people served was not reported since it could not be collected consistently and reliably by all grantees.
b Number of web hits.
N/A = Not Applicable
Source: COMET Activity Data, August 2013

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 6

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Enhancing Skills

Quotes from the Field: Enhancing Skills
The purpose of activities in this strategy is to
“Seventy Juniors and Seniors from [the local] High
enhance the skills of participants, members,
School volunteered their time . . . to go into [the local]
and staff needed to achieve population-level
outcomes. Examples include youth
Middle School's 7th and 8th grade classes (total 425)
conferences, parenting workshops, staff
to inform and educate the students about marijuana
training, and technical assistance (see Table 2).
use [and other drugs].”
Nearly all DFC grantees (98%) engaged in
“The Coalition has also partnered with the [state]
activities related to enhancing skills. Providing
liquor commission to host local Total Education in
youth education and training programs was
the most common activity completed by
Alcohol Management trainings locally. The first
coalitions with 531 (84%) participating.
training was held in November and 39 employees for
Nearly 6,800 sessions were delivered to more
local establishments attended.”
than 200,000 youth. Over half (59%) of DFC
community coalitions conducted parent
training sessions about drug awareness, prevention strategies, and parenting skills. Training was
also provided to over 60,000 community members, more than 17,000 teachers and more than
13,000 workers at businesses that sell alcohol or tobacco.
TABLE 2: DFC GRANTEES’ ACCOMPLISHMENTS RELATED TO ENHANCING SKILLS,
FEBRUARY 2013 TO JULY 2013

Activity
Youth Education and Training:
Sessions focusing on providing
information and skills to youth
Community Member Training:
Sessions on drug awareness,
cultural competence, etc.
directed to community
members, (e.g., law enforcement,
landlords)
Parent Education and Training:
Sessions directed to parents on
drug awareness, prevention
strategies, parenting skills, etc.
Business Training: Sessions on
server compliance, training on
youth-marketed alcohol
products, tobacco sales, etc.
Teacher Training: Sessions on
drug awareness and prevention
strategies directed to teachers or
youth workers
Summary: Enhancing Skills

Number of
DFC
Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Percentage
of DFC
Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Number of
Completed
Activities

Number
of
Adults
Served

Number
of Youth
Served

531

84.3%

6,786

N/A

229,387

386

61.3%

1,418

63,924

N/A

373

59.2%

1,827

48,274

N/A

260

41.3%

1,058

13,286

N/A

245

38.9%

607

17,036

N/A

620

98.4%

11,696

142,520

229,387

Notes: The number of DFC grantees was 630. In some cases, the same youth or adults may have participated in multiple activities.
N/A = Not Applicable;
Source: COMET Activity Data, August 2013

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 7

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Providing Support

Quotes from the Field: Providing Support

DFC grantees provide support for people to
“The [event] was also planned and presented at 3
participate in activities that reduce risk or enhance
local high schools in October. Over 1200 students
protection. Examples include providing substancewere able to experience this event and their
reaction was very positive and receptive to the
free activities, mentoring programs, and support
messages that were delivered. The Maze is a true
groups (see Table 3).11 A majority of DFC grantees
community
project with over 80 volunteers from
(87%) engaged in activities related to providing
Law
enforcement…
the medical community and
support. Most DFC grantees (67%) sponsored or
[other sectors].”
supported alternative social events, attended
“Along with collaborative partners, the DFC
collectively by over 140,000 youth. DFC grantees
program hosted its 5th annual youth
also supported 1,464 youth organizations and
encampment….
There were 675 youth and family
clubs with 35,610 members as well as 1,099 youth
members
in
attendance,
which includes 258 tribal
recreation programs with 45,082 participants.
youth and 156 native parents.”
DFC grantees provided or supported 407
community events attended by more than 80,000
participants. In addition, DFC grantees conducted
1,187 youth and family support groups with over 13,000 participants.
TABLE 3: DFC GRANTEES’ ACCOMPLISHMENTS RELATED TO PROVIDING SUPPORT,
FEBRUARY 2013 TO JULY 2013

Activity
Alternative Social Events: Drug-free
parties, other alternative events
supported by the coalition
Youth/Family Community Involvement:
Community events held (e.g.,
neighborhood cleanup)
Youth Recreation Programs:
Recreational events (e.g., athletics, arts,
outdoor activities) supported by
coalitions
Youth/Family Support Groups:
Leadership groups, mentoring
programs, youth employment
programs, etc. supported by coalitions
Youth Organizations: Clubs and centers
supported by coalitions
Summary: Providing Support

Number of
DFC
Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Percentag
e of DFC
Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Number of
Completed
Activities

423

67.1%

198

Number
of Adults
Served

Number
of
Youth
Served

1,657

50,347

142,805

31.4%

407

42,955

40,521

198

31.4%

1,099

N/A

45,082

170

27.0%

1,187

163

25.9%

1,464

N/A

547

86.8%

5,814

99,552

6,250

Notes: The number of DFC grantees was 630. In some cases, the same youth or adults may have participated in multiple
activities.
N/A = Not Applicable
Source: COMET Activity Data, Report, August 2013

11

7,565
35,610
271,583

DFC grantees must comply with all Federal policies and regulations describing allowable and unallowable grant
expenditures. In addition, the DFC Program has specific funding restrictions. DFC grant funds may not necessarily
fund all of the activities examples provided for each of the Strategies for Community Change. See
http://www.samhsa.gov/Grants/2013/sp-13-002.pdf for a sample grant application describing funding limitations.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 8

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers

Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers
The purpose of activities in this strategy is to improve
“[We] conducted DEA Take-Back at 2 sites in
systems and processes to increase the ease, ability and
collaboration with 2 law enforcement agencies,
opportunity to utilize those systems and services.
taking
back 177 pounds of drugs, and [we] broadly
Examples include providing transportation to
disseminated
information about Rx abuse,
treatment, providing child care, reducing the
including at pharmacies.”
availability of tobacco, alcohol and drugs, and
cultural/language translation of materials/services,
“[We] partnered with the local Hispanic church to
etc. (see Table 4).12 Most DFC grantees (91%) engaged
assist with drug and alcohol free youth activities
in activities related to enhancing access/reducing
and
support information dissemination about drug
barriers. More than three-quarters (80%) of DFC
trends and resources in Spanish.”
grantees were involved in activities to reduce home
and social access, for example implementing activities
such as community prescription drug take-back programs.13 Slightly more than a quarter of DFC
grantees (28%) reported increasing access to substance use services with more than 11,000 adults
and over 7,400 youth referred to substance use services during this reporting period. About a third
(33%) of DFC grantees engaged in activities designed to improve access through culturally sensitive
outreach, for example providing services and materials in languages other than English. More than
9,000 adults and 12,000 youth received supports such as transportation or access to child care that
facilitated their involvement in prevention and treatment activities.
TABLE 4: DFC GRANTEES’ ACCOMPLISHMENTS RELATED TO ENHANCING ACCESS/REDUCING BARRIERS,
FEBRUARY 2013 TO JULY 2013

