Attachment 3: Sample Evaluation Report

Attachment 4:
Sample Evaluation Report and Executive Summary

Drug-Free Communities (DFC) Support Program:
Executive Summary of 2017 End-of-Year Report Findings
Funded and directed 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 build community capacity 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 national evaluation data through August 2017
reported by DFC grant award recipients through fiscal year (FY) 2016, presented in full in the 2017 National
Evaluation End-of-Year Report, follows. 1
Preventing/Reducing Youth Substance Use: Long-Term Change in DFC Core Measures

DFC coalitions report on four core measures linked to four core substances in order to understand change in
DFC coalitions’ communities over time. The four core measures are:
•
•
•
•

past 30-day use;
perception of risk;
perception of parental disapproval; and
perception of peer disapproval.

The four core substances are alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and misuse of prescription drugs (use of
prescription drugs not prescribed to you). Analyses of changes in core measures over time were conducted
separately for middle school and high school youth and were conducted both for the sample of all DFC
coalitions funded to date and for the sample of fiscal year (FY) 2016 DFC coalitions.
Within communities with a
DFC coalition, most middle
school and high school youth
reported not using each of the
four core measure substances
(alcohol, tobacco, marijuana,
[non-misuse] prescription
drugs) and over time
prevalence of past 30-day use
decreased significantly for all
substances.

1

DFC coalitions made significant progress toward achieving the goal of
preventing and reducing youth substance use. While most youth
report not using substances, some youth do report use and
prevalence of past 30-day use declined significantly between the first
and the most recent data reported across all core measure
substances, across both school levels, and in both samples (see
Figures 1 and 2). The only exception to this was middle school youth
past 30-day misuse of prescription drugs, which was unchanged in
the FY 2016 sample.

Prevalence of tobacco use has seen the largest declines in both age
groups, followed by decreases in prevalence of alcohol use. DFC
coalitions reported targeting prevention efforts toward addressing
alcohol (97%), marijuana (90%), misuse of prescription drugs (86%),
and tobacco use (60%).

See https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/grants-programs/for additional details about the DFC program and the findings summarized here. FY
2016 DFC grants were awarded in September 2016, with required reporting occurring in February and August 2017.

Figure 2: Percentage Change In Past 30 Day Use:
First Report To Most Recent Report
(FY 2016 DFC Coalitions Only)

Figure 1: Percentage Change In Past 30 Day
Use: First Report To Most Recent Report
(All DFC Coalitions Ever Funded)
Middle School

High School

-11%*
-16%*
-19%*

-27%*
-33%*

Middle School

High School

-7%

-7%*

-15%*

-18%*

-29%*

-34%*
-38%*

-25%*

-9%*
-18%*

-39%*

Alcohol

Tobacco

Alcohol

Tobacco

Marijuana

Prescription Drugs

Marijuana

Prescription Drugs

Source: Progress Report, 2002–2016 core measures data
Note: * 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).

Across school levels, youth were least likely to report past 30-day misuse of prescription drugs (94-98%
reporting not misusing). While most middle school youth and high school youth also reported not using
alcohol in the past 30-days (88-93% and 64-76%, respectively), past 30-day prevalence of non-use was
lowest for this substance. Most youth also report choosing not to use marijuana or tobacco. At most recent
report, fewer high school youth reported not using tobacco than reported not using marijuana (91% and
84%, respectively in the FY 2016 sample). That is, more high school youth report having used marijuana
than tobacco in the past 30-days, although marijuana use remained lower than alcohol use.

In FY 2016, approximately 1 in 5 Americans, including 1 in 5 youth, lived in a community with a DFC
coalition. Given that DFC coalitions work at the community level, the significant decreases in
prevalence of past 30-day use translate to thousands of additional youth making the choice not to use
a given substance.
In FY 2016, 677 DFC coalitions received a grant award. These DFC
coalitions worked in a broad range of community settings (e.g., 53%
rural, 42% suburban, 25% urban) putting forward local solutions to
address locally identified problems. Each DFC coalition indicates all
ZIP codes in which their grant activities are targeted; these ZIP codes
were merged with 2010 U.S. Census data to provide an estimate of the
number of people that DFC grant award recipients may reach.
Approximately 1 in 5 Americans (19%) was living in a DFC coalition’s
target area in 2017. Since 2005, nearly 1 in 2 Americans has lived in a
community with a DFC coalition (48%).

1 in 5 Americans (19%)
lived in a community
with a DFC funded
coalition in 2017.
Since 2005, 48% of the
U.S. population has lived
in a community with a
DFC coalition.

To better understand at the national level the significant decreases in youth substance use that is occurring
in communities with a DFC coalition, percentage change in the FY 2016 sample was multiplied by the capture
area population estimates (see Table 1). The estimates for reduced use/increased non-use are in the
thousands.

2

For example, the significant
Table 1. FY 2016 DFC Coalitions: Estimated Increases in Youth
decreases in alcohol use resulted in
Choosing Not to Use….
an estimated 83,000 middle school
Middle School
High School
and 274,000 high school youth
Substance
Youth
Youth
choosing not to use this substance.
Alcohol
83,000
274,000
While the significant declines in
Tobacco
43,000
188,000
prevalence of past 30-day use are
Marijuana
15,000
49,000
promising, youth substance use still
requires prevention efforts as
Prescription Drugs
No Change
40,000
prevalence of use remains a
concern, particularly for alcohol.
Targeting efforts to begin in middle school, or earlier, is also crucial as youth use of substances generally
increases between middle school and high school.

Youth in DFC communities generally reported high and/or increased perceptions of parental and
peer disapproval. One concern was that high school youth reported relatively lower perception of
peer disapproval than middle school youth, especially for marijuana and alcohol use.

Most (91% or more) middle school youth in communities served by DFC coalitions perceived parental
disapproval of substance use across substances (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and misuse of prescription
drugs) at both first report and most recent report. Perceived parental disapproval for tobacco use increased
significantly among middle school youth in both samples (e.g., from 94% to 96% in the FY 2016 sample).
Middle school youth’s perceived parental disapproval for alcohol use and for marijuana use increased
significantly for all DFC coalitions funded (but not for the FY 2016 only sample). Perception of parental
disapproval for misuse of prescription drugs was unchanged in both samples. Middle school youth also were
high on perceived peer disapproval across substances, with 85-91% perceiving that their peers would
disapprove of substance use. For middle school youth in both samples, there were significant increases in
perceived peer disapproval for alcohol use; perceived peer disapproval of tobacco use also increased
significantly in the All DFC Coalitions Ever Funded sample, but not in the FY 2016 sample. Middle school
youth in both samples had no change in perceptions of peer disapproval of marijuana use and misuse of
prescription drugs.

Similar to middle school youth, most (85-94%) high school youth reported perceiving that their parents
would disapprove of use across substances. For high school youth in both samples, there were significant
increases in perceived parental disapproval for both alcohol use and tobacco use; there was no change in
perceived parental disapproval for misuse of prescription drugs (93-94% perceived parental disapproval at
each time point). Perceived parental disapproval for marijuana use was unchanged in the All DFC Coalitions
Ever Funded sample, but decreased significantly in the FY 2016 sample (-0.8 percentage points). For high
school youth in both samples, there were significant increases in perceived peer disapproval for all
substances, with the exception of perception of peer disapproval of marijuana use in the FY 2016 sample
which was unchanged.
While high school youth in communities with a DFC coalition did report increased perceptions of peer
disapproval, it is worth noting that perceived peer disapproval among high school youth was lower than
perceived peer disapproval among middle school youth. For example, 85-87% of middle school youth
perceived that peers would disapprove of alcohol use while only 63-68% of high school youth shared this
perception, some 20 percentage points lower. The gap between the age groups was even greater for
marijuana between middle school (86-87%) and high school youth (55-57%), some 30 percentage points
lower. High school youth also had lower perceptions of peer disapproval than middle school youth for
tobacco and prescription drugs although the gap here was slightly smaller, especially at most recent report
(15 percentage points for tobacco and 9 percentage points for prescription drug misuse).
3

While youth generally had high perceptions of risk across substances, perception of risk data suggest
that DFC coalitions may need to engage in additional activities to help youth understand the risks
associated with use, especially risks associated with marijuana use.
Across grade levels, perception of risk was highest for both tobacco (79-82%) and for illicit use of
prescription drugs (80-83%) as compared to perceived risk for alcohol (69-72%). The lowest perceived risk
was for marijuana use in both middle school (71-72%) and especially high school (51-55%) youth. While
perceived risk was generally unchanged or increased for alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs, an
unexpected finding was that perceived risk of marijuana use actually decreased significantly from first to
most recent report. This was true for high school youth in both samples and for middle school youth in the
FY 2016 sample. In addition, middle school youth in the FY 2016 sample also decreased significantly in their
perception of risk associated with tobacco use. These findings suggest that DFC coalitions may need to renew
or increase efforts to ensure that youth, beginning in middle school, understand risks associated with
substance use.

DFC Coalitions: Building Capacity to Prevent Youth Substance Use

Including DFC staff and the coalitions’ active sector members, DFC coalitions mobilized an estimated
30,500 community members to engage on youth substance use prevention work.
On average, DFC coalitions reported that they have 5 staff (2 paid, 3 volunteer) and 40 active members from
across the 12 required DFC sectors. Collectively, the 677 FY 2016 DFC coalitions engaged an estimated
30,500 community members in youth substance use prevention work in 2017. The Law Enforcement and
School sectors were rated highest on involvement with the DFC coalition, with these members engaged in
collaborating on a range of activities including youth and parent education programs, providing alternative
drug-free social activities for youth, and prevention summits/town halls.

Law Enforcement sector members, which can include a range of local, regional and state law enforcement as
well as representative from High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program, were also identified by
DFC coalitions as playing a key role in addressing opioids in the community.
Evaluation findings suggest that hosting a youth coalition is a promising DFC practice.

Youth are both one of the sectors with whom DFC coalitions must engage and the focus of the DFC goal:
youth substance use prevention. One strategy that DFC coalitions use to engage
youth in both ways is hosting a youth coalition. Approximately two-thirds (66%)
66% Hosted
of DFC coalitions reported hosting a youth coalition, with the majority (76%) of
a Youth
these providing participating youth with the opportunity to lead on planning and
Coalition
implementing activities with support from the broader coalition. Collectively,
34% Did
analyses comparing DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition, versus those
Not
Host a
without one, suggest that hosting a youth coalition is a promising practice.
Youth

Coalition
For example, DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition, versus those without
one, were significantly more likely to perceive youth as very highly involved
with the coalition and less likely to perceive youth as having only some or low
involvement. Both School and Law Enforcement sector members also were rated as significantly more
involved when the DFC coalition hosted a youth coalition. DFC coalitions having a hosted youth coalition,
versus not having one, were significantly more likely to have at least one member representing every sector
(95% versus 88%), at least one active member in every sector (78% versus 69%), and at least one active
member in the youth sector (97% versus 89%). Finally, hosting a youth coalition was related to engaging in
significantly more prevention activities including implementing at least one alternative/drug-free social
event, at least one youth training, at least one parent training, and at least one social networking activity.
4

Capacity building was also evident in DFC coalitions’ efforts to address opioids, with most (87%)
DFC coalitions reporting they were targeting heroin, prescription opioids, or both. In addition,
almost all (95%) report having a prescription drug take-back event in the community and nearly
two-thirds (64%) of DFC coalitions note that these events were put into place as a result of
coalition efforts following DFC grant award.
The DFC grant award supports
87% of FY 2016 DFC coalitions targeted prevention efforts toward opioids
communities in finding local
solutions to local problems and
53.5%
29.5%
3.8%
many DFC communities have
Both Heroin &
Prescription Opioids
Heroin
identified opioids as a substance
Prescription
Opioids
they focus at least some
attention on addressing.
Specifically, 87% of DFC coalitions targeted heroin, prescription drugs (including prescription opioids) or
both. A key strategy for addressing prescription opioids is bringing prescription take-back events into the
community. While almost all (95%) DFC coalitions reported holding such an event in 2017, nearly twothirds (64%) reported that the DFC grant award preceded implementation of these events. That is, the
work of the DFC coalition following grant award contributed to introducing this activity to the community.

In addition to selecting heroin, prescription opioids, or
In 82% of FY 2016 States/Territories with
both as a target substance, DFC coalitions described
a DFC coalition, at least one DFC coalition
their efforts in the August 2017 Progress Report. In 44
mentioned opioids specifically.
of 54 (82%) States or Territories with a DFC coalition,
at least one of these coalitions was talking about this work. DFC coalitions reported disseminating
information through various media to large numbers of community members. A number of DFC coalitions
reported that they planned, participated in, and/or presented at summits, forums, and town halls specifically
on heroin and other opioids. Some of these provided an opportunity for community members, local
substance abuse treatment providers, and others to discuss how to reduce access to prescription drugs,
while others focused more broadly on educating attendees about the dangers of heroin and prescription
opioid drug misuse. DFC coalitions also implemented trainings about the harmful effects of opioids and
naloxone training. Several DFC coalitions noted that collaboration with Law Enforcement sector, in
particular, was central to addressing opioids and perceived that activities to address opioids were successful,
in part, because of the relationship that already existed between the coalition and this sector, while also
improving on that relationship. Several DFC coalitions also noted that they were helpful to local and State
policymakers who were trying to better understand what communities can do to address opioids.

Implementing Prevention Activities

DFC grant award recipients engaged in a comprehensive range of strategies in order to prevent and
reduce youth substance use.
DFC coalitions engaged in a broad range of practices that moves from community mobilization and
awareness to community action (and ultimately community outcomes). DFC coalitions are encouraged to
engage in a range of prevention strategy activities, categorized by seven (7) strategy types, and clearly do
so, with just under two-thirds (60%) of DFC coalitions implementing at least one activity within each of the
seven strategies. Most (79%) DFC coalitions implemented at least one activity within at least five of the
seven strategy types. The comprehensiveness of these strategies is important because substance use has no
one, single cause and, therefore, no one, single solution.

5

All (100%) of the 660 DFC coalitions that submitted an August 2017 Progress Report indicated they had
engaged in Providing Information dissemination activities. Nearly all (96%) provided services related to
Enhancing Skills. Activities within these two strategies tend to build credibility in the community, identify the
coalition as a reliable source of information, and serve to build capacity both by informing people about the
coalition and training community members to engage in prevention work directly. Lower percentages of DFC
coalitions engaged in Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers to prevention and treatment services (83%),
Providing Support (82%), and Changing Consequences (69%) activities. DFC coalitions were least likely to
report engaging in activities to educate and inform on Modifying/Changing Policies to decrease substance use
and associated negative behaviors (64%) and Changing Physical Design to decrease opportunities for and
encouragement of substance use (61%).

Across the Seven Strategies for Community Change, more DFC coalitions engaged in activities targeting
youth than those targeting any other community group: alternative drug-free activities for youth were the
most implemented Enhancing Support activity; reducing home and social access to substances was the most
implemented Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers activity; and more DFC coalitions focused on educating
about school policies (where youth are centrally located) than on any other category of Modifying/Changing
Policies. In summary, DFC coalitions engage youth directly in building stronger and more positive community
connections that are associated with substance use prevention.

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.

6

Drug-Free
Communities Support
Program National
Evaluation
June 2018

2017
National Evaluation
End-of-Year Report
Solving Local Problems
with Local Solutions

Report Prepared by:

Drug-Free Communities (DFC)
Support Program National Evaluation Team
ICF 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031

Authors:
Barbara K. O’Donnel, Ph.D.
James Demery, Ph.D.
Jason Schoeneberger, Ph.D.
Kelle Falls, M.A.
Samantha Salvador, M.A.
Jeremy Goldbach, Ph.D.
Samantha Spinney, Ph.D.

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table of Contents
Drug-Free Communities Support Program ................................................................................................... 1
History and Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
Data in 2017 End-of-Year Evaluation Report.......................................................................................... 2
Progress Report Data .................................................................................................................................... 3
Core Measures Data ....................................................................................................................................... 5

DFC Reach ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

Community Context ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Geographic Setting .............................................................................................................................................. 7
Focus on Specific Subgroups of Youth ........................................................................................................ 7
Substances Targeted by DFC Coalitions .................................................................................................... 8
Community Risk and Protective Factors ................................................................................................... 8

Building Capacity to Prevent and Reduce Substance Use .................................................................... 11
Number of Active Members ......................................................................................................................... 11
Involvement of Active Members ................................................................................................................ 12
DFC Youth Coalitions ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Comparison of DFC Coalitions Hosting Versus Not Hosting a Youth Coalition ................ 16

Building Capacity to Address Opioids ..................................................................................................... 20
Sample Activities to Address Opioids ................................................................................................. 22

Strategy Implementation ................................................................................................................................... 25
Overview: Implementation of Strategies ............................................................................................... 25
Providing Information ..................................................................................................................................... 27
Enhancing Skills ................................................................................................................................................. 28
Providing Support ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers ....................................................................................................... 32
Changing Consequences .................................................................................................................................. 33
Educating and Informing About Modifying/Changing Policies ..................................................... 34
School Policies............................................................................................................................................... 35

Changing Physical Design .............................................................................................................................. 36
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page i

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Summary of Coalition Strategy Implementation ................................................................................ 38
Engaging Youth in DFC Implementation Strategies...................................................................... 39

Core Measures Findings From the Outcome Evaluation ...................................................................... 40
Past 30-Day Prevalence of Non-Use ......................................................................................................... 40
Percentage Change in Prevalence of Past 30-Day Use................................................................. 43

Alcohol Core Measures Findings ................................................................................................................ 45
Alcohol: Perception of Risk ..................................................................................................................... 45
Alcohol: Perception of Parental and Peer Disapproval ............................................................... 47

Tobacco Core Measures Findings .............................................................................................................. 47
Tobacco: Perception of Risk .................................................................................................................... 49
Tobacco: Perception of Parental and Peer Disapproval ............................................................. 49

Marijuana Core Measures Findings .......................................................................................................... 49
Marijuana: Perception of Risk ................................................................................................................ 49
Marijuana: Perception of Parental and Peer Disapproval ......................................................... 51

Prescription Drugs (Misuse) Core Measures Findings ..................................................................... 51
Prescription Drugs: Perception of Risk .............................................................................................. 53
Prescription Drugs: Perception of Parental and Peer Disapproval ....................................... 53

Comparison With National Data ................................................................................................................ 53

Community Assets Findings ............................................................................................................................. 56
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................................. 58
Limitations........................................................................................................................................................... 64

Appendix A. Core Measure Items.................................................................................................................... 66
Appendix B. Comparison of Engagement in Activities by Youth Coalition Status..................... 68
Appendix C. DFC Coalitions Addressing the Opioid Epidemic ........................................................... 71
Appendix D. Core Measures Data Tables..................................................................................................... 73

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page ii

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Drug-Free Communities Support Program

The Drug-Free Communities (DFC) Support Program 2017 National Evaluation End-of-Year
Report provides an annual update on DFC national evaluation findings. Together, the
findings inform regarding DFC coalitions’ progress on achieving the following primary
goals of DFC:
 Establish and strengthen collaboration among communities, public and private non-profit

agencies, as well as Federal, State, local, and Tribal governments to support the efforts of
community coalitions working to prevent and reduce substance abuse among youth.
 Reduce substance abuse among youth and, over time, reduce substance abuse among adults
by addressing the factors in a community that increase the risk of substance abuse and
promoting the factors that minimize the risk of substance abuse. 1

First, this report provides an overview of the history and background of the program. Next,
evaluation findings are presented in three sections: building capacity data (e.g., DFC
coalition membership data), strategy implementation data, and core measure outcome
data. The building capacity data identify who DFC coalitions have engaged with in the
community to prevent and reduce youth substance use. Process data on strategies
implemented by DFC coalitions provides information regarding how DFC coalitions work
to bring about community change. Finally, changes in the DFC core outcomes data are
presented reflecting community-level change in youth past 30-day non-use, perception of
risk of use, and perception of parental and peer disapproval of use associated with four key
substances (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and misuse of prescription drugs).

History and Background

Created through the DFC Act of 1997, the DFC Support Program funds community
coalitions to prevent and reduce youth substance use by emphasizing finding local
solutions for local problems. DFC coalitions are comprised of representatives from 12
sectors (defined in the Building Capacity section) that organize as community-based
coalitions to meet the local prevention needs of the youth and families of their community.
The DFC Support Program is funded and directed by the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP). ONDCP has engaged several partners to collaborate in supporting DFC
coalitions to help them succeed (see Figure 1). The Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) provides grant award management and government
project officer monitoring support. Training and technical assistance intended to
strengthen the capacity of the DFC coalitions, including the required National Coalition
Academy, are provided by the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA). In

1

For DFC, youth are defined as individuals 18 years of age and younger. For the fiscal year 2016 funding opportunity
announcement for Drug-Free Communities Support Program grants, see https://www.samhsa.gov/grants/grantannouncements/sp-16-001

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 1

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

addition to conducting the national
evaluation, the DFC National
Evaluation Team provides technical
assistance support to DFC coalitions
regarding data collection and
reporting.

DFC grant award recipients receive up
to $125,000 per year for up to 5 years
per award, with a maximum of 10
years of grant award funding. 2 Since
1998, the DFC Support Program has
awarded DFC grants to communitybased coalitions that represent all 50
States, several Territories, and rural,
urban, suburban, and Tribal
communities. In fiscal year (FY) 2016,
677 community coalitions were
awarded DFC grants. 3 Of these, 389
(57%) were in Year 1 to Year 5 of
receiving a DFC grant while the
remaining 288 (43%) were in Year 6 to
10. As of FY 2016, more than 2,500
DFC grants had been awarded in more
than 1,700 communities. 4

Figure 1. Drug-Free Communities Support
Program: Partners for Change

Notes: DFC Grant Award Recipients are supported in achieving
DFC goals by ONDCP, SAMHSA, CADCA, and the DFC
National Evaluation Team. DFC Coalitions engage 12 sectors
to achieve change in the community, represented here by
the 12 icons in the outer circle.

Data in 2017 End-of-Year Evaluation Report
In several sections of this report, FY 2016 DFC grant award recipients who submitted a
progress report through the DFC Management and Evaluation (DFC Me) system in August
DFC coalitions must demonstrate that they have matching funds from non-Federal sources relative to the amount of
Federal dollars requested. In Years 1-6, a 100 percent match is required. In Years 7 and 8, this increases to a 125
percent match, and finally in Years 9 and 10 to a 150 percent match. See the FY 2016 funding opportunity
announcement for further information on matching https://www.samhsa.gov/grants/grant-announcements/sp-16001.
3 In FY 2016, ONDCP awarded 92 new DFC grants and 585 continuation grants for coalitions already in a five-year cycle.
In addition, three new DFC Mentoring grants, and 18 continuation DFC Mentoring grants were awarded in FY 2016.
4 Based on data available to the DFC National Evaluation for awards through FY 2016, 1,735 communities have received
DFC grant awards, with 941 communities receiving a Year 1 to Year 5 award and the remaining 794 communities
receiving an additional Year 6 to Year 10 award. Combined, this totals 2,529 DFC grant awards. This is a conservative
estimate of awards through FY 2016 because data from the early years of DFC (pre-2009) were not consistently
available.
2

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 2

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

2017 are the primary focus. 5 DFC coalitions reported on membership and activities from
February 1, 2017 through July 31, 2017. 6 Table 1 outlines the number of FY 2016 grant
award recipients who submitted the August 2017 progress report by year of award. In
total, 660 of the FY 2016 DFC coalitions submitted a report in August 2017. 7 In addition, all
core measure data submitted through 2017 were included in this report. For the core
measures analyses, in addition to examining all core measures data submitted through
August 2017, analyses were conducted looking at data submitted by FY 2016 coalitions
specifically.
Table 1. Number of FY 2016 DFC Grant Award Recipients
Submitting August 2017 Progress Report by Year of Award
FY 2016 Grant Award Recipients
Number of Grant
Percent of Grant
Award Recipients
Award Recipients
Year of Award
Submitting Report
Submitting Report
Year 1
60
9.1%
Year 2
106
16.1%
Year 3
95
14.4%
Year 4
83
12.6%
Year 5
34
5.1%
Year 6
30
4.5%
Year 7
77
11.7%
Year 8
94
14.2%
Year 9
58
8.8%
Year 10
23
3.5%
Total
660
100.0%
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Progress Report Data

DFC coalitions collect and submit a broad range of data biannually in required progress
reports. Sector membership data (presented in the Building Capacity section of this report)
includes information about DFC coalitions’ number of members, number of active
members, and level of involvement by each of the 12 sectors.

5

DFC grant awards are made in September of each fiscal year with the award going from October 1 to September 30 of
the following year. This means that FY 2016 awards were made in September 2016, with the grant award recipients
submitting progress reports in February and August 2017.
6 DFC Me was developed under the leadership of ONDCP in 2015, with DFC coalitions first using this system in February
2016.
7 This represents nearly all (97%) FY 2016 DFC grant award recipients. Additional DFC coalitions may have completed the
progress report after the point at which data were received by the DFC National Evaluation Team for this report. The
DFC National Evaluation Team received progress report data after providing SAMHSA project officers with six weeks
to approve the progress reports. SAMHSA project officers were likely engaged in ongoing interaction with the few
(3%) DFC coalitions who did not meet the reporting requirement in this timeframe.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 3

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

The 12 required sectors include: 8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Youth (age 18 or younger)
Parent
School
Law Enforcement
Healthcare Professional or Organization (e.g., primary care, hospitals)
Business
Media
Youth-Serving Organization
Religious/Fraternal Organization
Civic/Volunteer Group (i.e., a member from a local organization committed to volunteering)
State, Local, or Tribal Governmental Agency with expertise in the field of substance abuse
Other Organization involved in reducing substance abuse

DFC coalitions also report on the activities they have implemented over the previous six
months (presented in the Strategy Implementation section of this report). Activities are
grouped into the Seven Strategies for Community Change, with any given activity linked to
a single strategy. 9 The seven strategies are Providing Information, Enhancing Skills,
Providing Support, Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers, Changing Consequences, Changing
Physical Design, and educating or informing the community about Modifying/Changing
Policies. For each completed activity, DFC coalitions are asked to provide additional
information (e.g., number of completed activities, number of youth participating, number of
adults participating).
Progress report data includes information regarding the community context (e.g.,
geographic setting), focus of coalition efforts (e.g., target substances), budget, key risks and
protective factors found in the local community (e.g., availability of substances, positive
school climate), information on planning activities, and general challenges. DFC coalitions
provide in their grant applications the ZIP codes that define the catchment area for the
community in which they target activities. Throughout the progress report, DFC coalitions
are able to report anecdotally about their work, successes, and challenges from the
previous six months.

As per the FY 2016 funding opportunity announcement. See https://www.samhsa.gov/grants/grantannouncements/sp-16-001.
9 See CADCA publication on the seven strategies: http://www.cadca.org/resources/coalition-impact-environmentalprevention-strategies. CADCA derived the strategies from work by the University of Kansas Work Group on Health
Promotion and Community Development—a World Health Organization Collaborating Centre, see
http://www.udmo.com/powerup/faq/7%20strategies.pdf
8

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 4

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Core Measures Data
DFC coalitions are required to collect and submit new core measures data every two
years. 10 DFC coalitions attach new core measures data to either their February or August
report once data collection is complete. This report focuses on findings regarding the
current DFC core measures, which were revised in January 2012. 11 Briefly, the core
measures are defined as follows (see Appendix A for specific wording for each of the core
measure items):

 Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use/Non-Use: The percentage of survey respondents who reported

using alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana (prevalence of use) or reported misuse of prescription drugs
at least once within the past 30 days (prevalence of misuse). Given that the focus of DFC is on
prevention, past 30-day prevalence data are reported here as prevalence of non-use (nonmisuse). That is, the data reflect the percentage of youth who did not report use (misuse) of the
substance in the prior 30 days. 12
 Perception of Risk: The percentage of survey respondents who perceived that use of a given
substance has moderate risk or great risk. Perceived risk of alcohol use is associated with five
or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage (i.e., beer, wine, or liquor) once or twice a week (binge
drinking of alcohol). Perceived risk of tobacco use is associated with smoking one or more packs
of cigarettes a day. Perceived risk of marijuana use is associated with using marijuana once or
twice a week. The perception of risk of prescription drug use core measure is associated with
any use of prescription drugs not prescribed to the user (misuse).
 Perception of Parental Disapproval: The percentage of survey respondents who perceived
that their parents would feel that regular use of alcohol (1-2 drinks nearly every day) or engaging
in any use of tobacco, marijuana, or misuse of prescription drugs is wrong or very wrong.
 Perception of Peer Disapproval: The percentage of survey respondents who perceived that
their friends would feel it would be wrong or very wrong for them to drink alcohol regularly
(1-2 drinks nearly every day), or engage in any use of tobacco, marijuana, or misuse of
prescription drugs.

DFC Reach

In FY 2016, ONDCP awarded 92 new DFC grants (i.e., 62 Year 1 and 30 Year 6) and 585 DFC
continuation grants, bringing the total number of FY 2016 DFC grant award recipients
included in the evaluation to 677 (see Figure 2 for geographic location). 13 DFC coalitions
identify their catchment areas by ZIP code. Each DFC coalition indicates all ZIP codes in
which their grant activities are targeted; these ZIP codes were merged with 2010 U.S.
DFC coalitions are encouraged to collect data from youth in at least three grade levels, with at least one grade level in
middle school (Grades 6 through 8) and at least one in high school (Grades 9 through 12).
11 A few core measures were revised in 2012, while new core measures (i.e., perception of peer disapproval and misuse of
prescription drugs) were added. For unchanged core measures, data have been collected since 2002.
12 These prevalence of non-use data are simply calculated by subtracting the prevalence of use percentage from 100
percent.
13 DFC coalitions provide target ZIP code information in their grant application; this data is available for all 677 coalitions.
10

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 5

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Figure 2. FY 2016 DFC Grant Award Recipients were Located in Most States and in
Three US Territories

Source: DFC FY 2016 Grant Application coalition ZIP code information

Census data to provide an estimate of the number of people that DFC grantees may reach
and impact. 14 The total estimated population of all catchment areas of DFC grantees funded
in FY 2016 was approximately 58.6 million,
DFC Potential Reach:
or 19 percent of the population of the
1 in 5 Americans lived in a community
United States. These catchment areas
with a DFC funded coalition in 2017.
include approximately 2.4 million middle
Since 2005, 48% of the U.S. population
school students ages 12–14 (nearly onehas lived in a community with a DFC
fifth [19%] of all middle school youth) and
14

See United States Census 2010 data Age and Sex Table by ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA)
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_SF1_QTP1&prodType=t
able. DFC coalitions provide ZIP codes while the US Census uses ZCTAs. These are similar but not identical (see
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/zctas.html). Note that some ZIP codes reported by DFC coalitions are not
found in the Census ZCTA, typically because they represent smaller communities. That is, Census estimates reported
here are likely a conservative estimate of potential reach of the DFC grant.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 6

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

3.3 million high school students ages 15–18 (nearly one-fifth [19%] of all high school
youth). 15

Since DFC grant award recipient data on catchment areas have been collected (i.e., 2005),
DFC community coalitions have targeted areas with a combined population of
approximately 150.9 million (48%) of the U.S. population. That is, nearly 1 in 2 persons in
the United States has lived in a community with a DFC coalition since 2005.

Community Context

DFC coalitions answer a range of questions regarding geographic setting, focus of
prevention on specific subgroups of youth, identification of the top five substances targeted
by the coalition, and key local risk and protective factors. 16 This information helps to better
understand the types of communities DFC coalitions are working in and the problems they
are addressing locally. The following sections summarize their responses to these
questions.

Geographic Setting

On average, DFC coalitions reported serving 1.3 geographic settings. 17 Of the 660
coalitions, self-identifying as working in rural (53%) or suburban (42%) communities was
most common, followed by urban (25%) areas. Smaller percentages of DFC coalitions
indicated working in inner city (9%) or frontier (2%) communities. 18

Focus on Specific Subgroups of Youth

Just over one fourth (27%) of FY 2016 DFC coalitions reported that they targeted
information/interventions to one or more specific groups demographically. Specifically,
DFC coalitions were most likely to report that they focused on working with
Hispanic/Latino (19%) and/or Black/African-American (9%) youth. Some DFC coalitions
focused on American Indians/Alaskan Natives (6%), lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender
(LGBT) youth (4%), Asian (3%), and/or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (<1%) youth.