Activity
Reducing Home and Social Access: Adults and
youth participating in activities designed to
reduce access to alcohol and other substances
(e.g., prescription drug take-back programs)
Improve Access through Culturally Sensitive
Outreach: People targeted for culturally sensitive
outreach (e.g., multilingual materials)
Increased Access to Substance Use Services:
People referred to employee assistance programs,
student assistance programs, treatment services
Improved Supports: People receiving supports
for enhanced access to services (e.g.,
transportation, child care)
Summary: Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers

Number of
DFC Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Percentage of
DFC Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Number
of Adults
Served

Number
of Youth
Served

504

80.0%

--a

--a

210

33.3%

155,200

77,216

175

27.8%

11,408

7,441

81

12.9%

9,043

12,564

572

90.8%

175,651

97,221

Notes: The number of DFC grantees was 630.
a Data on number of people served was not reported since it could not be collected consistently and reliably by all grantees.
N/A = Not Applicable
Source: COMET Activity Data, August 2013

Please see footnote 10 regarding limitations on uses of DFC funding. DFC grant funds may not necessarily fund all of
the activities examples provided for each of the Strategies for Community Change.
13 Many prescription drug take-backs involve drop boxes that are not monitored on a 24/7 basis, making it difficult to
estimate the number of adult/youth participants.
12

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 9

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Changing Consequences
In this strategy, activities focus on increasing or
Changing Consequences
decreasing the probability of a specific behavior that
The coalition worked with law enforcement to
reduces risk or enhances protection by altering the
report the sale of synthetic drugs from a local
consequences (incentives/disincentives) for
performing that behavior. For example, providing
retail store. The drugs were seized and the
recognition of positive accomplishments (e.g.,
store closed.
substance-free youth) is an incentive whereas
increasing fines for underage drinking violations is a
disincentive. Most DFC grantees (82%) engaged in activities related to changing consequences.
Table 5 presents an overview of the number of DFC grantees who conducted activities related to
changing consequences and businesses affected by these activities.
Just over half (55%) of DFC grantees engaged in activities focused on strengthening enforcement of
existing laws, while 42% strengthened surveillance activities. DFC grantees reported more
engagement in recognizing positive business behavior than in publicizing negative business
behavior. Specifically, more than a third (38%) of DFC grantees implemented recognition programs
that reward local businesses for compliance with local ordinances linked with the sale of alcohol
and tobacco. Fewer DFC grantees (17%) publicly identify establishments that were noncompliant
with local ordinances. Between February 2013 to July 2013, 7,212 businesses received recognition
for compliance and 2,025 businesses were identified for noncompliance.
TABLE 5: DFC GRANTEES’ ACCOMPLISHMENTS RELATED TO CHANGING CONSEQUENCES,
FEBRUARY 2013 TO JULY 2013

Activity
Strengthening Enforcement (e.g., DUI checkpoints,
shoulder tap, open container laws)
Strengthening Surveillance (e.g., “hot spots,” party
patrols)
Recognition Programs: Businesses receiving recognition
for compliance with local ordinances (e.g., pass
compliance checks)
Publicizing Non-Compliance: Businesses identified for
non-compliance with local ordinances
Summary: Changing Consequences

Number of
DFC
Grantees
Engaged
in
Activitya

Percentage
of DFC
Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

348

55.2%

N/A

261

41.4%

N/A

242

38.4%

7,212

109

17.3%

2,025

514

81.6%

9,237

Number of
Businesses

Notes: The number of DFC grantees was 630.
a Data on number of people served was not collected since it could not be collected consistently and reliably by all grantees.
Source: COMET Activity Data, August 2013

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 10

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Changing Physical Design

Quotes from the Field: Physical Design

For this strategy, activities involve changing the
“In collaboration with the Coalition, two stores
physical design or structure of the community
improved their storefront façade, installing
environment to reduce risk or enhance
windows free of alcohol advertising and
protection. Examples of activities in this area
increasing visibility and safety from within and
include cleaning up blighted neighborhoods,
outside of the store.”
adding lights to a park, and regulating alcohol
outlet density (see Table 6).14 Nearly threefourths of DFC grantees (72%) engaged in
activities related to changing physical design. Slightly more than a third of DFC grantees worked on
identifying physical design problems (35%). Almost a third improved signage or advertising by
suppliers (31%). In sum, 1,255 physical design problems were identified and 2,549 suppliers made
changes in signage, advertising, or displays corresponding to alcohol or tobacco sales. In addition,
DFC grantees completed 303 neighborhood cleanup and beautification events, encouraged 681
businesses to designate alcohol and tobacco free zones, and improved 133 public places to facilitate
surveillance (e.g., improving visibility of “hot spots” of substance dealing or use).
TABLE 6: DFC GRANTEES’ ACCOMPLISHMENTS RELATED TO CHANGING PHYSICAL DESIGN,
FEBRUARY 2013 TO JULY 2013

Activity
Identifying Physical Design Problems: Physical
design problems (e.g., hot spots, clean-up areas,
outlet clusters) identified through environmental
scans, neighborhood meetings, etc.
Improved Signage/Advertising by Suppliers:
Suppliers making changes in signage, advertising,
or displays
Cleanup and Beautification: Cleanup/beautification events held
Encourage Designation of Alcohol-Free and
Tobacco-Free Zones: Businesses targeted or that
made changes
Identify Problem Establishments: Problem
establishments identified (e.g., drug houses) and
closed or modified practices
Improved Ease of Surveillance: Areas (public
places, hot spots) in which surveillance and
visibility was improved (e.g., improved lighting,
surveillance cameras, improved line of sight)
Summary: Changing Physical Design

Number of
DFC Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Percentage of
DFC Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Number of
Completed
Activities

220

34.9%

1,255

197

31.3%

2,549

142

22.5%

303

125

19.8%

681

69

11.0%

199

58

9.2%

133

451

71.6%

5,120

Notes: The number of DFC grantees was 630.
Source: COMET Activity Data, August 2013