Age is used as an indicator of school level here as U.S. Census data are not collected by grade level.
DFC coalitions could select multiple responses for each of these questions. Therefore, total responses exceed 100
percent.
17 DFC coalitions selected all geographic settings that applied. The median number of geographic settings served was 1,
with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 4.
18 DFC communities self-identify on each of these. Frontier communities are generally communities with sparse
population located some distance (at least 60 miles) from larger population centers and services. See
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/05/05/2014-10193/methodology-for-designation-of-frontierand-remote-areas and https://www.ruralhealthweb.org/getattachment/Advocate/PolicyDocuments/NRHAFrontierDefPolicyPaperFeb2016.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US for additional information.
15

16

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 7

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Substances Targeted by DFC Coalitions
DFC coalitions were asked to select up to five substances that their coalition was focused
on targeting in their communities. On average, coalitions reported targeting 4.3 substances.
Most DFC coalitions reported targeting efforts to address alcohol (97%), marijuana (90%)
and misuse of prescription drugs (86%; see Table 2). 19 For DFC coalitions focused on
prescription drugs, most were focused on the misuse of prescription opioids (83%) in
comparison with the misuse of prescription non-opioids (29%), although just over onefourth (26%) indicated that they were focused on the misuse of both types of prescription
drugs. Just under two-thirds (60%) of the FY 2016 DFC coalitions were focused on
addressing tobacco use.
Table 2. Alcohol, Marijuana, Prescription Drugs, and Tobacco Were
Targeted by Most DFC Coalitions

Substance
Alcohol
Marijuana
Prescription Drug (Any)
Prescription Drugs (Opioids)
Tobacco
Heroin
Prescription Drugs (Non-Opioids)
Synthetic Drugs/Emerging Drugs
Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs
Methamphetamine
Cocaine/Crack
Inhalants
Stimulants (uppers)
Tranquilizers
Steroids
Hallucinogens

Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Number of DFC
Coalitions
Targeting
Substance
642
596
565
548
398
220
191
92
79
25
7
4
3
1
1
0

Community Risk and Protective Factors

Percent of DFC
Coalitions Targeting
Substance
97.3%
90.3%
85.6%
83.0%
60.3%
33.3%
28.9%
13.9%
12.0%
3.8%
1.1%
0.6%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%

DFC coalitions are encouraged to identify local risk and protective factors. Risk factors are
the characteristics of the community, individuals, families, schools or other circumstances
that may increase the likelihood or difficulty of mitigating substance use and its associated
harms. DFC coalitions may focus prevention activities on reducing or addressing risk
19

Beginning in August 2017, DFC coalitions could specify prescription drugs (opioids) versus prescription drugs (nonopioids) as a target substance. Prior to that time, the category was broadly labeled as prescription drugs.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 8

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

factors that are perceived to be particularly important in a community. Conversely,
protective factors are the characteristics of a community, individuals, families, schools or
other circumstances that decrease the likelihood of substance use and its associated harms.
DFC coalitions may focus prevention activities on building upon or strengthening
protective factors that are perceived to be particularly important in a community.
On average, DFC coalitions selected 6 of 13 risk factors as the focus of what they needed to
address in their community. The most commonly reported risk factors in August 2017
were availability of substances (87%), perceived acceptability of substance abuse (86%)
and favorable attitudes toward the problem behavior (82%; see Table 3). Approximately
half of the DFC coalitions identified family-related risk factors that needed to be addressed
including parents lacking the ability or confidence to speak with their children about
substance use (59%), parental attitudes that are favorable toward antisocial behavior
(53%), and family trauma/stress (50%). One-fourth (25%) of DFC coalitions identified the
lack of local treatment services for substance use as a risk factor while one-fifth (19%)
indicated that available treatment services for substance use were insufficient to meet
needs in a timely manner.

While DFC coalitions were able to identify local risk factors that need to be addressed, they
also identified a range of local protective factors. On average, DFC coalitions selected 7 of
13 protective factors as the focus of activities to build upon current community strengths.
Key protective factors that DFC coalitions reported working to strengthen included prosocial community involvement (70%), positive peer groups (64%), laws, regulations, and
policies (61%), opportunities for pro-social family involvement (60%), and advertising and
other promotion of information related to ATOD use (60%; see Table 3). Slightly more than
half of the DFC coalitions also were working to build upon perceived school community
(56%) and school connectedness (53%) strengths.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 9

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table 3. Risk and Protective Factors Identified by DFC Coalitions
% of DFC Coalitions Identifying Given
Risk Factor That Needs to Be Addressed
Availability of substances that can be
abused
Perceived acceptability of substance
abuse
Favorable attitudes toward the
problem behavior
Parents lack ability/ confidence to
speak to their children about
ATOD use
Parental attitudes favorable to
antisocial behavior
Early initiation of the problem
behavior
Family trauma/stress

Low commitment to school

Inadequate enforcement of
laws/ordinances related to
substance use
Inadequate laws/ordinances related
to substance use/access
Lack of local treatment services for
substance use
Academic failure

Available treatment services for
substance use insufficient to meet
needs in timely manner

87.0%
86.4%
82.1%
58.5%
53.0%
51.4%
50.2%
40.8%
30.3%
30.0%
24.5%
24.2%
19.2%

Note: ATOD refers to Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Office of National Drug Control Policy

% of DFC Coalitions Identifying Given
Protective Factor to Strengthen
Pro-social community
involvement
Positive contributions to peer
group
Positive school climate

Laws, regulations, and policies

Opportunities for pro-social
family involvement
Advertising and other
promotion of information
related to ATOD use
Contributions to the school
community
Recognition/ acknowledgement
of efforts
Strong community organization
(e.g., less crime, less visible
drug dealing)
School connectedness

Family connectedness

Parental monitoring and
supervision

Cultural awareness, sensitivity,
and inclusiveness
Family economic resources

69.8%
63.9%
63.3%
61.4%
60.6%
59.7%
55.9%
55.2%
54.1%
53.3%
52.1%
51.1%
41.1%
17.1%

Page 10

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Building Capacity to Prevent and Reduce Substance Use
DFC coalitions are required to engage community members from the 12 sectors to conduct
their work (see Figure 3 for the 12 sectors). Comprehensive community collaboration to
reduce and prevent substance use among youth is a fundamental premise of effective
community prevention, and the DFC program. This section examines DFC coalitions’ efforts
at building community capacity to reduce and prevent substance use among youth as
measured by sector membership. This includes the number of active members by sector
and the average level of involvement of each sector’s members. Next, an analysis of DFC
coalitions’ engagement with youth coalitions is presented. Finally, DFC’s work to build
community capacity is highlighted with respect to addressing opioids.

Number of Active Members

In the August 2017 Progress Report data, almost all DFC coalitions (92%) reported meeting
the grant requirement of having at least one current member from each of the 12 sectors. 20
While most DFC coalitions identified at least one member for each sector, fewer (75%)
reported having at least one active member from each sector; this was an increase from
reporting at least one active member in August 2016 (70%). Active members were defined
as those who had attended at least one meeting during which coalition work was
conducted within the past 6 months. 21 That is, active members are likely to be contributing
to planning and carrying out the coalitions’ action plan, including implementation of
activities. Generally, the average number of sector members and active members within a
DFC coalition fluctuates as members move into and out of the community or experience
work/family changes that impact the member’s ability to work with the coalition. Youth
sector members are expected to change, as each year some youth graduate from high
school.
Figure 3 provides an overview of the median number of active members from each of the
12 sectors based on the August 2017 data. 22 The median number of active members ranged
from 1 to 5 per sector. On average, the Youth sector had the highest median number of
active members across DFC coalitions (5 active members), followed by Schools (4 active
members), and Law Enforcement Agencies, Healthcare Professionals, and Parents (3 active
members each). The median number of active members was lowest for the Media and
Religious/Fraternal Organizations sectors (1 active member each).

SAMHSA Project Officers work with DFC coalitions that have challenges in meeting this grant requirement.
The DFC National Evaluation Team provided technical assistance to DFC coalitions regarding defining active members.
22 The median is used here rather than the mean because a small percentage of DFC coalitions report very large numbers
of active members, particularly for youth and parents, skewing the mean.
20
21

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 11

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Figure 3. DFC Coalitions Median Number of Actively Engaged Members by Sector:
Youth and Schools Sectors Contributed the Highest Average Number of Members
5.0

Youth

4.0

Schools

3.0
3.0
3.0

Law Enforcement Agencies
Healthcare Professionals

Parents

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

Other Org with Substance Abuse Expertise

Youth-Serving Organizations

State/Local/Tribal Government Agencies

Civic/Volunteer Groups
Business Community

Media

Religious/Fraternal Organizations

1.0
1.0

Notes: Numbers represent the median number of active members from each sector. The number of DFC coalitions
reporting on the number of active members by sector was 660.
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Summed across the 12 sectors, DFC coalitions reported involving a median of 40 total
active members. 23 Extrapolating from the median across all 677 FY 2016 DFC coalitions,
DFC coalitions engaged approximately 27,000 active sector members. DFC coalitions, who
also rely on the work of paid and volunteer
DFC Coalitions:
staff, reported involving a median of 2 paid
Building Community Capacity
and 3 volunteer staff in August 2017. The
The 677 FY 2016 DFC coalitions mobilized an
addition of staff brings the total potential
estimated 30,500 individuals to engage
number of community members mobilized
in youth substance use prevention work.
by the 677 FY 2016 DFC coalitions to work
on youth substance use prevention to just
under 30,500. Overall, the median number of active members reported by sector was
slightly higher during this reporting period compared with August 2016. 24

Involvement of Active Members

DFC grant award recipients were asked to indicate how involved, on average, active
members from each sector were in coalition activities (see Figure 4). Involvement was

The median number is the midpoint in a frequency distribution. Note that when the number of active members is first
summed, the median is larger (40) than if the median number of active members by sector, as presented in Figure 3, is
summed (30).
24 In August 2016, the median number of active members was 36 (compared with 40 in August 2017). The median
number of staff was the same across the 2 years (five staff). The median of summed total members was 41 in August
2016 compared with 45 in August 2017.
23

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 12

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

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. On average, no sector was rated as being below medium
involvement (none was below 3). Four sectors were rated as being between high and very
high on involvement (4 to 5). The School and Law Enforcement sectors had the highest
average level of involvement (4.3 each), followed by Youth-Serving Organizations and
Other Organizations with Substance Abuse Expertise (4.1 and 4.0, respectively).
Figure 4. DFC Coalitions’ Reported a Range of Involvement Across Sectors, with
Schools and Law Enforcement Sectors Having the Highest Average Involvement
Rating

4.3

4.3

4.1

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.7

3.7

3.4

3.4

3.3

Notes: Level of involvement by sector was rated on a five point scale: 5 (very high involvement), 4 (high involvement),
3 (medium involvement), 2 (some involvement), 1 (low involvement).
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Given the relatively higher involvement of Law Enforcement and School sectors, progress
report data were examined for descriptions of these sectors’ types of involvement. DFC
coalitions reported engaging Law Enforcement sector members through speaking at youth
and parent education programs, providing trainings on topics such as naloxone and fake
IDs, and collaboration on national night out events and prevention activities (e.g., underage
drinking projects).

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 13

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Several coalitions mentioned specifically working with their Law Enforcement sector on
opioid issues:
 “We held a 2 hour logic model/strategic planning meeting with heads of the local law

enforcement agencies to combat opioid and heroin abuse.”
 “[Our coalition] is working to stay on top of the opioid epidemic, partnering with our police
department and [our State] HIDTA [High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas] on a door hanger
campaign to educate the community on the dangers of meth and opioid abuse.”
 “We have been working very closely with our local police department to help them provide
education and training on opioid use as well as the reversal drug Narcan.”

DFC coalitions reported strong collaboration with School sector members, in part as a
primary location for reaching out to and engaging youth. One coalition noted that, “We
have been able to work with our School sector coalition members to have access to youth
to conduct prevention activities (such as sticker shocks), gather/provide information
(health fairs), and inform them about the coalition.” 25 DFC coalitions provide schools with
information through presentations on the coalition mission and activities, invitations to
prevention summits, meetings with school staff to discuss survey results and trends, and
even subgroups (committees) designed specifically to work with and in schools. As one
DFC coalition explained, “During this period, three sector members met with school
leadership teams to drill into their core measure survey responses for their students as a
result of the youth survey…This created an opportunity to engage superintendents,
principals, counselors, coaches, and teachers and discuss opportunities for student success
while addressing substance use issues, healthy eating, physical activity, depression, and
suicide issues.”

DFC Youth Coalitions

Given the DFC program’s focus on preventing youth substance use, youth engagement was
examined closely in the DFC National Evaluation. Site visits conducted from 2012 to 2015
suggested that hosting a separate youth coalition was a promising strategy to successfully
engage youth in substance use prevention. To better understand how youth coalitions
within a broader DFC coalition structure can enhance DFC work, three questions were
added to the progress report beginning in February 2016. Specifically, DFC coalitions were
asked to indicate (yes/no) if they had a youth coalition, and if yes, how often the youth
coalition met and how involved the youth coalition was in planning prevention activities
for youth. A youth coalition is defined as:
A group of youth who work together to plan and implement activities related to the
mission of the full coalition. An adult coalition member serves as a mentor or leader,

25

Sticker shock campaigns typically involve collaboration between Youth and Business sector members at a minimum. A
message regarding youth use of the substance (e.g., alcohol or tobacco) is developed and printed on stickers. For
example, the sticker might explain the penalty for adults if they purchase alcohol for a minor. Stickers are then placed
on the substance at the point of purchase in order to raise awareness of the issue.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 14

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

but the youth have key leadership roles. The youth coalition is integral to the full
coalition, but generally meets independently.

These new data were analyzed and are reported here. Together, the findings provide
further support for DFC coalitions hosting a youth coalition as a promising practice. Of the
660 DFC coalitions who responded to the youth coalition questions in the August 2017
Progress Report, 435 coalitions (66%) reported hosting a youth coalition in their work (see
Figure 5). This is 5 percentage points greater than what was reported in August 2016
(61%). Of these 435 coalitions, most (88%) reported that their hosted youth coalition
meets at least once a month. 26 DFC coalitions also reported on the level of involvement of
their hosted youth coalition in planning prevention activities for youth, using the same
scale as sector member involvement. Average involvement for youth coalitions in these
planning activities received a rating of 4.1 on the 1 (low) to 5 (very high) scale, which falls
within the high category (4). The majority of DFC coalitions (76%) reported that these
youth coalitions are highly or very highly involved in coalition planning and activities; onefifth (19%) reported medium involvement while few (less than 5%) reported low or only
some involvement in planning activities.

Figure 5. Two-Thirds (66%) of DFC Coalitions Hosted a Youth Coalition, With Most
Youth Coalitions Meeting at Least Monthly (88%) and Highly or Very Highly (76%)
Involved in Planning and Implementing Prevention Activities
How often meet?
6.9%

66% Hosted
a Youth
Coalition
34% Did Not
Host a Youth
Coalition

44.6%

43.7%

Once a
month

Every 1-2
weeks

4.8%

1-2 times in Once every
past 6
2 months
months

Average level of involvement in planning
prevention activities for youth?

0.7%

3.9%

Low

Some

19.3%
Medium

35.2%

40.9%

High

Very High

Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

26

Of these coalitions, 43.7% met once every 1-2 weeks while 44.6% met once a month, for a total of 88.3%. Another 4.8%
met once every two months while 6.9% of those with youth coalitions reported that they met only 1-2 times in the
past six months.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 15

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Comparison of DFC Coalitions Hosting Versus Not Hosting a Youth Coalition
To better understand how DFC coalitions hosting a youth coalition might differ from those
coalitions not hosting a youth coalition, additional analyses were conducted for both
membership and strategy engagement. Given that most DFCs hosting a youth coalition
reported that youth were highly involved in planning and implementing activities, these
analyses sought to better understand the overall relationship between youth coalitions and
youth engagement.
Membership Involvement and Youth Coalitions

Perceptions of Youth, Law Enforcement, and School sector involvement with the DFC
coalition all differed significantly between those DFC coalitions hosting versus not hosting
a youth coalition (see Figure 6). 27 The largest difference was for youth sector involvement.
While half (52%) of DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition perceived Youth sector
members to be very highly involved, only one-fifth (20%) of DFC coalitions without a
hosted youth coalition did so. Conversely, far fewer DFC coalitions with versus without a
hosted youth coalition perceived their Youth sector members as having only some or low
involvement (6% versus 37%, respectively). Looking at this as an average level of Youth
sector involvement by assigning numbers to the involvement scale (5 indicating very high
involvement, 4 indicating high involvement, 3 indicating medium involvement, 2 indicating
some involvement, and 1 indicating low involvement), the difference between the two
groups was a full point on the five point scale. Those DFC coalitions that reported hosting a
youth coalition had a higher average level of Youth sector involvement (4.3 [high
involvement]) than those that reported not hosting a youth coalition (3.3 [medium
involvement]). This finding supports what was observed during site visits with regard to
higher youth engagement associated with youth coalitions. Comparing this to Figure 4, this
would place the Youth sector at the highest level of involvement with the School and Law
Enforcement sectors for those DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition. Those DFC
coalitions without a hosted youth coalition had average youth involvement similar to that
of the lowest sector (Business).
The significant findings for perceived School and Law Enforcement sectors’ involvement
were similar to those for the Youth sector, although the difference was less extreme (see
Figure 6). More DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition, versus those without one,
perceived their School (53% versus 44%, respectively) and Law Enforcement (52% versus
49%, respectively) sectors as having very high involvement. Conversely, fewer DFC
coalitions with a hosted youth coalition, versus those without, perceived their School (2%
versus 7%, respectively) and Law Enforcement (3% versus 9%, respectively) sectors to
have only some or low involvement. Looking at the average scores, this difference was
27

Based on chi-square analyses: Youth sector χ2(4) = 102.3, p < .0001; School sector χ2(4) = 12.2, p < .02; Law
Enforcement sector χ2(4 )= 12.1, p < .02

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 16

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

again less extreme. DFC coalitions hosting a youth coalition, versus those not hosting a
youth coalition, had higher levels of average involvement for the School (4.35 versus 4.15)
and Law Enforcement (4.32 versus 4.15) sectors.
Figure 6. Average Level of Involvement by Youth, School, and Law Enforcement
Sector Members was Significantly Higher in DFC Coalitions With a Hosted Youth
Coalition Versus Those Without One

Youth Sector Involvement:
DFC with Hosted Youth Coalition

4.1%
1.8%

20.4%
28.0%
24.9%
12.4%
14.2%

Youth Sector Involvement:
DFC without Hosted Youth Coalition

School Sector Involvement:
DFC with Hosted Youth Coalition

School Sector Involvement:
DFC without Hosted Youth Coalition

Law Enforcement Sector Involvement:
DFC with Hosted Youth Coalition

Law Enforcement Sector Involvement:
DFC without Hosted Youth Coalition

12.4%

52.2%

29.4%

1.8%
0.2%

4.9%
1.8%

2.1%
0.7%

6.7%
2.2%

13.3%

14.2%

14.5%

14.2%

52.6%

32.0%

35.1%

30.3%

28.0%

44.0%

52.4%

48.9%

Note: Within each sector there was a significant difference (p < .05) between those DFC coalitions with a hosted youth
coalition, versus those without a hosted youth coalition.
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 17

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

In addition (see Figure 7), DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition were more likely
than those DFC coalitions without a hosted youth coalition to have at least one member
representing each of the 12 sectors (95% versus 88%, respectively) 28 and to have at least
one active member in all 12 sectors (78% versus 69%, respectively). 29 DFC coalitions with
a hosted youth coalition, versus those without, were significantly more likely to have at
least one active member in the youth sector (97% versus 89%, respectively) 30. DFC
coalitions with a hosted youth coalition, versus those without, were significantly more
likely to have at least one active member in the religious/fraternal organizations sector
(95% versus 91%, respectively), although almost all coalitions reported having an active
member for this sector. 31
Figure 7. DFC Coalitions With as Compared to Without a Hosted Youth Coalition
were Significantly More Likely to Have at Least 1 Member and at Least 1 Active
Member Representing Each of the 12 Sectors. These DFC Coalitions Also Were
Significantly More Likely to Have at Least 1 Active Youth Sector Member and 1
Active Religious/Fraternal Organization Sector Member.
At least 1 member
representing every sector
At least 1 active member
in every sector
At least 1 active
youth sector member
At least 1 active religious/
fraternal sector member
DFC with Hosted Youth Coalition

95%*
88%
78%*
69%
97%*
89%
95%*
91%

DFC without Hosted Youth Coaliton

Note: * indicates p < .05 (significant difference)
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Strategy Engagement and Youth Coalitions
DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition were further compared with those without
one to gain a better understanding of the differences in implementation activities
undertaken by each during the August 2017 reporting period (see the Strategy
Implementation section for descriptions of the Seven Strategies for Community Change and
χ2(1) = 11.56, p < .01
χ2(1) = 5.85, p < .02
30 χ2(1) = 4.45, p < .04
31 χ2(1) = 17.98, p < .01
28
29

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 18

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

for overall analyses of implementation activities). 32 The results of these chi-square
analyses suggest that DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition were significantly more
likely than those without one to have engaged in several specific implementation activities
(see Table 4 for the six activities with the greatest differences in implementation; see also
Table B.1, Appendix B, for all results).
Table 4. Examples of Specific Activities Implemented by Significantly More DFC
Coalitions With, as Compared to Without, a Hosted Youth Coalition
Activity
Alternative Social Events: Drug-free parties,
other alternative events supported by the
coalition*
Parent Education and Training: Sessions
directed to parents on drug awareness,
prevention strategies, parenting skills, etc.*
Youth Education and Training: Sessions
focusing on providing information and skills
to youth*
Teacher Training: Sessions on drug awareness
and prevention strategies directed to
teachers or youth workers*
Improved Signage/ Advertising by Suppliers:
Suppliers making changes in signage,
advertising, or displays*
Social Networking: Posts on social media sites
(e.g., Facebook, Twitter)*

% of DFC
Coalitions With a
Youth Coalition
Reporting Activity

% of DFC
Coalitions Without
a Youth Coalition
Reporting Activity

Percentage
Point
Difference

73%

54%

19

58%

42%

16

88%

75%

13

44%

32%

12

31%

20%

11

94%

83%

Notes: * indicates p < .05 (significant difference). See also Table B.1, Appendix B, for chi-square results.
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

11

The greatest difference (19 percentage points) was for implementing alternative/drug-free
social events, which is a Providing Support strategy. 33 While nearly three-fourths (73%) of
DFC’s with a youth coalition implemented at least one alternative social event activity
during the 6 month reporting period, only just over one-half (54%) of DFC coalitions
without a youth coalition did so. DFC coalitions with a youth coalition, versus those without
one, were also significantly more likely to have conducted at least one youth training (88%
versus 75%), parent training (58% versus 42%) and teacher training (44% versus 32%),
each of which are Enhancing Skills strategies. In addition, activities implemented by
significantly more DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition included a Changing
Physical Design activity (i.e., improved signage) and a Providing Information activity (e.g.,
social networking). That is, while generally DFC coalitions with a youth coalition were
32
33

See footnote 9.

Ibid

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 19

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

more likely to engage in more youth-centered and family-centered activities, differences
occurred across a broad range of the Seven Strategies for Community Change.

Building Capacity to Address Opioids

A primary goal of DFC is to establish and strengthen collaboration among the 12 sectors in
order to support the efforts of community coalitions working to prevent and reduce
substance use among youth. DFC coalitions are encouraged to focus on building capacity to
identify local problems and address them with local solutions. One way to understand the
extent to which DFC coalitions are meeting this goal is to examine how they address new
substance challenges that arise in their communities. One potential new challenge that DFC
coalitions may be facing are issues related to opioids. The Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has identified opioid use and opioid overdose deaths as an epidemic. In
2016, an estimated two-thirds (66%) of all drug overdose deaths were associated with
opioids (e.g., prescription opioids, heroin, fentanyl) and the number of opioid related
deaths in 2016 was five times higher than in 1999. On average, 115 people died every day
from an opioid overdose in 2016 in America; this was an increase from 91 per day in
2015. 34

In August 2017, 87 percent of
87% of FY 2016 DFC coalitions targeted heroin,
the DFC coalitions selected
prescription opioid drugs, or both
prescription opioids, heroin, or
both as one of their top five
substances targeted (also see
3.8%
53.5%
29.5%
35
Figure 8). Most (83%) DFC
Both Heroin &
Prescription Opioids
Heroin
coalitions indicated that they
Prescription
were targeting prescription
Opioids
opioids while one-third (33%)
of DFC coalitions indicated that they were targeting heroin. Put another way, a small
percentage (4%) selected heroin but not prescription opioids as a target substance, half
(54%) selected prescription opioids but not heroin, and just under one-third (30%)
selected both heroin and prescription opioids.

CDC (2016). Drug overdose deaths in the United States Continue to Increase in 2015. See
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/. For CDC data, see Wide-ranging online data for epidemiologic
research (WONDER), available at http://wonder.cdc.gov. The only DFC coalitions in Idaho and in North Dakota also
mentioned opioids.
35 In August 2017, DFC coalitions were able to select prescription opioids and/or prescription non-opioids specifically.
Previously, only the broader term of prescription drugs was an option. In August 2016, 88 percent of FY 2015 DFC
coalitions selected prescription drugs, heroin or both, similar to the 87 percent of FY 2016 DFC coalitions reporting
this focus.
34

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 20

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

The DFC National Evaluation Team examined qualitative data found in open-ended
response items on the August 2017 Progress Reports for indications that DFC coalitions
were responding to this new challenge by addressing opioids (see Figure 8 and Table C.1,
Appendix C). Open-ended responses were searched for opioid-specific key terms (e.g.,
opiate, opioids, heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone). Just over one-third (36.2%) of all DFC
coalitions specifically mentioned opioids in at least one open-ended response field. At least
one DFC coalition in 44 of 54 States or Territories (82%) specifically mentioned opioids in
response to open-ended items. This was an increase from August 2016 in the percentage
(73%) of States or Territories where at least one DFC coalition mentioned opioids. At least
half of the coalitions in nine States (Alaska, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and
Vermont) with more than one DFC per
In 82% of FY 2016 States/Territories
State, specifically referenced opioids in an
with a DFC coalition, at least one DFC
36
coalition mentioned opioids
open-ended response.
specifically.
Given that most DFC coalitions indicated
Of all FY 2016 DFC coalitions, 70%
that their work with prescription drugs was
mentioned either prescription drugs or
focused on prescription opioids in target
opioids.
substances, open-ended responses also
were searched for mention of prescription drugs (e.g., prescription, Rx). Of all 660 DFC
coalitions with August 2017 Progress Report data, just over two-thirds (70%) mentioned
either prescription drugs or opioids, far more than the just over one-third (36%) who
specifically mentioned opioids. 37 Most (87%) DFC coalitions indicated addressing opioids
(i.e., prescription opioids and/or heroin) as a top 5 substance versus far fewer (36%) that
specifically mentioned opioids in an open-text response. Some DFC coalitions working on
opioids may not have included descriptions of these efforts in any of their open-ended
responses, while some may have described this work using only prescription drug
terminology (i.e., without specifying prescription opioids).

In FY 2016, there was at least one DFC coalition in all 50 States, plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Micronesia,
and American Samoa.
37 Of the 660 coalitions, 225 mentioned prescription drugs but not opioids, 42 mentioned opioids but not prescription
drugs, and 197 mentioned both.
36

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 21

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Figure 8. FY 2016 DFC Grant Award Recipients Mentioning Opioids by Percentage
of DFC Coalitions in the State/Territory and by Selection of Prescription Opioids,
Heroin, or Both as a Target Substance

Sources: DFC August 2017 Progress Report; DFC FY 2016 Grant Application coalition ZIP code information

Sample Activities to Address Opioids

Based on the qualitative data, DFC coalitions are engaging in a broad range of activities
across the Seven Strategies for Community Change to address opioids. DFC coalitions
reported disseminating information through various media to large numbers of community
members. For example, one coalition reported sending more than 800 letters to parents in
a specific school district with suggestions on how to be an advocate for their child when the
child is prescribed opioid medication. A number of DFC coalitions reported that they
planned, participated in, and/or presented at summits, forums, and town halls specifically
on heroin and other opioids. Some of these provided an opportunity for community
members, local substance abuse treatment providers, and others to discuss how to reduce
access to prescription drugs, while others focused more broadly on educating attendees
about the dangers of heroin and prescription opioid drug misuse. A few DFC coalitions
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 22

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

reported targeting forums specifically toward medical professionals. Some DFC coalitions
also implemented community events on opioids: “We had an End Heroin walk in February
where over 3,500 people attended to end the stigma and support their friend and family in
recovery.” One coalition in Ohio reported orchestrating the State’s largest ever march
against heroin that attracted more than 2,000 attendees and included nationally recognized
recovery advocates.

In addition to hosting or participating in relevant forums, DFC coalitions implemented
trainings. While multiple coalitions focused on training both youth and adults about the
harmful effects of opioids, others chose to do the same with sectors such as Law
Enforcement, often around naloxone training and/or prescription drug take-back boxes or
events. As some DFC coalitions noted, these types of trainings were successful, in part,
because of the relationship that already existed between the coalition and this sector, while
also improving on that relationship: “We have been working very closely with our local
police department to help them provide education and training on opioid use as well as the
reversal drug Narcan. We are working with them to help lessen barriers to access and
promote the medication drop box. We have formed an even stronger relationship with the
police department and hope to continue our collaborative work.”
DFC coalitions also reported more broadly on their engagement with prescription drug
take-back days or general prescription drug safe disposal practices. One coalition
mentioned hosting national drug take-back day events at nine locations in 2017. Several
coalitions noted their successes at these types of events:






“Collected over 75 pounds of medication in 4 hours and attracted over 600 community
members.”
“A take-back event, in collaboration with a new state Senator and the police department,
collected 700 pounds of pharmaceuticals with 200 cars receiving fact cards highlighting safe
medicine practices.”
“Pharmaceutical take-back events at schools were held in September, collecting
approximately 1,500 pounds. Event held in October collected 1,650 pounds.”

In addition to drug take-back and disposal, many DFC coalitions mentioned the creation or
use of a heroin and/or opioid multi-sector task force. The intent of these task forces is
often, as one coalition put it, “to open the lines of communication between entities to share
data and work on strategies to prevent [an] opioid epidemic.” The creation of a task force
was noted as increasing engagement of the sectors on the issue. Some DFC coalitions
introduced epidemiology task forces focused on data, a strategy that may be useful to those
DFC coalitions that report they are struggling to collect data around heroin and other
opioid misuse.

In addition to forming official task forces, several DFC coalitions focused on engaging new
sector members from within their communities. For example, two coalitions looked
specifically for non-traditional partners to participate in coalition efforts to encourage the
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 23

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

participation of an organization with a different perspective. As a result, one DFC coalition
engaged a State Hotel and Lodging Association, while another began working with realtors
and hospice staff. Another DFC coalition partnered with a photojournalism class at their
local high school to implement a course that taught students about the opioid epidemic.
During this course, students participated in interviews and took photographs with key
stakeholders in their community. The project culminated in a community-wide gallery
presentation of their artwork, at which local media and elected officials were present.

DFC coalitions helped to educate and inform local and State policymakers about the opioid
epidemic. For example, one coalition was asked to sit in on an elected official’s task force to
help “educate key leaders about effective prevention.” In other instances, DFC coalitions
worked to educate and inform the community about laws and ordinances passed in recent
months. For example, one DFC coalition saw local laws passed regarding “the proper
disposal of prescription drugs and limits on prescribing opioids, expansion of public access
to naloxone, and the banning of 19 additional synthetic opioids.” Similarly, another
coalition worked with their local district attorney who decided that his/her office would
not “automatically prosecute a person caught with possession of opiates [sic] if that person
agrees to be assessed and volunteers [to] complete any necessary treatment.”
Innovative Approaches
In addition to the prevention strategies listed above, DFC coalitions described a variety of
innovative approaches to heroin and other opioid problems within their community.
Examples include the following:









Strengthened the coalition’s partnership with law enforcement to identify drug routes and
access points.
Worked with the medical examiner’s office to implement a more sensitive drug screening
on an individual once it was determined that opioids were the cause of death.
Sent letters to veterinarians in two counties, highlighting prescription recommendations
from the CDC and sharing information from pharmacists who reported that pet owners
were filling opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions for their pets that they, too, had
prescriptions for as adults.
Led in developing and supporting alternative sentencing programs or regular programming
within their local jails that provide medication assisted treatment and other re-entry
services to inmates with opioid addictions.
Built member capacity to implement effective substance use prevention strategies by
starting every coalition meeting with what they call a “7 minute clinic” on topics such as
local strategies addressing the opioid epidemic, mindfulness, and local treatment resources.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 24

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Strategy Implementation
A primary purpose of collaboration across sectors that traditionally work independently is
leveraging skills and resources in planning and implementing prevention strategies. To
assess what DFC coalitions are doing, 41 unique prevention activities have been identified.
These activities were grouped into the Seven Strategies for Community Change, with any
given activity linked to a single strategy. 38 As previously noted, the seven strategies are
Providing Information, Enhancing Skills, Providing Support, Enhancing Access/Reducing
Barriers, Changing Consequences, Changing Physical Design, and educating or informing the
community about Modifying/Changing Policies. This section of the report provides an
overview of the specific activities and strategies that DFC coalitions have implemented and
reported in the August 2017 Progress Report. These reflect all activities that were
implemented by DFC coalitions during the 6-month window from February 1, 2017
through July 31, 2017. Information on the numbers of activities and community members
they reach is also provided. Finally, the engagement of youth in activities implemented by
DFC coalitions is highlighted.

Overview: Implementation of Strategies

The activities of DFC coalitions reported in August 2017 document the comprehensive
presence of DFC coalitions in their communities (see Figure 9). All (100%) of the 660 DFC
coalitions that submitted an August 2017 Progress Report indicated they had engaged in
Providing Information dissemination activities. Nearly all (96%) provided services related
to Enhancing Skills. Activities within these two strategies tend to build credibility in the
community, identify the coalition as a reliable source of information, and serve to build
capacity both by informing people about the coalition and training community members to
engage in prevention work directly. Lower percentages of DFC coalitions engaged in
Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers to prevention and treatment services (83%), Providing
Support (82%), and Changing Consequences (69%) activities. DFC coalitions were least
likely to report engaging in activities to educate and inform on Modifying/Changing Policies
to decrease substance use and associated negative behaviors (64%) and Changing Physical
Design to decrease opportunities for and encouragement of substance use (61%).