14

Please see footnote 10 regarding limitations on uses of DFC funding. DFC grant funds may not necessarily fund all of
the activities examples provided for each of the Strategies for Community Change.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 11

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Modifying/Changing Policies
For this strategy (see Table 7), activities involve formal change in written procedures, by-laws,
laws, rules, proclamations, and/or voting procedures.15 Examples of activities include school drug
testing policies and local use ordinances. Slightly more than three-fourths of DFC grantees (77%)
engaged in activities related to modifying/changing policies. Nearly a third (30%) of DFC grantees
engaged in modifying or changing school policies, and 135 policies were changed. DFC grantees
also successfully modified or changed 73 laws/policies related to supplier advertising/liability; 64
laws/policies concerning underage use, possession, or behavior under the influence; 53
laws/policies related to facilitating access to treatment or prevention services; 52 laws/policies
associated with restrictions on the sale of alcohol or tobacco; 48 laws/policies related to drug-free
workplaces; and 32 laws/policies related to parental liability/enabling behaviors.
TABLE 7: DFC GRANTEES’ ACCOMPLISHMENTS RELATED TO MODIFYING/CHANGING POLICIES,
FEBRUARY 2013 TO JULY 2013

Activity
School: Laws or policies passed/modified concerning drugfree schools
Citizen Enabling/Liability: Laws or policies
passed/modified concerning parental liability or enabling
Underage Use: Laws or policies passed/modified
concerning underage use, possession, or behavior under the
influence
Supplier Promotion/Liability: Laws or policies
passed/modified concerning supplier advertising,
promotions, or liability
Cost: Laws or policies passed/modified concerning cost
(e.g., alcohol taxes/fees, tobacco taxes)
Treatment and Prevention: Laws or policies
passed/modified concerning sentencing alternatives to
increase treatment or prevention
Sales Restrictions: Laws or public policies passed/modified
concerning restrictions on product sales
Workplace: Laws or policies passed/modified concerning
drug-free workplaces
Outlet Location/Density: Laws or zoning ordinances
passed/modified concerning the density of alcohol outlets
Summary: Changing Policies

Number of
DFC
Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Percentage
of DFC
Grantees
Engaged in
Activity

Number of
Policies
Passed/
Modified

187

29.7%

135

156

24.8%

32

153

24.3%

64

113

17.9%

73

113

17.9%

38

101

16.0%

53

95

15.1%

52

66

10.5%

48

66

10.5%

19

487

77.3%

514

Notes: The number of DFC grantees was 630.
Source: COMET Activity Data, August 2013

15

DFC Grantees are legally prohibited from using Federal dollars for lobbying. As such, costs for lobbying cannot be used
as match. For more information refer to Restrictions on Grantee Lobbying (Appropriations Act Section 503). See
also grantee terms and conditions at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/information-for-current-grantees.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 12

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Summary: Implementation of Strategies
The reporting of activities carried out by DFC grantees between February 2013 and July 2013
documents the comprehensive presence of DFCs in their communities. Nearly every DFC
community coalition (99.8%) submitting a report during this reporting period indicated they had
engaged in information dissemination activities. Virtually all (98%) provided services related to
enhancing skills, 91% engaged in activities to promote access/reduce barriers to prevention and
treatment services; 87% engaged in supporting positive activities reducing risk for substance use;
82% engaged in activities to change consequences; 77% promoted law or policy changes to
decrease use and associated negative behaviors; and 72% engaged in activities to change physical
environments to decrease opportunities for and encouragement of substance use.
The most frequently used activities within each strategy area often targeted youth. More DFC
grantees provided skills activities for youth than any other community group; alternative drug-free
activities for youth were the support activity implemented by the most DFC grantees; reducing
home access to substances was the enhancing access/reducing barriers activity most often
implemented by DFC grantees; and more DFC grantees focused on school policies than on any other
category of law and policy change. Many DFC grantees reported anecdotally on the involvement of
youth in activities across strategy types, indicating youth were the agents of change as well as the
target of activities. The work of DFC grantees represents a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach
focusing on the reduction of youth substance use that reaches communities containing more than
one fifth of the nation’s population in the targeted age groups.

Interim Core Measures Findings from the Outcome Evaluation
This section of the report provides findings related to changes in core measures outcomes. A brief
description of the DFC core measures as revised in 2012 is provided first. Next, findings from
analyses related to long-term change in DFC core measures are provided. For prevalence of past-30
day use, these analyses include a comparison to national data. This is followed by findings from
analyses related to short-term change in DFC core measures. Finally, baseline data for all new DFC
core measures introduced in the 2012 revisions are provided. The box on interpreting findings
provides an overview of the types of outcomes analyses that were conducted.

2012 Revised Core Measures
DFC grantees are required to report core measures data every two years. In January 2012, revised
DFC core measures were communicated to DFC grantees. This change was motivated in large part
by the desire to align the DFC core measures with SAMHSA’s National Outcome Measures (NOMs).
Given the recent change to core measures, only baseline data is available for the revised measures,
and these data will be presented in a later section. All data analyses of DFC core measures are
predicated on tracking change over time, and two time points worth of data are therefore needed to
measure change. If a given DFC core measure remained the same in the transition from the old to
the revised core measures, the legacy data were aligned with the latest core measures report from
August 2013.
The four DFC original core measures included (1) the prevalence of past 30-day use, (2) perception
of risk, (3) perception of parental disapproval, and (4) age of first use. Each of the original core
measures covered three substances: alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Highlights of changes made in
the transition to the revised core measures include:
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 13

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report


Removal of Age of First Use as a Core Measure: Age of First Use is difficult to use as a
performance measure, given that youth may have already started using substances prior to
the start of the DFC grant. Moreover, it is not a particularly reliable measure since many
youth must recall an event that may have happened many years in the past. Some DFC
coalitions continue to collect Age of First Use for local assessment purposes.



Addition of Perception of Peer Disapproval: The addition of this core measure will allow
analyses regarding the potential relationship between perceived disapproval of parents and
peers on the decision to use alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.



Addition of Prescription Drugs as a Core Substance: Beginning in 2012, DFC grantees
were required to include in their core measures survey questions that ask about each core
measure with regard to illicit use of prescription drugs defined as “using prescription drugs
not prescribed to you.”