38

See CADCA publication on the seven strategies at http://www.cadca.org/resources/coalition-impact-environmentalprevention-strategies CADCA derived the strategies from work by the University of Kansas Work Group on Health
Promotion and Community Development—a World Health Organization Collaborating Centre. See
http://www.udmo.com/powerup/faq/7%20strategies.pdf for additional information.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 25

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Figure 9. Percentage of DFC Coalitions Engaged in Any Activity Within Each of the
Seven Strategies for Community Change

100.0%

96.2%

83.2%

81.5%

68.8%

64.1%

61.1%

Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

DFC coalitions engaged in a comprehensive mix of strategies with more than half (60%)
implementing at least one activity within 6 of the 7 strategies (28%) or in all 7 strategies
(33%; see Figure 10). Conversely, few (less than 2%) DFC coalitions reported
implementing activities within only 1 or 2 of the 7 strategies. Table 5 provides an overview
of the five combinations of strategies implemented most often by DFC coalitions. All five of
these most common combinations included implementing Providing Information,
Enhancing Skills, Providing Support, and Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers activities.
Next, DFC coalitions’ implementation of activities within each of the seven strategies are
provided in more detail.
Figure 10: DFC Coalitions Engaged in a Comprehensive Mix of Activities Across the
Seven Strategies for Community Change

0.2%

1.5%

6.0%

One Strategy

Two
Strategies

Three
Strategies

12.8%
Four
Strategies

19.0%
Five
Strategies

27.8%

Six
Strategies

32.6%

Seven
Strategies

Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 26

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table 5. Five Most Common Mixes of the Seven Strategies for Community Change
Utilized by DFC Coalitions
Providing Information
Enhancing Skills
Providing Support
Enhancing Access / Reducing Barriers
Changing Consequences
Educating and Informing About
Modifying/Changing Policies
Changing Physical Design

Strategy
Mix 1






Strategy
Mix 2












Strategy
Mix 3






Strategy
Mix 4





Strategy
Mix 5











Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Providing Information

Activities within this strategy provide
individuals with information related to youth
substance use, preventing youth substance
use, and the consequences of youth substance
use. Examples include public service
announcements, brochures, and presentations
during community meetings. Providing
Information activities are one way that DFC
coalitions establish themselves in the
community as experts on youth substance use
prevention. All DFC coalitions reported
engaging in activities to Provide Information to
community members (see Table 6).

Coalition Voices: Providing Information
“[A parent who lost his son to heroin] has
worked together with the coalition and
partnering organizations throughout [our
county] to print athletic water bottles with
the overdose hotline, student-designed
drug-free message and coalition logo. Most
recently added is an educational message
printed and stuffed into the bottles. Over
10,000 bottles have been printed and
distributed. This initiative has gone
worldwide through Baseball Little League
International…Little League organizations
are taking up the same initiative with our
parent representative's guidance.”

Providing Information is the most pervasive
“Rite Aid, CVS, Walgreens, and other
independent pharmacies will insert
activity in which DFC coalitions engage.
informational postcards [from the coalition]
During this reporting period more than half
in every prescription bag. The postcards
(57%) of coalitions estimated that Providing
will have information regarding the
Information was the strategy on which staff
permanent medication drop box location
spent most of their effort. Together, coalitions
and the importance of disposing of unused
prescription medication.”
reported 12,322 events at which an estimated
1.3 million members came into contact with
their coalition. For those indirect information channels (social networking and website
hits) for which individual exposure could be estimated, DFC coalition information reached
some 8.2 million community members. 39

39

This overall estimate is based on the data, but is inevitably inexact. For example, some participants in face-to-face
information sessions may have attended more than one event during the reporting period; distributed materials may
not have been read or may have been further circulated and read by additional community members.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 27

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Nearly all DFC coalitions (94%) disseminated prevention materials (including brochures
and flyers). In addition, some 6,400 media spots via print, billboard, television, radio, and
other methods were run by 548 DFC coalitions (80%), and half of the coalitions (50%)
reported posting new materials on coalition websites that garnered an estimated 616,000
hits.

In addition to Providing Information via print and electronic media, DFC community
coalitions also directly engaged youth and adults in their communities. For example, DFC
coalitions reported that they held just over 9,500 face-to-face information sessions. The
sessions reached an estimated 177,000 adults and 222,000 youth. DFC coalitions also held
or contributed to just over 2,700 special events that served an estimated 574,000 adults
and 361,000 youth.

Enhancing Skills

The purpose of activities within this strategy is
to enhance the skills of participants, members,
“[A] a nationally recognized
and staff regarding substance use prevention.
speaker…conducted an afternoon
Examples include youth conferences,
presentation for youth. He covered a range
parenting workshops, staff training, and
of topics, including: drug prevention
technical assistance (see Table 7). The
(alcohol & marijuana), and the importance
of healthy lifestyle choices.”
majority of DFC coalitions (96%) engaged in
activities related to Enhancing Skills during the
“Two of the coalition members attended a
6- month reporting window. Providing youth
statewide training on marijuana curriculum
education and training programs was the most
education. The course was designed to train
common activity completed by coalitions with
the trainer and provide marijuana
education to youth.”
550 (83%) delivering some 6,100 sessions to
an estimated 175,000 youth. The one-half
(53%) of all DFC community coalitions that reported conducting a total of just over 1,700
parent training sessions about drug awareness, prevention strategies, and parenting skills
estimated reaching a total of 50,800 parents. Training also was provided to an estimated
56,200 community members, 16,300 teachers, and 8,800 workers at businesses that sell
alcohol or tobacco.
Coalition Voices: Enhancing Skills

Other than Providing Information, DFC coalitions overall devoted more staff effort to
Enhancing Skills than any other strategy. Nearly half (49%) of coalitions reported that
Enhancing Skills was one of the top two strategies receiving staff effort. Overall, they
reported reaching an estimated 307,000 community members in these interpersonal
Enhancing Skills training contacts.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 28

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table 6. DFC Coalitions’ Accomplishments Related to Providing Information

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

Number
of DFC
Coalitions
Engaged

Percentage of
DFC Coalitions
Engaged

Number of
Completed
Activities

Number
of Adults
Served

Number
of Youth
Served

620

93.9%

--a

--b

--b

548

83.0%

6,354

--b

--b

559

84.7%

112,764

--b

--b

533

80.8%

720,244

90.0%

58,936

49.5%

6,419

588

548
594
327

660

89.1%

83.0%

100.0%

9,589

176,999

221,777

2,733

573,691

360,516

917,039

--b

--b

6,014,151
followers

1,550,086
followers

N/A

N/A

614,429
hitsc

--b

Notes: In the August 2017 Progress Report, 660 DFC grant award recipients reported data. In some cases, the same youth
or adults may have participated in multiple activities. Outliers beyond three standard deviations were removed.
a DFC coalitions reported distributing a total of 1,006,537 brochures, flyers, posters, etc.
b Data on the number of persons served was not reported because it could not be collected consistently and reliably by
all DFC coalitions.
c Number of web hits. Note that some DFC coalitions report they are unable to track hits.
N/A = Not Applicable
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 29

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table 7. DFC Coalitions’ Accomplishments Related to Enhancing Skills

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
Coalitions
Engaged

Percentage
of DFC
Coalitions
Engaged

Number of
Completed
Activities

Number
of Adults
Served

Number
of Youth
Served

550

83.3%

6,098

N/A

434

65.8%

1,542

56,169

N/A

349

52.9%

1,715

50,726

N/A

254

38.5%

980

8,830

N/A

266

40.3%

638

16,265

N/A

635

96.2%

10,973

131,990

175,204

175,204

Notes: In the August 2017 Progress Report, 660 DFC grant award recipients reported activities. In some cases, the same
youth or adults may have participated in multiple activities. Outliers beyond three standard deviations were removed.
N/A = Not Applicable
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Providing Support

DFC coalitions Provide Support for people to participate in activities that reduce risk or
enhance protection associated with substance use. 40 Examples include providing
substance-free activities, mentoring programs, and support groups (see Table 8). Most DFC
coalitions (82%) engaged in activities related to Providing Support. Two-thirds of the DFC
coalitions (67%) sponsored or supported drug-free alternative social events, such as afterprom events, attended collectively by 132,000 youth. DFC coalitions also supported 1,400
youth organizations and clubs serving 178,000 youth, and an additional 1,200 youth
recreation programs with 29,000 participants. DFC coalitions held or supported 908
40

DFC coalitions must comply with all Federal policies and regulations describing allowable and unallowable grant
expenditures. In addition, the DFC Support 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
https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/grants/pdf/sp-18-002-dfc-foa-1-30-18.pdf for the most recent DFC
grant application funding opportunity announcement describing funding limitations.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 30

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

community service events providing
Coalition Voices: Providing Support
opportunities for 82,300 family and
youth to participate. DFC coalitions also
“We are building relationships with our EMS
supported 1,300 youth and family
agencies to be able to collaborate on naloxone
education, Good Samaritan education, and referrals
support groups helping 10,700
to treatment after overdose, and support for
participants. During this reporting
families.”
period, DFC coalitions supported
“Our coalition partners have begun sharing what
opportunities for protective activities
they're learning about prevention science and
that served an estimated 360,000
applying it to their own spheres of influence. They
community members. More than half
are working on policies and recommendations
(60%) of DFC coalitions reported that
related to our overall mission...”
Providing Support activities was one of
the top three strategies on which staff effort was spent.

Table 8. DFC Coalitions’ Accomplishments Related to Providing Support

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
Coalitions
Engaged

Percentage
of DFC
Coalitions
Engaged

Number of
Completed
Activities

Number
of Adults
Served

Number
of
Youth
Served

441

66.8%

1,586

73,209

132,378

239

36.2%

908

37,164

45,175

174

26.4%

1,175

9,270

29,384

137

20.8%

1,288

5,582

5,129

137

20.8%

1,352

4,588

17,655

538

81.5%

6,309

129,813

229,721

Notes: In the August 2017 Progress Report, 660 DFC grant award recipients reported activity data. In some cases, the
same youth or adults may have participated in multiple activities. Outliers beyond three standard deviations were
removed.
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 31

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers
The purpose of activities within this strategy is to improve the ease, ability, and
opportunity for community members to utilize systems and services providing substance
use prevention and treatment resources. Examples include providing transportation to
treatment; providing childcare; reducing the availability of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs; and
cross-cultural outreach, e.g. language
Coalition Voices:
translation (see Table 9). 41 A large majority of
Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers
DFC coalitions (83%) engaged in activities
“The coalition assembles Drug Testing
related to Enhancing Access/Reducing Barriers.
resource kits made available free to

The activities within this strategy used by the
parents who request them. They are
distributed by our PD and also at
most (71%) DFC coalitions were intended to
community events."
reduce home and social access. 42 One-third
“100% of our towns participated in DEA Rx
(33%) of DFC coalitions reported increasing
Take-Back Day in the spring, over 520
access to substance use services. More than
pounds of drugs were collected.”
111,000 adults and youth were referred to
“Provided leadership and guidance to help
substance use services. Thirty percent of DFC
schools establish a school-based accessible
coalitions engaged in activities to improve
Student Life Center to have a full range of
access through culturally sensitive outreach
support services available to youth and
(e.g., providing services and materials in
families. Local foundation and school
providing funding.”
languages other than English). More than
30,000 adults and youth received supports
such as transportation or access to childcare that facilitate participation in prevention and
treatment.

Please see footnote 40 regarding limitations on uses of DFC funding. DFC grant funds may not necessarily fund all of the
activities in examples provided for each of the Strategies for Community Change.
42 Many prescription drug take-backs involve drop boxes that are not monitored on a 24/7 basis, making it difficult for
DFC coalitions to estimate the number of adult/youth participants.
41

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 32

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table 9. DFC Coalitions’ Accomplishments Related to Enhancing Access/Reducing
Barriers

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
Coalitions
Engaged

Percentage
of DFC
Coalitions
Engaged

Number of
Adults
Served

Number
of Youth
Served
233,310

466

70.6%

1,184,563

196

29.7%

177,405

216

32.7%

64,215

30,831

91

13.8%

13,646

16,908

549

83.2%

1,439,829

47,065

328,114

Notes: In the August 2017 Progress Report, 660 DFC grant award recipients reported activity data. Outliers beyond three
standard deviations were removed.
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Changing Consequences

Activities within the Changing Consequences strategy promote community practices that
encourage positive organizational or individual behaviors to reduce the risk of substance
use and the resulting harms, and discourage behaviors that increase this risk. For example,
public recognition of business practices
Coalition Voices: Changing Consequences
that reduce the risk of harmful substance
“The coalition met with [another coalition] to
use (e.g., passing compliance checks) is an
learn how to implement a Social Host ordinance in
incentive to adopt behaviors that reduce
their community. A local police officer assisted the
risk; increasing surveillance for substance
coalition in its efforts to gain interest in having the
use violations (e.g., drinking under the
ordinance in the community.”
influence [DUI] checks) is a disincentive.
“The coalition collaborated with local law
Table 10 presents an overview of the
enforcement agencies and schools to conduct K9
locker checks.”
number of DFC coalitions that conducted
activities related to Changing Consequences
“The coalition shared data from their Alcohol
and businesses affected by these activities.
Purchase Study with local ABC Board and Law
Enforcement.”
More than two-thirds of the DFC coalitions
(69%) engaged in activities related to
changing consequences. One-half (50%) of DFC coalitions engaged in activities focused on
strengthening enforcement of existing laws; just under one-third (30%) strengthened
surveillance activities.
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 33

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Within this strategy, DFC coalitions reported more engagement in recognizing positive
business behavior than in publicizing negative business behavior. Specifically, one-third
(34%) of DFC coalitions implemented recognition programs that rewarded nearly 5,700
local businesses for compliance with local ordinances linked with the sale of alcohol and
tobacco. In comparison, fewer (14%) DFC coalitions engaged in activities to publicly
identify nearly 2,600 establishments that were noncompliant with local ordinances.
Table 10. DFC Coalitions’ Accomplishments Related to Changing Consequences

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
Coalitions
Engageda

Percentage
of DFC
Coalitions
Engaged

Number of
Businesses
Reached

331

50.2%

N/A

226

33.6%

5,698

68.8%

8,290

200

91

454

30.3%

13.8%

N/A

2,592

Notes: In the August 2017 Progress Report, 660 DFC grant award recipients reported activity data. Outliers beyond three
standard deviations were removed.
a Data on the number of persons served were not collected because it could not be collected consistently and reliably
by all grant award recipients.
N/A = Not Applicable
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Educating and Informing About Modifying/Changing Policies

The educating and informing about Modifying/Changing Policies strategy involves engaging
in activities to educate and inform the community concerning the effects of current and
potential laws, rules, policies, and practices influencing substance use and the
accompanying harmful outcomes for the community (see Table 11). 43 Examples of activities
include educating about school drug testing policies and local use ordinances. Nearly twothirds (64%) of DFC coalitions engaged in activities related to educating or informing about
Modifying/Changing Policies that were associated with a change. Educating or informing
related to school policies was most common, with just over one-fourth (28%) of DFC
coalitions engaged in this activity to successfully bring change to 147 drug-free school
policies.
43

DFC coalitions are legally prohibited from using Federal dollars for lobbying and are informed of this in their grant
terms and conditions. As such, costs for lobbying cannot be calculated as contributing to the required match. For more
information refer to Restrictions on Grantee Lobbying (Appropriations Act Section 503; see
https://www.hhs.gov/grants/grants/grants-policies-regulations/lobbying-restrictions.html).

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 34

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

DFC coalitions also successfully
educated about laws/policies
concerning: access to treatment or
prevention services as an
alternative to sentencing (71
policies); drug-free workplaces (69
policies); sales restrictions (68
policies); underage use, possession,
or behavior under the influence (64
policies); supplier
advertising/liability (51 policies),
and parental liability/ enabling
behaviors (40 policies).

Coalition Voices:
Educating and Informing about Modifying/Changing
Policies
“Youth are very engaged in working on alcohol and
marijuana issues to make their community healthier and
safe. Youth wrote and filmed a PSA… in three languages:
English, Spanish, and Portuguese.”
“We have worked with our parish council members on
revising our local alcohol ordinances. We successfully
held a forum and a town hall meeting where we informed
our local, State, and Federal representatives about
emerging drug trends and the cost it has on our
communities.”

Table 11. DFC Coalitions’ Accomplishments Related to Educating and Informing
About Modifying/Changing Policies
Number of
DFC
Activity: Laws or Policies Passed/Modified
Coalitions
Concerning:
Engaged
School: Drug-free schools
182
Citizen Enabling/Liability: Parental liability or enabling
115
Underage Use: Underage use, possession, or
behavior under the influence
132
Supplier Promotion/Liability: Supplier advertising,
promotions, or liability
76
Cost: Cost (e.g., alcohol taxes/fees, tobacco taxes)
53
Treatment and Prevention: Sentencing alternatives
to increase treatment or prevention
91
Sales Restrictions: Restrictions on product sales
114
Workplace: Drug-free workplaces
71
Outlet Location/Density: Density of alcohol outlets
52
Summary: Modifying/Changing Policies
423

Percentage of
DFC
Coalitions
Engaged
27.6%
17.4%
20.0%
11.5%
8.0%

13.8%
17.3%
10.8%
7.9%
64.1%

Number of
Policies
Passed/
Modified
147
40
64
51
21

71
68
55
24
541

Notes: In the August 2017 Progress Report, 660 DFC grant award recipients reported activity data. Outliers beyond three
standard deviations were removed.
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

School Policies

Given that work on educating and informing about school policies was frequently reported,
descriptions of the types of school policies were examined to better understand these
efforts. DFC coalitions described adding school policies around the use of specific
substances, educational programs, randomized drug tests for students (in school and at
school events), and consequences to students for substance use. Some DFC coalitions also
modified existing school policies to include new substances, more clearly define
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 35

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

consequences, and identify resources for support. A common substance-specific change to
school policy was related to adding e-cigarettes to existing school policies or creating new
policies that ban e-cigarettes from school grounds.

DFC coalitions also reported working on policies around mandatory educational programs.
For example, “all coaches must present a standardized Power Point educating on the
negative performance effects of alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs to athletes and parents
at the start of each season.” Another DFC coalition described the addition of drug education
to Grade 6 health classes as a result of the partnership between the school and the
coalition.

Randomized drug testing school policies described by DFC coalitions were often limited to
student athletes, but some coalitions noted that these policies also applied to a subset of
students who consented to random drug testing or, in some cases, all students. As one DFC
coalition described, “Our youth coalition worked to change school district-wide policy
regarding breathalyzing prior to students entering the annual prom dance. All students and
their guests are now required to take a breathalyzer test prior to their entrance.” Another
coalition “changed the drug testing to include middle school students for the 1st time [in]
the history of the schools. We added drug testing for 5th and 6th grade students in
elementary schools, only if they participate in middle school sports or other activities
(band, etc.).”
Other types of school policies reported by coalitions involved how consequences are
handled once students are found to be using substances. Specifically, coalitions have
worked to shift school policies on consequences from being punitive to rehabilitative. One
coalition worked with their local school district to develop a “diversion program that refers
students that have had incidences either being under the influence or having [alcohol or
other drugs] in possession on campus.” This program was described as an “alternative to
suspension or expulsions and offers early intervention and appropriate [substance use
disorder] treatment, as well as connecting students and families in need of additional
mental health supports.” Other DFC coalitions noted working with schools on policies that
referred students to counseling before they were suspended for violating the school’s
existing substance use policy.

Changing Physical Design

For this strategy, activities involve Changing Physical Design features of the community
environment to reduce risk or enhance protection. Examples of activities within this area
include cleaning up blighted neighborhoods, adding lights to parks, and regulating alcohol
outlet density (see Table 12). 44 Changing Physical Design activities were engaged in by less
44

Please see footnote 40regarding limitations on uses of DFC funding. DFC grant funds may not necessarily fund all of the
activities examples provided for the Changing Physical Design strategy.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 36

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

than two-thirds (61%) of DFC coalitions, less than any other strategy. Identifying physical
design problems was the activity used by most coalitions (33%); nearly as many worked on
improving signage or advertising by
Coalition Voices: Changing Physical Design
suppliers (27%). Nearly 800 physical
“The Coalition has been very successful with its
design problems were identified and
middle school group who ran a "Lock Up Your
more than 1,600 improvements in
Liquor" campaign. The group designed a post card
signage, advertising, or displays
that was mailed home and/or featured on
corresponding to alcohol or tobacco sales
principal's webpages. The post card talked about
the risks of underage drinking and the importance
were reported. In addition, DFC coalitions
of locking up your liquor. In addition, free locks
completed 279 neighborhood cleanup and
were distributed to any parent interested.”
beautification events, encouraged 440
“Coalition staff worked with local youth to develop
businesses to designate alcohol and
a safe walking trail.”
tobacco free zones, and improved 146
public places to facilitate surveillance
(e.g., improving visibility of “hot spots” for substance dealing or use).
Table 12. DFC Coalitions’ Accomplishments Related to Changing Physical Design

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: Clean-up/beautification
events held
Encourage Designation of Alcohol-Free and TobaccoFree 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
Coalitions
Engaged

Percentage of
DFC Coalitions
Engaged

Number of
Completed
Activities

219

33.2%

769

181

27.4%

1,608

15.0%

440

133

20.2 %

48

7.3%

97

55

8.3%

146

99

403

61.1%

279

3,339

Notes: In the August 2017 Progress Report, 660 DFC grant award recipients reported activity data. Outliers beyond three
standard deviations were removed.
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 37

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Summary of Coalition Strategy Implementation
DFC coalitions provide a broad range of activities that recognize and address the complex
and inter-related factors that influence initiation and degree of substance use among youth.
These activities encompass broad information dissemination, efforts to enhance individual
skills and inter-personal supports that reduce substance use, and changing the institutional
and behavioral environmental factors that contribute to or mitigate substance use among
youth. Each DFC coalition is encouraged to focus on a comprehensive range of the Seven
Strategies for Community Change that best addresses local needs and challenges in order to
find local solutions to local problems. The comprehensiveness of these strategies is
important because substance use has no one, single cause. During the 6-month window
that is reflected by the August 2017 Progress Report, the majority of DFC coalitions clearly
engaged in this comprehensive range, with nearly two-thirds (60%) engaging in at least
some activity within 6 or 7 of the 7 strategy types and another one-fifth (19%) engaging in
5 of 7. DFC coalitions recognize and meet the need for comprehensive and complementary
prevention activities to improve the likelihood that youth will have protective supports
that are associated with decreased initiation and ongoing engagement by youth in
substance use.
The mix of community members/sectors engaged by DFC coalitions is further evidence of
their comprehensive scope. While the focus is youth preventing substance use, DFC
coalitions also engage adults to make family and community environments more
supportive of youth choosing to remain or become drug-free. In the most recent data, 660
coalitions documented contact with more than seven million adults. DFC coalitions used a
range of public information outlets (e.g., public service announcements, news stories,
brochures, posters, social media) to increase information and awareness in their
communities.

The strategy data also documents the implementation of complementary strategies that
focus activities where they will have the greatest impact. Informed adults help to facilitate
the community and family environmental changes that are critical to substance use
prevention. Skills enhancement contacts typically differentiate youth and adult audiences
because the skills needed by each concerning prevention are distinct. DFC coalitions also
engage in activities that create opportunities for social interaction between adults and
youth. An example of a complementary strategic orientation is the engagement of both
adults (1.4 million) and youth (328,000) in activities aimed at Increasing Access/Reducing
Barriers, which included programs such as prescription drug take-back events and access
to culturally appropriate community services (e.g., recovery services). Collectively, these
contribute to family and community environments that are more protective of positive
youth behavior (and substance use prevention).

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 38

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Engaging Youth in DFC Implementation Strategies
These detailed data on activities and community participation demonstrate a particularly
important principle of addressing youth substance use prevention at the community level.
DFC coalitions are a strong example of working with youth, and providing opportunities for
positive youth contributions and development, rather than solely doing things for or to
youth. As noted in the section on DFC
Youth Coalitions, two-thirds (66%) of
DFC Coalitions’ Engagement with Youth
DFC coalitions report hosting a youth
Youth were involved with or directly impacted by a
coalition to engage active involvement
broad range of DFC Coalitions’ activities. Examples
of youth, and three-fourths (76%) of
based on approximate number of participants include:
these youth coalitions are highly or
 175,000 youth participated in training.
very highly involved in planning and
 132,000 youth participated in alternative social
implementing prevention activities.
events.
Many DFC coalitions also reported
 29,400 youth were involved through youth
recreation programs.
anecdotally on the involvement of
 17,700 youth were involved through youth
youth in planning activities across
organizations.
strategy types, indicating that youth
 233,000 youth participated in activities to reduce
were the agents of change as well as
home and social access.
the target of activities. In addition, DFC
 28% of DFC coalitions educated/informed about
coalitions with a youth coalition were
147 new school policies addressing substance use
issues.
significantly more likely to have
engaged in 18 specific activities across
a range of strategy types such as alternative social events and youth training (see Table 4
and Table B.1, Appendix B).
Across the Seven Strategies for Community Change, more DFC coalitions engaged in
activities targeting youth than those targeting any other community group: alternative
drug-free activities for youth were the most implemented Enhancing Support activity;
reducing home and social access to substances was the most implemented Enhancing
Access/Reducing Barriers activity; and more DFC coalitions focused on educating about
school policies (where youth are centrally located) than on any other category of
Modifying/Changing Policies. In summary, DFC coalitions engage youth directly in building
stronger and more positive community connections that are associated with substance use
prevention.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 39

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Core Measures Findings From the Outcome Evaluation
This section provides findings related to changes in core measures outcomes from DFC
coalitions’ first report to the most recent report. 45 For core measures not changed or
introduced in 2012, DFC coalitions have reported data from 2002 to 2017. For core
measures approved in 2012, including peer disapproval and all outcomes for misuse of
prescription drugs, DFC coalitions have reported data between 2012 and 2017. Only
currently approved core measures are presented in this report. Core measures data were
first analyzed including all available data from DFC coalitions since the inception of the
grant. Next, data were analyzed including only the DFC coalitions funded in FY 2016. 46 The
findings provide a reflection of the relationship between coalition activities and community
outcomes.

The data are presented visually within the body of this report using dot plots (see
Appendix D for data presented in tables). Change in the core measure where the most
recent report (green dot) is to the right of the first report (gray dot) represents increased
past 30-day prevalence of non-use, perception of risk/harm of use, and perception of
parental and peer disapproval—changes that are in line with the goals of the grant. The
farther apart the dots are, the more likely it is that the difference was significant, while the
more overlap there is, the more likely it is that the difference was not significant. 47 The
scale across all dot plots is from 50 percent to 100 percent (see Figures 11 and 14 to 17).

Past 30-Day Prevalence of Non-Use

One of the key goals of the DFC grant is to prevent and reduce youth substance use. For all
substances—for both middle school and high school age groups for all DFC coalitions since
inception—there was a significant increase in past 30-day prevalence of non-use (see
Figure 11 and Table D.2, Appendix D). That is, within communities with a DFC coalition,
more youth reported not using each of the core measure substances at most recent report
than at first report. The same was true for the FY 2016 sample, with the exception of the
past 30-day prevalence of non-misuse of prescription drugs by middle school youth, which
was unchanged from the first report to the most recent report (97% and 98%,
respectively). That is, very few middle school youth reported misuse of prescription drugs
at any time.
Data were analyzed using paired t-tests. The first and the most recent outcomes were weighted based on the number of
students surveyed by DFC coalitions. Outliers with change scores greater than three standard deviations were
excluded from the analyses. Significance is indicated when the statistical significance reached a value of p < .05 or less.
46 For core measures in place only since 2012, most of the DFC coalitions in the all DFC ever-funded sample are also
in the FY 2016 only sample. For example, to date 361 DFC coalitions ever funded have two data points reported
on past 30-day prevalence of use of prescription drugs for middle school youth. Of these 361, 283 (78%) also
were in the FY 2016 only sample. In comparison, only 411 of the 1,161(25%) DFC coalitions who have reported
past 30-day prevalence of alcohol use among middle school youth were in the FY 2016 only sample.
47 Significant differences at the p < .05 level are indicated with an asterisk.
45

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 40

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Figure 11. Past 30-Day Prevalence of Non-Use From First Report to Most Recent
Report by School Level and DFC Grant Award Recipient Group
First Report

Most Recent Report

All DFC Grant Award Recipients since Program Inception
Middle School
Alcohol (n=1,161)*

87.590.9

Tobacco (n=1,153)*

93.7

Marijuana (n=1,146)*

95.8

95.0 95.8

Prescription Drugs (n=361)*

97.2 97.5

High School

Alcohol (n=1,229)*

64.2

71.0

Tobacco (n=1,215)*

82.1 87.2

Marijuana (n=1,212)*

81.9

83.1

Prescription Drugs (n=408)*

93.7

94.8

FY 2016 Grant Award Recipients

Middle School
Alcohol (n=411)*

89.893.3

Tobacco (n=404)*

95.3

Marijuana (n=406)*

97.1

95.8 96.4

Prescription Drugs (n=283)

97.3 97.5

High School

Alcohol (n=442)*

67.6

Tobacco (n=432)*

Marijuana (n=437)*

Prescription Drugs (n=323)*

75.5
85.1
82.5

90.9

84.0
93.7

94.8

Note: * indicates p < .05 (significant difference); numbers are percentages.
Source: Progress Report, 2002–2017 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 41

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Several aspects of the past 30-day prevalence of non-use data are worth noting. First, while
there were significant increases over time, the majority of youth reported that they did not
use each of the given core measure substances at each report (first report and most recent
report). While most youth choose not to use substances, the significant changes associated
with having a DFC coalition translate to thousands of additional youth making the choice not
to use a given substance. These numbers are based on extrapolating from the percentage
change for the FY 2016 sample to the potential reach of DFC based on capture area census
estimates (see Table 13). The estimated number of middle school youth reporting past 30day alcohol non-use from first report to most recent report increased from 2,155,000 to
2,238,000 which is approximately an additional 83,000 middle school youth reporting past
30-day alcohol non-use. The approximate number of high school youth who reported past
30-day alcohol non-use increased from 2,208,000 to 2,482,000, an increase of
approximately 274,000 high school youth not consuming alcohol.
Among middle school youth, past 30-day non-use of tobacco increased from approximately
2,287,000 to 2,330,000, an increase of 43,000; past 30-day non-use of marijuana increased
from 2,300,000 to 2,315,000, an increase of approximately 15,000 middle school youth.
The approximate number of high school youth who reported past 30-day non-use of
tobacco increased from 2,795,000 to 2,983,000, an increase of 188,000. For marijuana, high
school youth reports of past 30-day non-use increased from 2,716,000 to 2,765,000, an
increase of 49,000. For the FY 2016 sample, there was no significant change in reports of
past 30-day non-misuse of prescription drugs among middle school students with almost
all (97%) reporting not misusing at each time point. Among high school youth, reported
past 30-day non-misuse of prescription drugs increased from approximately 3,089,000 to
3,129,000, an increase of approximately 40,000 youth.
Table 13: FY 2016 DFC Coalitions Significantly Increased the Number of Youth Who
Reported Past 30-Day Non-Use
Past 30-Day Non-Use of…
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drug (misuse)

Estimated Increase in Number
of Middle School Youth
83,000
43,000
15,000
No Change

Estimated Increase in Number
of High School Youth
274,000
188,000
49,000
40,000

Note: Number of estimated youth is based on extrapolating percentage change to potential reach based on census
estimates.
Source: Progress Report, 2002–2017 core measures data

Second, while most youth reported non-use of alcohol within the past 30-days (see Table
D.2, Appendix D), alcohol was the substance with the lowest past 30-day prevalence of nonuse among middle school and high school youth, at first report and at most recent report,
both for all DFC coalitions ever funded and FY 2016 DFC coalitions only. That is, alcohol was
the substance that youth were most likely to report having used during the past 30-days
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 42

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

(also see Table D.1, Appendix D). Across all DFC coalitions funded since inception, just under
three-fourths (71%) of high school youth reported past 30-day alcohol non-use at most
recent report. In comparison, at most recent report, more high school youth in the all DFC
coalitions funded since inception sample reported not using marijuana, not using tobacco,
and not misusing prescription drugs (83%, 87%, and 95%, respectively). In both samples,
most (90% or more) middle school youth reported that they had not used each of the given
substances at most recent report, including alcohol, although alcohol again had the lowest
prevalence of non-use as compared with tobacco, marijuana, and prescription drug nonmisuse (e.g., 91% versus 96%, 96%, and 98%, respectively in the all DFC coalitions funded
since inception sample). The relatively high rates of past 30-day prevalence of alcohol use
(e.g., within the FY 2016 sample at most recent report 7% of middle school youth and 25%
of high school youth reported past 30-day use) suggests the need for ongoing prevention
efforts targeting youth alcohol use such as those provided by DFC coalitions.

Third, reported past 30-day prevalence of non-misuse of prescription drugs was higher than
for all other substances. Most middle school and high school youth (97% and 94%,
respectively) report not misusing prescription drugs the past 30-days. Prevalence of nonmisuse of prescription drugs was high at first report and significantly increased from the
first report to the most recent report among youth in communities targeted by DFC
coalitions (with the exception of middle school youth in the FY 2016 sample which was
unchanged). Finally, the percentage of high school youth reporting past 30-day non-use of
marijuana was lower than the percentage of these youth reporting past 30-day non-use of
tobacco, in most cases. That is, more high school youth reported past 30-day use of
marijuana than of tobacco. The exception to this was for first report across all DFC
recipients since inception in which prevalence of non-use was similar for tobacco and
marijuana (82%). Among middle school youth, prevalence of non-use of tobacco and
marijuana were similar within each time point within each sample.
Percentage Change in Prevalence of Past 30-Day Use

The amount of change in past 30-day prevalence of use (from first report to most recent
report) can also be considered as a percentage change relative to the first report. That is,
given that past 30-day prevalence of non-use has increased, what was the percentage
decrease in past 30-day prevalence of use? Figure 12 (all DFC grant award recipients ever
funded) and Figure 13 (FY 2016 grant award recipients) present percentage change data
(see Table D.1, Appendix D for the underlying data used to calculate the percentage
change). 48
48

Percentage change (i.e., relative change) demonstrates how much change was experienced relative to the baseline. It is
calculated as the percentage point change [(most recent report minus first report) divided by first report; multiplied
by 100 to report as a percentage].