Perception of Risk of Alcohol Changed from Regular Use to Binge Drinking: To be
consistent with the NOMs, and to capture a more realistic pattern of use among youth, the
Perception of Risk measure for alcohol use was modified to measure perceived risk of binge
drinking rather than perceived risk of regular use.16 Grantees are permitted to continue to
measure perception of risk of regular alcohol use as that data is reported for other federal
grant programs.



Additional Specificity Provided on “Regular” Use: Several measures (Perception of Risk
for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana, Perception of Parental Disapproval of alcohol use)
focus on regular use of a particular substance. While regular use of alcohol was previously
defined as 1-2 drinks nearly every day, regular use of marijuana was not defined. Regular
marijuana use is now defined as 1-2 times per week.

For this report, the focus is on data reported on three of the four core measures from 2002 to 2013
(Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use, Perception of Risk, Perception of Parental Disapproval).17 Since
Age of First Use has been dropped as a core measure, it is not included in this report. Data analyses
presented in this report describe changes over time within communities while DFC grantees were
in place. The findings in this report provide a reflection of the relationship between coalition
activities and community outcomes.18 The section on interpreting findings provides an overview of
the definitions of the core measures and the analyses presented in this report.

In this report, perception of risk of regular alcohol use was reported by the majority of DFC grantees. Perception of
Risk of binge alcohol use will be discussed in the baseline data.
17 Outliers beyond 3 standard deviations were removed for change scores on each core measure, core substance.
16

18

While grant activities were designed and implemented to cause a reduction in youth substance use, it
cannot be stated with certainty that DFC community coalitions caused changes in outcomes.
Establishing a causal relationship would require assigning communities randomly to receive the DFC
grant, a research design that is not appropriate given how the DFC grant was established.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 14

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

INTERPRETING FINDINGS
The four DFC core measures included in this report are defined as follows:



Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use: The percentage of survey respondents who reported using alcohol, tobacco,
marijuana, or (illicit use of) prescription drugs at least once in the past 30 days.



Perception of Risk: The percentage of survey respondents who reported that regular use of alcohol, tobacco,
or marijuana has moderate risk or great risk. Regular use of alcohol was defined as 1 or 2 drinks nearly every
day. Regular use was defined for tobacco as one or more packs of cigarettes a day. Regular use for marijuana
was defined as using once or twice a week. The perception of risk of prescription drug use core measure
covers any illicit prescription drug use. The revised core measure for perceived risk of alcohol, which covers
binge use, is described in the section of the report on baseline data. Binge use was defined for alcohol as five or
more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (beer, wine, liquor) once or twice a week.



Perception of Parental Disapproval: The percentage of survey respondents who reported their parents feel
regular use of alcohol (1-2 drinks nearly every day) is wrong or very wrong. The percentage of survey
respondents who report their parents feel any use of tobacco, marijuana, or illicit prescription drug use is
wrong or very wrong.



Perception of Peer Disapproval: The percentage of survey respondents who reported that their friends
thought it would be “wrong” or “very wrong” for them to drink alcohol regularly (1-2 drinks nearly every day),
or engage in any tobacco use, marijuana use, or illicit prescription drug use.

Given that some changes have been made in Perception of Risk and Perception of Parental Disapproval measures, the
legacy core measures will continue to be reported on until change scores can be computed from at least two data
points.
ANALYTIC STRATEGIES
DFC grantees are required to report core measures data every two years, with new five-year funding cohorts initiated
each program year. Therefore, each year's outcome data includes a different set of DFC grantees. Because of this data
collection process, the full DFC data record does not constitute annual trend data for a consistent set of coalitions. To
provide useful indications of change in outcomes for coalitions, the evaluation team conducted separate analyses of
change in core measures for DFC community coalitions as follows.
Analyses of Long-Term Change. To provide a longer-term measure of change within a more complete sample of
coalitions, the evaluation team identified each DFC grantee’s first outcome report and compared that figure to their
most recent report. For example, if Grantee A submitted data at four time points, the analysis examined change from
the first submission to the fourth submission. This analysis includes a large number of coalitions across reporting
cycles, and summarizes the longer term changes in outcomes that have been achieved. Results of these analyses are
presented for(1) all DFC grantees ever funded and (2) FY2012 DFC grantees only, that reported outcome data at least
twice between 2002 and 2013. The average amount of time elapsed between first and last time reported for all DFC
grantees ever funded was between 3.9 and 4.6 years, depending on the DFC Core measure. The average amount of time
elapsed between first and last time reported for FY 2012 DFC grantees was between 4.1 and 5.4 years, depending on
the DFC Core measure.
Analyses of Short-Term Change. To assess recent short-term change and provide an early warning for emerging
trends, 2012 core measures data was compared to the most recent previous report for each DFC grantee in that cohort
(which was 2011 data in 19% of cases, 2010 data in 73% of cases, and 2009 data in 8% of cases). This analysis reflects
the most recent changes in core measures for DFC grantees. These data are for DFC grantees reporting in 2013, and
may not reflect trends in results across all DFC grantees.
Comparison to National Data. Results on changes in past 30-day prevalence of use within DFC grantees were also
compared to a nationally representative sample of high school students taking the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)
in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. Because different coalitions report data each year, DFC results are based on the
grantees that reported core measures data in a given year. YRBS data corresponding to DFC data are available only for
high school students on the measures of 30-day use. YRBS is a nationally representative survey which includes both
DFC and non-DFC communities.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 15

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Percentage Point Change, Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use
Results for the long-term analyses described earlier are presented in Table 8. DFC grantees’ most
recent report of the past 30-day prevalence of use was compared to their first report to identify
change that has occurred since the beginning of the DFC grant in those coalitions. For all grantees
ever funded, the first report includes data submitted from 2002 to 2013. The average amount of
time elapsed between these first and most recent reports was 4.1 years. Although prescription
drug use was added as a core substance in 2012, it is not reported here because only one time point
of data has been collected on the revised core measures. Point estimates for baseline data on the
prevalence of past 30-day (illicit) prescription drug use is reported in a later section.
Trends in the past 30-day prevalence of use data are worth noting. First, among both middle school
and high school students, the most recent report of past 30-day use was approximately twice as
high for alcohol as for either tobacco or marijuana.19 The relatively high rates of past 30-day use of
alcohol, with up to 31% of high school students reporting past 30-day use suggests the need for
ongoing prevention efforts such as those provided by DFC grantees. It is also notable that among
FY2012 DFC grantees on their most recent observation, the percentage of high school students
reporting past 30-day use of marijuana (18%) exceeds the percentage of high school students that
reported past 30-day use of tobacco (14%).
TABLE 8: LONG-TERM CHANGE IN PAST 30-DAY PREVALENCE OF USEa

School
Level
Middle
School
High
School

Substance
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
All DFC Grantees Since Program
Inception
%
%
Report
Report
Use,
Use,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
974
13.8
10.7
-3.1**
971
7. 0
5.1
-1.9**
958
5.4
4.5
-0.9**

1,034
1,018
1,018

37.4
19.3
18.5

32.3
15.3
17.6

-5.1**
-4.0**
-0.9**

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
FY2012 DFC Grantees Only

n
523
518
516

%
Report
Use,
First
Outcome
13.3
6.7
5.3

%
Report
Use,
Most
Recent
Outcome
9.3
4.2
4.3

%
Point
Change
-4.0**
-2.5**
-1.0**

553
545
549

37.0
18.7
18.7

30.6
13.7
18.1

-6.4**
-5.0**
-0.6*

Notes: * p<.05; ** p<.01; n represents the number of DFC grantees included in the analysis.
a Outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC grantee based on the total number of students used in the percentage point
change calculation (i.e., adding number of students surveyed at first observation to number surveyed at most recent observation).
Outliers beyond 3 standard deviations were removed. All numbers were rounded.
Source: COMET, 2002-2013 core measures data

All DFC Grantees Ever Funded, Long-term Change. Long-term analyses suggest a consistent
record of significant reductions in youth substance use outcomes in communities with a DFC
grantee from 2002 to 2013. The prevalence of past 30-day use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana
each declined significantly among both middle school and high school students. The prevalence of
past 30-day alcohol use dropped the most in absolute percentage point terms, declining by 3.1

19

The term students is used in reporting core measures as the majority of DFC grantees have indicated that data are
collected from youth who attend school. Substance use rates among youth in the community not attending school
are not possible for most DFC grantees to collect in a consistent, representative manner.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 16

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
percentage points among middle school students and declining by 5.1 percentage points among
high school students. The prevalence of past 30-day tobacco use declined by 1.9 percentage points
among middle school students, and by 4.0 percentage points among high school students from DFC
grantees’ first report to their most recent report. Though significant, the declines in the prevalence
of past 30-day marijuana use were less pronounced, declining by 0.9 percentage points among
middle school and high school students.
FY2012 DFC Grantees, Long-term Change. Among FY2012 grantees, a similar pattern emerged,
with significant declines in the prevalence of past 30-day use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana
from the first to most recent report among both middle school and high school students.
Importantly, the declines in the prevalence of past 30-day use of marijuana while significant among
middle school students (-1.0 percentage points) and high school students (-0.6 percentage points)
remained less pronounced than declines in past 30-day use of alcohol and tobacco.
PERCENTAGE POINT CHANGE VERSUS PERCENTAGE CHANGE:
TWO WAYS TO PRESENT FINDINGS ON LONG-TERM CHANGE IN PREVALENCE OF PAST 30-DAY USE
Two sets of change scores, percentage point change and percentage change, are presented on the long-term
change outcomes (i.e., first observation to most recent data) for prevalence of past 30-day use. Both sets of
findings provide value and context to the results. Analyses to test for significant change are the same for
both ways of presenting the data. To show how these two change scores are calculated, consider the
following data from Table 8 on long-term change of the prevalence of past 30-day alcohol use at the middle
school level:



First Observation

Most Recent Observation

Change

13.8%

10.7%

-3.1 percentage points (rounded)

Percentage Point Change (presented in Table 8): Table 8 in the report presents the percentage
point change in prevalence between DFC grantees’ first and most recent report. Presenting change
over time in terms of percentage point changes is typical when reporting prevalence data on a
population. It is also known as a measure of "absolute change" because all findings are reported using
100% as the denominator. It is calculated by simply subtracting the first recent observation from the
most recent observation, i.e.:
Percentage point change (-3.1) = most recent observation (10.7%) - first observation (13.8%)



Percentage Change (presented in Figures 4 and 5): Figures 4 and 5 in the report present change
over time in terms of the percentage change between the first and most recent observation. Percentage
change (also called relative change) demonstrates how much change was experienced relative to the
baseline. This can provide important context especially when prevalence rates are low such as in the
example above. It is calculated by dividing the percentage point change by the first observation, i.e.:
Percentage change (-22.5%) = percentage point change (-3.1%) / first observation (13.8%)

Both strategies provide technically correct presentations of findings. While the national evaluation team
prefers to present data using percentage point changes (i.e., because presenting absolute values is less
confusing), reporting percentage change can be an effective way to show how different findings relate to
each other. As a general rule of thumb, it is preferable to present percentage point changes when
presenting data about a community, and it is preferable to present percentage changes when comparing
one group's performance to the other (e.g., middle school vs. high school results).

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 17

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Percentage Change, Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use
Thus far, change in prevalence of use has been reported as absolute percentage point change. To
put these findings in perspective, the amount of long-term change in prevalence of use (from first to
most recent report) can also be considered as a percentage change relative to the first report (see
box on prior page for discussion of percentage point change versus percentage change). For
example, while the prevalence of past 30-day marijuana use among middle school students declined
by a modest 0.9 percentage points in the long-term analysis among all DFC grantees funded since
inception (from 5.4% to 4.5%), this represents a 17% reduction in the prevalence of marijuana use
by middle school youth during that period (Figure 4).
Middle School

High School

0%
-4.9%

-10%
-16.7%

-20%
-30%

Middle School

High School

0%

-22.5%
-27.1%

-13.6%

-3.2%

-10%
-20%

-18.9%

-20.7%

-30%

-26.7%

-30.1%
-40%

-40%

Alcohol

Tobacco

Marijuana

FIGURE 4: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN PAST 30 DAY
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND MARIJUANA
PREVALENCE OF USE: LONG-TERM CHANGE
AMONG ALL DFC GRANTEES SINCE INCEPTION OF
THE GRANT

-17.3%

-37.3%

Alcohol

Tobacco

Marijuana

FIGURE 5: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN PAST 30 DAY
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND MARIJUANA
PREVALENCE OF USE: LONG-TERM CHANGE AMONG
FY2012 DFC GRANTEES

Notes: * p<.05; Percentage change outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC grantee based on the
total number of students used in the percentage point change calculation (i.e., adding number of students
surveyed at first observation to number surveyed at most recent observation).
Source: COMET, 2002-2013 core measures data