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 43

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

As shown in Figure 12, the past 30-day prevalence of alcohol use declined by 27 percent,
past 30-day prevalence of tobacco use declined by 33 percent, past 30-day prevalence of
marijuana use declined by 16 percent, and past 30-day prevalence of prescription drug
misuse declined by 11 percent from the first report to the most recent report among middle
school youth across all DFC coalitions ever funded. High school past 30-day prevalence of
use for alcohol declined by 19 percent, tobacco declined by 29 percent, marijuana declined
by 7 percent, and prescription drug prevalence of misuse declined by 18 percent. All of
these reductions in past 30-day prevalence of use for this sample were significant.
Figure 12: Percentage Change in Past 30Day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana
Prevalence of Use and in Prescription
Drug Prevalence of Misuse: Long-Term
Change Among All DFC Grant Award
Recipients Since Grant Inception
Middle School

High School

-6.6%*
-10.7%*
-17.5%*
-16.0%*
-19.0%*
-27.2%*
-28.5%*
-33.3%*

Alcohol

Marijuana

Tobacco

Prescription Drugs

Figure 13: Percentage Change in Past 30Day Alcohol, Tobacco, and Marijuana
Prevalence of Use and in Prescription
Drug Prevalence of Misuse: Long-Term
Change Among FY 2016 DFC Grant
Award Recipients
Middle School

High School

-7.4%
-14.9%*
-33.9%*
-37.9%*

Alcohol

Marijuana

-24.5%*

-8.8%*
-18.0%*

-39.2%*

Tobacco

Prescription Drugs

Notes: * p<.05; Percentage change outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC grantee based on the total number
of youth used in the percentage point change calculation (i.e., adding the number of youth surveyed at first observation
to the number of youth surveyed at most recent observation). Change scores were rounded as presented in Table D.1 for
these calculations.
Source: Progress Report, 2002–2016 core measures data

Percentage decreases in past 30-day prevalence of use among the FY 2016 grant award
recipients (see Figure 13) followed similar patterns to those for all DFC grant awards to
date (see Figure 12). In this sample, the percentage decreases were greatest for reports of
tobacco use for both middle school (38%) and high school (39%) youth. The next highest
decreases were for past 30-day prevalence of alcohol use in middle school and high school
youth (34% and 25%, respectively). Marijuana use decreased for both middle school and
high school youth (15% and 9%, respectively). Each of these changes was significant. For
prescription drugs, there was a significant decrease in high school youth past 30-day
misuse (18%), but no significant change for middle school youth within the FY 2016
sample.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 44

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Alcohol Core Measures Findings
Figure 14 provides the alcohol core measures data findings (also see Appendix D). For
alcohol, both perception of risk and parental disapproval core measures were redefined in
2012 and peer disapproval was first introduced as a core measure in this year. Therefore,
these change data have been collected only from 2012 to 2016 and a much smaller
number of DFC coalitions have change data for these three alcohol core measures
compared with past 30-day prevalence of non-use (collected from 2002 to 2016). For all
DFC grant award recipients since inception and for the FY 2016 DFC coalitions, most of the
alcohol core measures differences between the first and the most recent report were
significant increases. One exception in both samples was for middle school youth’s
perception of parental disapproval which was high at both time points (approximately
94%) and did not change significantly. Perception of risk associated with alcohol use also
was unchanged for middle school youth in the FY 2016 sample only.

As noted in the prior section, alcohol was the substance with the lowest prevalence of past
30-day nonuse among both middle school and high school youth, across both samples, and
across both time points (see Figure 14 and Table D.2, Appendix D). Percentages of youth
reporting past 30-day non-use of alcohol also decreased from middle school to high school.
From first report to most recent report, past 30-day nonuse of alcohol increased
significantly for both age groups and for both samples.
Alcohol: Perception of Risk

Beginning in 2012, perception of risk of alcohol use was defined as being associated with
binge alcohol use (five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage [beer, wine, or liquor] once
or twice a week). As can be seen (see Figure 14 and Table D.3, Appendix D), among middle
school youth, perception of risk increased significantly from the first report to the most
recent report for all DFC coalitions since inception (3.2 percentage points) but not within
the FY 2016 DFC coalitions (1.2 percentage points). Perception of risk of alcohol use (binge
drinking) increased significantly from first report to most recent report among high school
youth within both all DFC coalitions and within the FY 2016 DFC coalitions (2.0 and 1.5
percentage points, respectively). There was no difference in perceived risk between middle
school and high school youth at each time point. Just under three-fourths of both middle
school and high school youth perceived risk associated with this type of alcohol use.
However, by high school, the percentage of youth who reported use was much higher than
in middle school. Together, these findings suggest that DFC coalitions may need to identify
strategies, beginning in middle school, to help youth understand the risks associated with
binge drinking. That is, the relatively low perception of risk among middle school youth of
alcohol use may be one potential explanation for the lower percentage of high school youth
reporting past 30-day alcohol non-use. The approximately 30 percent of middle school
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 45

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

youth who do not perceive risk in drinking alcohol (binge use) may be at increased risk for
drinking alcohol, including binge use, once in high school.
Figure 14. Alcohol Core Measures: Percentage Point Change from First Report to
Most Recent Report by School Level and DFC Grant Award Recipient Group
First Report

Most Recent Report

All DFC Grant Award Recipients since Program Inception
Middle School
Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=1,161)*
Perception of Risk (n=379)*

90.9

87.5
72.7

69.5

Parental Disapproval (n=291)*

93.7 94.4
85.2

Peer Disapproval (n=279)*

86.9

High School

Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=1,229)*
Perception of Risk (n=411)*

Parental Disapproval (n=323)*

Peer Disapproval (n=318)*

71.0

64.2

72.8

70.8

87.2
62.8

89.4

68.4

FY 2016 Grant Award Recipients

Middle School
Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=411)*
Perception of Risk (n=276)

89.893.3
71.0 72.2

Parental Disapproval (n=237)

93.9 94.6

Peer Disapproval (n=234)*

86.2

87.3

High School

Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=442)*

67.6

75.5

Perception of Risk (n=308)*

70.7

Peer Disapproval (n=267)*

63.5 68.8

Parental Disapproval (n=267)*

72.2
87.2

89.5

Note: * indicates p < .05 (significant difference); numbers are percentages.
Source: Progress Report, 2002–2017 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 46

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Alcohol: Perception of Parental and Peer Disapproval
Perception of parental disapproval of alcohol use for middle school youth in both samples
of DFC grant award recipients was high at both first report and most recent report
(approximately 94%) and increased significantly across all DFC coalitions (0.7 percentage
point increase), but was unchanged in the FY 2016 sample (see Figure 14 and Table D.4,
Appendix D). High school youth’s perceptions of parental disapproval of alcohol use at first
report also were high (approximately 87%), and increased significantly by similar amounts
in the all DFC coalitions since inceptions and FY 2016 only samples (2.2. and 2.3 percentage
points, respectively).

Perception of peer disapproval of alcohol use increased significantly in both samples for
both middle school and high school youth. Within middle school youth, the increase was
from 85 percent and 86 percent, respectively, to 87 percent across the two samples
(increases of 1.7 and 1.1 percentage points, respectively). Fewer high school youth than
middle school youth perceived peer disapproval associated with alcohol use. At first report,
just under two-thirds (63%) of high school youth in both all DFC ever funded and the FY
2016 only DFC coalitions perceived disapproval although this increased significantly to just
over two-thirds (68-69%) by most recent report (increases of 5.6 and 5.3 percentage
points, respectively). The percentage of high school youth perceiving peer disapproval
were approximately similar to those reporting non-use. This suggests that it is possible that
high school youth who are not using alcohol perceive disapproval, although it is not
possible to connect an individual youth’s responses on these items at the national level.

Within both middle school and high school youth, perceived disapproval of alcohol use was
lower relative to peers as compared with parents (see Figure 14 and Tables D.4 and D.5,
Appendix D). Within middle school youth, the difference was approximately 7 percentage
points lower depending on the time of the report and the sample. By high school, only
about two-thirds of high school youth perceived peers as disapproving of alcohol use while
87 to 89 percent perceived parents as disapproving at any given time point, a difference of
20 percentage points compared with middle school youth depending on the time of report
and the sample.

Tobacco Core Measures Findings

Figure 15 provides the tobacco core measures data findings. The past 30-day prevalence of
non-use of tobacco increased significantly for both age groups and both samples (see
Figure 15 and Table D.2, Appendix D). In general, percentages of youth reporting not using
tobacco, perceiving risk in tobacco use, and perceiving parental and peer disapproval were
high (80% or greater) at both first report and most recent report for both age groups and
for both all DFC and FY 2016 only grant award recipients. The notable exception to this was
high school youth’s perceptions of peer disapproval for both samples, hovering between 68
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 47

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

percent and 74 percent (also see Table D.5, Appendix D). Middle school youth’s perception
of risk in the FY 2016 sample at first report was just under 80 percent.
Figure 15. Tobacco Core Measures: Change from First Report to Most Recent Report
by School Level and DFC Grant Award Recipient Group
First Report

Most Recent Report

All DFC Grant Award Recipients since Program Inception
Middle School
Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=1,153)*

95.8

93.7

Perception of Risk (n=1,068)

80.4 81.2

Parental Disapproval (n=1,010)*

93.9

91.4
87.1

Peer Disapproval (n=290)*

88.6

High School

Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=1,215)*

82.1 87.2

Perception of Risk (n=1,122)*

Parental Disapproval (n=1,068)*
Peer Disapproval (n=320)*

80.8

82.4
85.0

67.8

88.1

73.4

FY 2016 Grant Award Recipients

Middle School
Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=404)*

95.3

Perception of Risk (n=371)*

78.6

Parental Disapproval (n=356)*

79.9
93.8

Peer Disapproval (n=236)

97.1
95.6

88.7 89.4

High School

Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=432)*

85.1

Perception of Risk (n=394)

Parental Disapproval (n=382)*
Peer Disapproval (n=261)*

90.9

81.7 81.9
88.4
68.9

91.6

74.4

Note: * indicates p < .05 (significant difference): numbers are percentages.
Source: Progress Report, 2002–2017 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 48

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Tobacco: Perception of Risk
While perceived risk of tobacco use was unchanged for middle school youth in the all DFC
since inception sample, there was a significant decrease in perceived risk for middle school
youth in the FY 2016 sample (1.3 percentage point decrease; see Figure 15 and Table D.3,
Appendix D). Perceived risk of tobacco use increased significantly for high school youth in
the all DFC coalitions since inception sample (1.6 percentage points) but was unchanged in
the FY 2016 sample. Together, these findings in the FY 2016 sample with regard to
perceived risk of tobacco use suggest that DFC coalitions may need to increase the focus on
risk associated with tobacco use in their work.
Tobacco: Perception of Parental and Peer Disapproval

Perception of both parental and peer disapproval of tobacco use (tobacco use is wrong or
very wrong) increased significantly for both middle school and high school youth in both
samples (see Figure 15 and Tables D.4 and D.5, Appendix D). Parental disapproval was
perceived at similar rates by middle school (91-96%) and high school youth (85-92%).
Middle school youth’s perception of peer disapproval of tobacco use was similar to these
perceptions of parental disapproval (87-89%). However, by high school, fewer youth
perceived peer disapproval (68-74%) associated with tobacco use compared with both
peer disapproval in middle school youth and parental disapproval in both age groups.

Marijuana Core Measures Findings

Figure 16 provides the marijuana core measures data findings (also see Appendix D). The
majority of both middle school and high school youth reported not using marijuana within
the past 30-days within both samples, and past 30-day prevalence of non-use increased
significantly from first report to most recent report (see also Figure 13 and Table D.2,
Appendix D). The percentages of middle school youth who perceived risk, parental
disapproval and peer disapproval in both samples also were generally high at both first
report and most recent report (approximately 70%, 93%, and 86%, respectively). By high
school, smaller percentages of youth than in middle school perceived risk, parental
disapproval, and peer disapproval associated with marijuana use (52-55%, 86-88%, and
55-58%, respectively) in both samples.
Marijuana: Perception of Risk

The measure for perception of risk as currently worded (smoke marijuana once or twice a
week) was introduced in 2012 (see Figure 16 and Table D.3, Appendix D). To date, 349
coalitions have collected this data at two time points for middle school youth while 377
have collected it for high school youth. The majority of all DFC coalitions included in the
marijuana perception of risk analyses are also FY 2016 DFC coalitions (i.e., 77% for the
middle school samples, 79% for the high school samples). That is, the analyses for the two
samples are very similar given the amount of overlap between the two samples.
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 49

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Figure 16. Marijuana Core Measures: Change from First Report to Most Recent
Report by School Level and DFC Grant Award Recipient Group
First Report

Most Recent Report

All DFC Grant Award Recipients since Program Inception
Middle School
Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=1,146)*

95.0 95.8

Perception of Risk (n=349)

70.6 71.2

Parental Disapproval (n=1,028)*

92.5

Peer Disapproval (n=300)

94

86.0 86.5

High School

Past 30-Day Non-Use
(n=1,212)*
Perception of Risk
(n=377)*
Parental Disapproval
(n=1,077)
Peer Disapproval
(n=330)*

81.9
52.3

83.1

55.2
86.3 86.6

55.4

57.0

FY 2016 Grant Award Recipients

Middle School
Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=406)*

95.8 96.4

Perception of Risk (n=268)*

70.5

71.8

Parental Disapproval (n=360)

94.5 94.7

Peer Disapproval (n=243)

87.4 87.2

High School

Past 30-Day Non-Use
(n=437)*
Perception of Risk
(n=298)*
Parental Disapproval
(n=386)*
Peer Disapproval
(n=272)

82.5
51.3

84.0

54.3
86.8 87.6

56.3 57.5

Note: * indicates p < .05 (significant difference): numbers are percentages.
Source: Progress Report, 2002–2017 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 50

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Among middle school youth, the decrease in perceived risk of marijuana use did not change
significantly from first report to most recent report within the all DFC since inception
sample. However, within the FY 2016 sample, there was a significant decrease in perceived
risk from first report to most recent report for middle school youth (decrease of 1.3
percentage points). For high school youth, perceived risk of marijuana use decreased
significantly from first report to most recent report within both samples (decreases of 2.9
and 3.0 percentage points, respectively). That is, significantly fewer high school youth
perceived risk associated with smoking marijuana once or twice a week at most recent
report compare to first report, in both samples. The same was true for middle school youth,
although only in the most recent sample. Together, these findings suggest that DFC
coalitions may need to increase the focus on the risks associated with youth marijuana use.
Marijuana: Perception of Parental and Peer Disapproval

Both middle school and high school youth reported relatively high levels of perceived
parental disapproval of marijuana use (92-95% of middle school youth and 86-88% of high
school youth, see Figure 16 and Table D.4, Appendix D). For middle school youth, there was
a significant increase in perceived parental disapproval across all DFC coalitions ever
funded (1.5 percentage points) but not for the FY 2016 sample. Perceived parental
disapproval was unchanged among high school youth across all DFC coalitions, but
increased significantly within the FY 2016 sample (0.8 percentage points). Within high
school youth, the percentage reporting perceived parental disapproval of marijuana use at
most recent report was high (86%) but was slightly lower than for any other substance,
including alcohol (87-89% perceived parental disapproval of alcohol use). Perception of
peer disapproval of marijuana use was generally unchanged from first report to most
recent report (see Figure 16 and Table D.5, Appendix D). The one exception to this was a
significant increase in high school youth’s perception of peer disapproval in the all DFC
coalitions sample (1.6 percentage points). While perceived peer disapproval of marijuana
use increased significantly, it was still only 57 percent in high school youth at most recent
report. The percentage of high school youth perceiving peer disapproval was generally
lower for marijuana (55-58%) than for any other substance, including alcohol (63-69%;
see Table D.5, Appendix D). For middle school youth, perceptions of peer disapproval of
marijuana use were similar to perceptions of peer disapproval of alcohol use, both of which
were lower than for the remaining core measure substances (tobacco and prescription
drug use).