All DFC Grantees Ever Funded, Long-term Percentage Change. As shown in Figure 4, prevalence
of alcohol use by middle school youth declined by 23%, prevalence of tobacco use by middle school
youth declined by 27%, and prevalence of marijuana use by middle school youth declined by 17%
from the first to the most recent data reports across all DFC grantees ever funded. Percentage
reductions in prevalence of use at the high school level were less pronounced. High school alcohol
use declined by 14%, high school tobacco use declined by 21%, and high school marijuana use
declined by 5% between DFC grantees' first data report and their most recent data report. As noted
in the long-term analyses, all of the reductions were significant. Since greater percentages of high
school students report use, their less pronounced percentage declines actually result in impacting a
greater number of individuals.
FY2012 DFC Grantees, Long-term Percentage Change. Among FY2012 DFC grantees (Figure 5),
the prevalence of past 30-day alcohol use among middle school youth declined by 30% from the
first to most recent report, the prevalence of past 30-day tobacco use declined by 37%, and the
prevalence of past 30-day marijuana use declined by 19%. FY2012 DFC grantees also reported

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 18

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
declines among high school students in the prevalence of past 30-day alcohol use (-17%), tobacco
use (-28%), and marijuana use (-3%). All changes were statistically significant.

Comparison to National Data, Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use
As shown in Figure 6, prevalence rates of past 30-day use among high school students for alcohol
were significantly lower in communities with a DFC grantee than in areas sampled by the YRBS in
all five years compared (i.e., 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011). Prevalence rates for marijuana use
were lower in DFC communities for four of the five years (2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009) but did not
differ significantly from national data in 2011. DFC grantees generally mirrored national
prevalence of past 30-day tobacco use, but were significantly lower in 2009 and 2011.20
21%
23%

2011

Marijuana

15%*
18%

Tobacco

34%*

Alcohol

2009

Marijuana
Tobacco

34%*

Alcohol

2007

20%
18%
20%

Tobacco

37%*

Alcohol

45%
18%*
20%

Marijuana

2005

42%

16%*

Marijuana

21%
23%

Tobacco

37%*

Alcohol

2003

39%

18%*
21%
17%*
20%

Marijuana

19%*
22%

Tobacco

21%
22%
34%*

Alcohol
0%

10%

DFC

20%

30%

40%

43%

45%

50%

YRBS

FIGURE 6: COMPARISON OF DFC GRANTEE AND NATIONAL (YRBS) REPORTS OF PAST 30-DAY ALCOHOL,
TOBACCO, AND MARIJUANA PREVALENCE OF USE AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
Notes: *Difference between DFC grantees and YRBS was statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

20

The majority of DFC grantees who collected core measure data in 2013 will not submit that data until 2014, therefore
comparisons to 2013 YRBS data, which became available in June 2014 are not yet possible.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 19

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Perception of Risk/Harm of Use
As mentioned, the core measure for perception of risk of alcohol changed from a measure of
perceived risk of regular alcohol use to perceived risk of binge drinking. Similarly, perceived risk of
regular marijuana use changed to define “regular use” as 1-2 times a week. As only one time period
of new DFC core measures data has been collected, the data presented for perceived risk of alcohol
use and marijuana use are based on the legacy core measure (i.e., regular use).
All DFC Grantees Ever Funded, Long-term Change. Significant increases in students’ perception of
risk/harm were reported at both the middle and high school levels for alcohol and tobacco between
DFC grantees’ first and most recent outcomes report (Table 9). Among all DFC grantees funded
since the inception of the program, the perception of risk for alcohol use among middle school
students increased by 3.2 percentage points and increased by 5.2 percentage points among high
school students. The perception of risk of tobacco use also increased, with positive movements of
2.0 percentage points among middle school youth and of 3.0 percentage points among high school
youth. One note of concern is that perception of risk of marijuana use slightly decreased among
both middle school and high school youth although this change was not statistically significant
among all DFC grantees ever funded. Tobacco was the substance with the highest perception of risk
for both middle school and high school students.
FY2012 DFC Grantees, Long-term Change. Changes in perception of risk among FY2012 DFC
grantees followed a similar pattern, with significant increases in perceived risk of alcohol use (+3.4
percentage points among middle school youth and +6.0 percentage points among high school
youth) and tobacco use (+1.5 percentage points for middle school and +4.4 percentage points for
high school). Among FY2012 DFC grantees, perception of risk of marijuana use decreased slightly
but changes were again not statistically significant among either middle or high school youth.
TABLE 9: LONG-TERM CHANGE IN PERCEPTION OF RISK/HARM OF USE a

School
Level
Middle
School
High
School

Substanc
e
Alcoholb
Tobacco
Marijuanac
Alcoholb
Tobacco
Marijuanac

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
All DFC Grantees Since Program
Inception
%
%
Report
Report
Perceive
Perceive
Risk,
%
Risk,
Most
Point
First
Recent
Chang
n
Outcome Outcome
e
861
65.7
68.9
+3.2**
895
80.2
82.2
+2.0**
818
79.0
78.8
-0.2
875
61.2
66.4
+5.2**
937
80.3
83.3
+3.0**
880
66.0
65.3
-0.7

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
FY2012 DFC Grantees Only
%
%
Report
Report
Perceive
Perceive
Risk,
Risk,
Most
First
Recent
% Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
432
64.4
67.8
+3.4**
475
80.0
81.5
+1.5*
393
78.4
77.6
-0.8
422
61.7
67.7
+6.0**
504
80.0
84.4
+4.4**
427
65.5
63.9
-1.6

Notes: ** p<.01; n represents the number of DFC grantees included in the analysis.
a Outcomes were weighted for each DFC grantee based on the total number of students used in the percentage point change
calculation (i.e., adding number of students surveyed at first observation to number surveyed at most recent observation). Outliers
beyond 3 standard deviations were removed. All numbers were rounded.
b Core measure covers perception of risk of regular alcohol use (i.e., legacy core measure); future reports will include perception of
risk of binge drinking.
c Core measure covers perception of risk of regular marijuana use. This legacy measure did not define regular use. Future reports
will include perception of risk of smoking marijuana 1-2 times a week.
Source: COMET, 2002-2013 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 20

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Perception of Parental Disapproval of Use
Among all DFC grantees funded since the inception of the DFC program, the perception of parental
disapproval was relatively high and increased significantly across all substances for both middle
and high school students (Table 10). These increases ranged from +1.1 percentage points (high
school marijuana) to +3.6 and +3.8 percentage points (high school and middle school tobacco,
respectively) between DFC grantees’ first and most recent data reports. Among FY2012 DFC
grantees, significant increases in the perception of parental disapproval were observed for all
substances, with the exception of high school marijuana, which also increased but not significantly.
TABLE 10: LONG-TERM CHANGE IN PERCEPTION OF PARENTAL DISAPPROVALa
Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
All DFC Grantees Since Program Inception

School
Level
Middle
School
High
School

Substance
Alcoholb
Tobacco
Marijuana

n
777
854
871

% Report
Parental
Disapproval,
First
Outcome
86.2
89.9
91.4

Alcoholb
Tobacco
Marijuana

835
895
910

75.9
83.4
85.6

% Report
Parental
Disapproval,
Most Recent
Outcome
89.4
93.7
94.1

%
Point
Change
+3.2**
+3.8**
+2.7**

77.7
87.0
86.7

+1.8**
+3.6**
+1.1**

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
FY2012 DFC Grantees Only

n
376
470
475

% Report
Parental
Disapproval,
First
Outcome
86.5
90.6
92.0

% Report
Parental
Disapproval,
Most Recent
Outcome
90.7
94.5
94.5

%
Point
Change
+4.2**
+3.9**
+2.5**

410
491
494

75.9
83.7
85.6

79.0
88.0
86.5

+3.1**
+4.3**
+0.9

Notes: ** p<.01; n represents the number of DFC grantees included in the analysis.
a Outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC grantee based on the total number of students used in the percentage point change
calculation (i.e., adding number of students surveyed at first observation to number surveyed at most recent observation). Outliers beyond 3
standard deviations were removed. All numbers were rounded.
b Core measure covers perception of parental disapproval of regular alcohol use. This legacy measure did not define regular use. Future reports
will include perception of parental disapproval of having 1-2 drinks nearly every day.
Source: COMET, 2002-2013 core measures data

Most Recent Core Measures Findings: Short-Term Change
Table 11 presents data collected by DFC grantees in 2012, and compares reports from 2012 to the
next most recent data report (which was 2011 data in 19% of cases, 2010 data in 73% of cases, and
2009 data in 8% of cases). These analyses of short-term change provide an early-warning system
to detect trends in recent data. Given the changes in core measures, some DFC grantees were no
longer collecting legacy core measures in 2012. As can be seen in Table 11, this was particularly the
case for perception of risk for marijuana use and perception of parental disapproval of alcohol use
where the sample size of DFC grantees is relatively small. Therefore, findings for these variables on
short-term change should be interpreted with caution.
Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use: FY2012 DFC Grantees, Short-term Change. Significant declines
were observed in the prevalence of past 30-day use among middle school students for l alcohol
(-2.3 percentage points), tobacco (-1.5 percentage points), and marijuana use (-0.8 percentage
points). Among high school students, there was a significant decline in tobacco and alcohol use (2.4 and -1.8 percentage points), but no significant change for marijuana use.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 21

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
TABLE 11: SHORT-TERM CHANGE IN DFC CORE MEASURES, FY2012 DFC GRANTEESa

Core Measure

School Level
Middle School

Past 30-Day Use
High School

Middle School
Perception of Risk
High School

Perception of
Parental
Disapproval

Middle School

High School

Substance
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana

n
304
305
301
315
311
312
118
250
63
106
262
64
41
252
254
47
260
261

Short-Term Change:
Data Collected in 2012 vs.
Next Most Recent Report
%
%,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
Outcome
Outcome
Change
12.4
10.1
-2.3**
5.6
4.0
-1.5**
5.4
4.6
-0.8*
33.7
31.9
-1.8**
16.1
13.7
-2.4**
19.0
18.6
-0.3
63.4
63.7
0.2
81.8
79.8
-2.0**
76.6
67.0
-9.6**
64.4
66.3
+2.0
83.8
84.3
+0.5
65.6
58.8
-6.8**
91.8
88.3
-3.5*
94.5
95.4
+0.8*
94.9
95.6
+0.7
83.1
79.9
-3.2
88.6
89.5
+0.8
88.3
87.9
-0.5

Notes: * p<.05; ** p<.01; n represents the number of DFC grantees included in the analysis.
a Outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC grantee based on the total number of students used in the percentage
point change calculation (i.e., adding number of students surveyed at first observation to number surveyed at most recent
observation). Outliers beyond 3 standard deviations were removed. All numbers were rounded.
Source: COMET, 2002-2012 core measures data

Perception of Risk: FY2012 DFC Grantees, Short-term Change. DFC grantees reported no
significant change in perception of risk of alcohol use at the middle school level, but significant
increases in the perception of risk of alcohol use at the high school level (+2.0 percentage points).
DFC grantees reported significant declines in the perception of risk of tobacco use at the middle
school level (-2.0 percentage points), but no significant change in perception of risk of tobacco use
at the high school level. Finally, DFC grantees reported significant declines in the perception of risk
of marijuana use at both the middle school level (-9.6 percentage points) and at the high school
level (-6.8 percentage points). Declines in perception of risk are of concern to DFC grantees as
substance use can increase when perception of risk decreases. Still, as noted, the number of
grantees reporting the legacy core measures for perception of risk of alcohol and marijuana
decreased and this may be impacting significance testing for short-term change on these measures.
Perception of Parental Disapproval: FY2012 DFC Grantees, Short-term Change. Perception of
parental disapproval of alcohol use decreased significantly for middle school students, but did not
change significantly among high school students. As with perception of risk, the change in this core
measure decreased the number of grantees collecting this data since 2012. Perception of parental
disapproval of tobacco use increased significantly for middle school but not high school students.
Perception of parental disapproval of marijuana use did not change significantly among either
group of students.
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 22

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report

Establishing Baseline Data: Revised and New DFC Core Measures
Revised DFC Core Measures. Table 12 presents baseline data for the revised DFC core measures.
Since there is only one time period of data collected for the revised core measures for the vast
majority of DFC grantees, the calculation of change scores was not yet possible. Perception of risk
of binge use of alcohol was approximately two thirds of middle school and high school students
(68.7% and 69.0%, respectively). This is similar to perception of risk of regular alcohol use
previously reported. Perception of parental disapproval for alcohol use with regular use defined
was high among both middle school and high school students. While similar to prior reports of
parental disapproval, perception of parental disapproval of alcohol use with defined use appears to
be slightly higher. Finally, perception of risk of regular marijuana use was much higher among
middle school students (74.6%) than among high school students (59.3%).
TABLE 12: BASELINE METRICS FOR REVISED DFC CORE MEASURES
Core Measure
Perception of
Risk

School Level
Middle School

Substance
Alcohol (binge use)

N
330

%, First Outcome
68.7

High School

Alcohol (binge use)

365

69.0

Perception of
Parental
Disapproval

Middle School

Alcohol

249

92.6

High School

Alcohol

264

83.3

Perception of
Risk

Middle School

316

74.6

342

59.3

High School

Marijuana (regular
use)
Marijuana (regular
use)

Notes: n represents the number of DFC grantees included in the analysis. Outliers beyond 3 standard deviations
were removed. All numbers were rounded.
Source: COMET Progress Reports, 2012-2013 core measure data

Illicit Use of Prescription Drugs. A growing number of DFC grantees are reporting baseline data
on DFC core measures for illicit use of prescription drugs (Table 13). As of August 2013, past 30day illicit use of prescription drugs was relatively low among both middle school (3.2%) and high
school (7.2%) students. Perception of risk, perception of parental disapproval and perception of
peer disapproval of illicit use of prescription drugs are all relatively high, with perception of peer
disapproval among high school students being the lowest (75.4 percent).
TABLE 13: BASELINE METRICS FOR REVISED CORE MEASURES
Core Measure
Past 30-Day Use

Perception of Risk

School Level
Middle
School

Substance

N

%, First Outcome

Prescription Drugs

303

3.2

High School

Prescription Drugs

342

7.2

Middle
School

Prescription Drugs

205

81.3

High School

Prescription Drugs

235

82.2

Middle
School
High School

Perception of
Parental
Disapproval
Perception of Peer
Disapproval

Middle
School

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Prescription
202 Drugs

95.3

Prescription
217 Drugs

91.9

Prescription Drugs

172

88.2

Page 23

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
High School

Prescription Drugs

185

75.4

Notes: n represents the number of DFC grantees included in the analysis. Outliers beyond 3 standard deviations were
removed. All numbers were rounded.
Source: COMET Progress Reports, 2012-2013 core measure data

% of Youth Who Report
Peer Disapproval

Perception of Peer Disapproval. Perception of peer disapproval of use of each of the four core
measure substances is the final new DFC core measure. Figure 7 presents an overview of the
baseline data on this DFC core measure. Notably, perception of peer disapproval drops during the
transition from middle school to high school. This was true for all substances, although perceptions
of peer disapproval were lowest for alcohol (56%) and marijuana (55%) among high school youth.
DFC grantees may want to consider engaging in activities that build on the higher perception of
peer disapproval in middle school youth and work against this general decrease in perceived peer
disapproval that occurs with age.
100.0%
80.0%
60.0%

83.7%

83.2%

80.3%

62.7%

56.3%

88.2%
75.4%

54.6%

40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
Alcohol
(n=182, n=199)

Tobacco
(n=202, n=215)
Middle School

Marijuana
(n=202, n=218)

Prescription Drugs
(n=172, n=185)

High School

FIGURE 7: PERCEPTION OF PEER DISAPPROVAL OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, MARIJUANA AND ILLICIT
USE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AMONG MIDDLE SCHOOL AND AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Notes: n represents the number of DFC grantees who reported perception of peer disapproval data. Outliers
beyond 3 standard deviations were removed.
Source: COMET Progress Reports, 2012-2013 core measure data

Conclusion
Based on core measures data collected by DFC grantees from 2002 to 2013, the DFC National
Evaluation found that past 30-day prevalence of use declined significantly from first to most recent
observation across all substances (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana) at the middle school and high
school level among all DFC grantees ever funded, meeting the DFC goal of preventing youth
substance use. Among FY2012 DFC grantees reporting core measure data, there were also
significant declines in prevalence of past 30-day use across substances. Even with the long-term
reported declines in youth substance use across all DFC grantees, the prevalence of past 30-day use
levels remain high enough to suggest the ongoing need for prevention work at the community level.
This is particularly the case among high school youth, suggesting the need to consider prevention
activities that target youth as they transition from middle school to high school in addition to
targeting at each age level. Among the FY2012 DFC grantees, 1 in 3 (31%) high school youth report
past 30-day use of alcohol, with nearly 1 in 5 (18%) reporting past 30-day use of marijuana, and
14% reporting past 30-day use of tobacco.
Youth reports of perceptions of substance use as harmful and of parental disapproval of substance
use are also generally improving in communities served by DFC grantees. This is critical as

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 24

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) National Evaluation: 2013 National Evaluation Report
increased perception of risk is generally associated with decreased use of a substance, while
decreased perception of risk is generally associated with increased use of a substance.21 Among all
DFC grantees since program inception and among FY2012 DFC grantees, perception of risk
increased significantly for alcohol and tobacco use among youth between DFC grantees’ first report
and most recent report. Middle school youths’ perception of parental disapproval increased
significantly for alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. High school students’ perception of parental
disapproval increased for alcohol and tobacco use. However, while all DFC grantees since program
inception reported significant increases in parental disapproval of marijuana use, there was no
significant change among FY2012 DFC grantees at the high school level. Perception of risk of using
marijuana also has not changed significantly from first report to most recent report among all DFC
grantees since program inception or among FY2012 DFC grantees only. Baseline data on peer
disapproval of substance use suggests declines occur in the transition from middle school to high
school.
In general, the DFC national evaluation data are consistent with what would be expected if the
program were having the intended impact. Given that the most recent progress report data
indicates that the DFC catchment areas covers 22% of the U.S. population in FY2012, the potential
positive impact is quite large. Collectively the data suggest DFC grantees’ activities are associated
with positive outcomes among youth in DFC communities. Between February 2013 and August
2013, DFC grantees distributed more than 1.5 million prevention materials; reached over 600,000
people with special events; held direct face-to-face information sessions with more than 230,000
attendees; trained over 350,000 youth, parents, and community members; recognized more than
9,000 businesses for compliance (or noncompliance) with local ordinances; and passed or modified
slightly more than 500 laws or policies. DFC and other community coalitions may want to consider
the range of activities engaged in by DFC grantees in planning their own activities in working to
reduce youth substance use.

21

SAMHSA (2013). The NSDUH Report: Trends in adolescent substance use and perception of risk from substance use.
Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k13/NSDUH099a/sr099a-risk-perception-trends.pdf.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 25