Prescription Drugs (Misuse) Core Measures Findings

Figure 17 provides the misuse of prescription drugs (use of prescription drugs not
prescribed to you) core measures data findings (also see Appendix D). Misuse of
prescription drugs was introduced as a core measure substance in 2012. Therefore, the
data for all core measures for this substance reflects a generally smaller sample of DFC
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 51

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Figure 17. Prescription Drugs (Misuse) Core Measures: Change from First Report to
Most Recent Report by School Level and DFC Grant Award Recipient Group
First Report

Most Recent Report

All DFC Grant Award Recipients since Program Inception
Middle School
Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=361)*
Perception of Risk (n=295)

97.2 97.5
80.3 80.8

Parental Disapproval (n=288)

95.5
95
90.2 90.5

Peer Disapproval (n=272)

High School

Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=408)*

93.7

Perception of Risk (n=330)

Parental Disapproval (n=324)
Peer Disapproval (n=305)*

94.8

82.5 82.6
93.3 93.4
78.9

81.9

FY 2016 Grant Award Recipients

Middle School
Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=283)

97.3 97.5

Perception of Risk (n=246)

80.9 81.0

Parental Disapproval (n=238)

95.6
95.2
90.6 90.9

Peer Disapproval (n=226)

High School

Past 30-Day Non-Use (n=323)*

93.7

Perception of Risk (n=278)

Parental Disapproval (n=271)
Peer Disapproval (n=256)*

94.8

82.6 82.9
93.3 93.6
79.5

82.2

Note: * indicates p < .05 (significant difference); numbers are percentages.
Source: Progress Report, 2002–2017 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 52

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

coalitions than for other core measure substances (and the two samples include many of
the same coalitions). As noted previously, past 30-day prevalence of misuse for
prescription drugs was higher than for any other substance at both time point and for both
age groups and both samples. At least 97 percent of middle school and 94 percent of high
school youth report that they have not misused prescription drugs within the past 30-days,
a high percentage that increased significantly from first report to most recent report for
both age groups in both samples (see Figure 17 and Table D.2, Appendix D), except for a
non-significant change among middle school youth within the FY 2016 sample (0.2
percentage points). 49
Prescription Drugs: Perception of Risk

Perception of risk of prescription drug misuse was generally high (80-83%), but did not
change significantly from first report to most recent report (see Figure 17 and Table D.3,
Appendix D). This was true for both middle school and high school youth and for both
samples. Perceived risk of misuse of prescription drugs (80-83%) was very similar to
perceived risk of tobacco use (79-82%), but was higher than for both alcohol (70-73%) and
marijuana use (51-71%; see Table D.3, Appendix D).
Prescription Drugs: Perception of Parental and Peer Disapproval

Youth perceptions of parental disapproval of prescription drug misuse for both age groups
and both samples were high (more than 95% in middle school youth and more than 93% in
high school youth) and were unchanged from first report to most recent report (see Figure
17 and Table D.4, Appendix D). Peer disapproval increased significantly for high school
youth within all DFC coalitions and FY 2016 coalitions (3.0 and 2.6 percentage points,
respectively), but was unchanged among middle school youth within both samples. For
both middle school and high school youth, perceived peer disapproval was higher for
prescription drug misuse than for any other substance. The same was true for parental
disapproval among high school youth, while middle school youth perception of parental
disapproval was similar across substances.

Comparison With National Data 50

The results for past 30-day prevalence of use within DFC coalitions were compared to
findings from a nationally representative sample of high school students taking the Youth
Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS: see Figure 18). 51 Note that there may be some overlap

The change in middle school youth across all DFC since inception was also small (0.3 percentage points), but did reach
statistical significance. This finding is likely due in part to the large sample size and to the relatively low variability in
reporting prescription drug misuse.
50 These findings were first published in the previous DFC National Evaluation 2016 End-of-Year report. YRBS data from
2017 are not yet available but will be included in future reports.
51 Comparisons examine confidence intervals (95%) for overlap between the two samples. CDC YRBS data corresponding
to DFC data are available only for high school students on the past 30-day use measures, and only for alcohol, tobacco
49

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 53

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

between samples; these comparisons are conservative estimates of the difference that DFC
is making in communities. 52

Prevalence rates of past 30-day alcohol use among high school students were significantly
lower in communities with a DFC coalition than in the national YRBS in all seven years
compared (i.e., 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015). In 2015, the difference
between the DFC and YRBS samples on the mean past 30-day prevalence of alcohol use was
10 percentage points (23% and 33%, respectively). Prevalence rates for marijuana use also
were significantly lower in DFC communities than in the YRBS national sample in all years,
except 2003. In 2015, 17 percent of high school youth reported past 30-day marijuana use
compared with 22 percent in the YRBS national sample. Marijuana use by high school youth
in the national sample was relatively unchanged from 2011 to 2015 while high school
youth in the DFC sample decreased from 20 percent in 2011 to 17 percent in 2015.
For high school tobacco use, there was no significant difference between the YRBS and DFC
samples in 2015 (11% reported past 30-day use in each sample). Fewer youth in DFC
communities than in the YRBS national sample reported tobacco use in 2009, 2011, and
2013, while in all other years there was no difference. In general, youth tobacco use
trended toward a decrease from 2005 to 2015, but use by youth in the DFC coalitions’
communities dropped more quickly early on, then had less change between 2013 and
2015.

52

and marijuana. YRBS data are collected only in odd years. For more information on YRBS data see
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyYouth/data/yrbs/index.htm and
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/data.htm.

Some DFC coalitions report using YRBS data to track local trends and thus may be included in the national
YRBS data. That is, some change in YRBS data may occur in part due to efforts from DFC coalitions.

Comparisons with the national sample also are influenced by both the range of survey instruments that DFC coalitions
use to collect core measures data and the year in which DFC coalitions collect their core measure data. While to be
included in the DFC evaluation data the survey must use appropriate DFC core measure wording, the order of core
measure items and the length of the surveys can vary widely across DFC coalitions. DFC coalitions are required to
collect core measures data every 2- years and not all collect in odd years aligned to YRBS, further limiting the
comparison between the two national samples.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 54

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Figure 18. Comparison of DFC and National (YRBS) Reports of Past 30-Day Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Marijuana Prevalence of Use Among High School Students

Alcohol
23%*

2015
2013

28%*

31%*

2011

37%*

2005
2003

2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003

39%

37%*

2007

2015

35%

34%*

2009

DFC

33%

Tobacco
11%
11%
12%*

16%
14%*
18%
17%*
20%
18%
20%
21%
23%
21%
22%
17%*

Marijuana

22%
19%*
23%
20%*
23%
18%*
21%
16%*
20%
18%*
20%
19%
22%

34%*

42%

YRBS

45%

43%

45%

DFC

YRBS

DFC

YRBS

Note: Comparisons are between YRBS and DFC data examining confidence intervals for overlap between the two samples;
* indicates p < .05 (significant difference); numbers are percentages of youth reporting past 30-day use.
Source: DFC Progress Report, 2003–2015 core measures data; CDC 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data
downloaded from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/data.htm.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 55

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Community Assets Findings
Every August, DFC coalitions complete the Coalition Classification Tool (CCT), a survey that
asks them to provide information on coalition structure, performance, objectives, and local
characteristics. In August 2017, 546 FY 2016 DFC coalitions completed the CCT (81% of all
FY 2016 DFC coalitions). One section of the CCT asks grantees to identify which of 44
specific community assets commonly associated with youth substance use reduction and
prevention were in place in their coalitions before they received the DFC grant, those that
were in place as a result of receiving the grant, and those not yet in place in the DFC
community to date. 53 Examples from the list of potential community assets that DFC
grantees may put into place include billboards warning against the use of alcohol, tobacco,
or other drugs, media literacy training, shoulder tap operations, 54 and party patrols. 55

While each of these community assets may enhance the coalition’s capacity to prevent or
reduce youth substance use, those that were implemented as a result of DFC coalition
efforts provide an additional source of information about the local impact of the grant. That
is, these assets may not have been in place in the community if not for the DFC grant award.
Table 14 presents the top five community assets put into place as a result of the DFC grant
by FY 2016 DFC grantees as reported in the August 2017 CCT. 56

Town hall meetings were the most common asset put into place by DFC grantees as a result
of the DFC grant (71%). Only one-fifth (19%) of DFC coalitions reported having town hall
meetings prior to DFC grant award and only one-tenth (10%) reported still not having
town hall meetings as a community asset. DFC coalitions also reported that they were able
to create culturally competent materials to educate the community about substance use as
a result of the grant (68%). Most (95%) DFC coalitions also offered prescription drug
disposal programs. While just under one-third (31%) of the responding DFC coalitions
already had a prescription drug disposal program in place prior to receiving the grant,
about two-thirds (64%) of coalitions initiated this activity only after receiving their DFC
grant. Other community assets that were put into place by high percentages of DFC
DFC coalitions report on which of the community assets have been put into place in their community in the past year as
a result of being a DFC coalition as well as indicating those ever put into place as part of the DFC grant. For the
purposes of this report, these two categories were combined.
54 Shoulder tap operations are designed to curtail the problem of adults providing alcohol to minors in and around
licensed alcohol outlets. Typically, Youth and Law Enforcement sectors collaborate on these operations. A youth,
under direction from law enforcement, approaches an adult entering the outlet and requests that they buy alcohol for
them. Adults who agree and provide alcohol to the youth are then held accountable by law enforcement. Alcohol is the
substance this activity is most commonly used with, but it can apply to other substances as well.
55 Party patrols involve law enforcement regularly visiting (patrolling) an area where youth are suspected to gather
together to engage in substance use. A range of coalition sectors are often involved with identifying areas to patrol.
Law enforcement acts to stop the behavior if it occurs, although the increased surveillance also decreases the
likelihood of a party occurring.
56 These were the only five assets where more than 50% of DFC coalitions put the asset into place after a DFC grant
award.
53

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 56

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

coalitions as a result of receiving a DFC grant included social norms campaigns (70%) and
youth substance use warning posters (54%).
Table 14: Most Frequently Community Assets Implemented after DFC Grant Award

Community Asset
Town hall meetings on substance problems
within the community
Social norms campaigns

Culturally competent materials that educate
the public about issues related to
substance use
Prescription drug disposal programs
Youth substance use warning posters

n of DFC
Coalitions
Responding
to item

% With Asset Put
into Place as a
Result of DFC
Coalition Grant
Award

% With Asset
in Place
Before DFC
Grant

546

71.2%

19.2%

546

67.8%

23.1%

546
546
546

70.3%
64.3%
54.4%

% With
Asset Not in
Place in
Community
9.5%

14.8%

14.8%

30.6%

5.1%

9.2%

24.4%

Note: The number of DFC coalitions reporting CCT data in August 2017 was 660. For a small number of items, only 546 DFC coalitions
responded.
Source: Coalition Classification Tool Data, August 2017

Social norms campaigns stand out as a top five asset added by DFC coalitions given the
reported increases in peer disapproval measures in DFC coalitions’ communities,
particularly among high school youth. Most (85%) DFC coalitions have a social norm
campaign in their community, but most (70%) of these DFC coalitions put a social norms
campaign into place only after receiving DFC funding, compared with those already
engaging in a social norms campaign prior to receiving funding (15%). Social norms
campaigns generally focus on giving youth factual and motivational information about the
positive behaviors engaged in by peers with the intention of helping youth recognize that
most youth are not engaging in negative behaviors. Continued efforts on social campaigns
may help to counter beliefs that might otherwise contribute to possible increases in past
30-day prevalence of use.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 57

21.2%

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Conclusions
This report provides a summary of findings for the DFC program through the August 2017
progress reporting window. Following is an overview of key takeaways from this report.
Since inception, a wide range of people and
communities have been exposed to the federallyfunded DFC Support Program. Based on DFC
coalitions reports of ZIP codes served as compared
with Census data, DFC grant award recipients have
targeted areas that covered nearly half (48%) of the
U.S. population between 2005 and 2017. In 2017
alone, the 677 DFC coalitions funded in FY 2016
targeted services to communities with 58.6 million
people, nearly one-fifth (19%) of the population of
the United States. This includes 2.4 million middle school and 3.3 million high school aged
youth. DFC locations implemented activities in rural (53%), suburban (42%), and urban
(25%) community settings.

Nearly half of the US
population has lived in a
community with a DFC
coalition since 2005 and
1 in 5 Americans lived in a
community with a DFC
coalition in 2017.

DFC coalitions made significant progress toward
achieving the goal of preventing and reducing youth
DFC coalitions reported
significantly increased past substance use. DFC coalitions reported targeting
efforts toward addressing alcohol (97%), marijuana
30-day prevalence of non(90%), misuse of prescription drugs (86%), and
use (decreased use) of
tobacco use (60%), which are the DFC core measure
alcohol, tobacco, marijuana substances. The majority of both middle school and
and prescription drugs not
high school youth in communities with a DFC
coalition report that they have not used each of
prescribed to you.
these core substances within the past 30-days, and
prevalence of non-use increased significantly from first report to most recent report. This
was true for both middle school and high school youth based on data from all DFC
coalitions since inception and on data from only FY 2016 DFC coalitions. The one exception
to significant increases was that non-misuse of prescription drugs by middle school youth
within the FY 2016 sample was unchanged from first report to most recent report (97.3%
and 97.5%, respectively). Among middle school youth, prevalence of past 30-day non-use
at most recent report within the FY 2016 sample was high (over 93% for each of the
substances), with increases from first report to most recent report ranging from 0.6
percentage points for marijuana non-use to 3.5 percentage points for alcohol non-use.
Among high school youth at most recent report in the FY 2016 sample, there was similarly
high prevalence of non-use for tobacco (91%) and of non-misuse of prescription drugs
(95%), with significant increases of 5.8 and 1.1 percentage points from first report to most
report, respectively.
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 58

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Within the FY 2016 sample, fewer high school youth reported past 30-day non-use of
alcohol (76%) and marijuana (84%) at most recent report compared with tobacco non-use
and prescription drug non-misuse. For both middle school and high school youth, alcohol
was the substance with the lowest reported past 30-day prevalence of non-use, while
prescription drugs had the highest reported non-misuse.

Social norms campaigns are one activity utilized by the majority (85%) of DFC coalitions to
prevent use. These campaigns focus on giving youth factual and motivational information
about the positive behaviors engaged in by peers with the intention of helping youth
recognize that most youth are not engaging in negative behaviors. The finding that the
majority of youth are not engaging in substance use, with respect to each core measure
substance, may be useful in supporting DFC coalitions in using social norms campaigns.

While increased non-use is promising, the prevalence of youth who report past 30-day use,
including one in four (25%) high school youth who reported past 30-day use of alcohol and
one in six (16%) high school youth who reported past 30-day use of marijuana at most
recent report in the FY 2016 sample, suggests the need for programs like DFC that support
communities in engaging in ongoing strategies to address prevention.

Among middle school youth in
communities served by DFC coalitions, 91
percent or more in both samples (all DFC
and FY 2016 only) perceived parental
disapproval of substance use across
substances (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana,
and misuse of prescription drugs) at both
first report and most recent report.
Perceived parental disapproval for
tobacco use increased significantly among
middle school youth in both samples.
Middle school youth’s perceived parental disapproval for alcohol use and for marijuana use
increased significantly for all DFC coalitions funded (but not for the FY 2016 only sample).
Perception of parental disapproval for misuse of prescription drugs was unchanged in both
samples. For middle school youth in both samples, there were significant increases in
perceived peer disapproval for alcohol use. Perceived peer disapproval of tobacco use
increased significantly in the all DFC coalitions sample, but not in the FY 2016 sample.
Middle school youth in both samples had no change in perceptions of peer disapproval of
marijuana use and misuse of prescription drugs.

Youth in DFC communities
generally reported high and/or
increased perceptions of parental
and peer disapproval. One concern
was that high school youth
reported relatively lower
perception of peer disapproval for
marijuana and alcohol use.

For high school youth in both samples, there were significant increases in perceived
parental disapproval for both alcohol use and tobacco use while there was no change in
perceived parental disapproval for misuse of prescription drugs. Perceived parental
disapproval for marijuana use was unchanged in the all DFC coalitions since inception
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 59

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

sample, but decreased significantly in the FY 2016 sample (-0.8 percentage points). For
high school youth in both samples, there were significant increases in perceived peer
disapproval for all substances, with the exception of perception of peer disapproval of
marijuana use in the FY 2016 sample which was unchanged.

Perceived parental disapproval was similar across middle school and high school youth and
also was similar to perceived peer disapproval in middle school youth. Using the FY 2016
sample at most recent report as an example, the largest gap between middle school and
high school youth’s perceptions of parental disapproval was for marijuana use (8
percentage points; see Figure 19 and Table D.4, Appendix D). However, perceived peer
disapproval for substance use was lower among high school youth than middle school
youth for all substances (see Figure 19; see also Table D.5, Appendix D).

Figure 19. High School Youth’s Perceptions of Peer Disapproval Were Lower Than
Perceptions of Parental Disapproval (Both Age Groups) and Lower Than Middle
School Youth’s Perceptions of Peer Disapproval
94.6%
89.5%
87.3%

Alcohol
68.8%

Tobacco
74.4%

Marijuana
57.5%

Prescription Drugs

Middle School Parent Disapproval
Middle School Peer Disapproval

95.6%
91.6%
89.4%
94.7%
86.8%
87.2%

95.2%
93.6%
90.6%
82.2%

High School Parent Disapproval
High School Peer Disapproval

Notes: Numbers indicate percentages perceiving disapproval (wrong or very wrong). Similar patterns were seen for all
DFC coalitions ever funded and for first report.
Source: Progress Report, 2002-2017 core measures data

Compared with middle school youth, high school youth’s perceptions of peer disapproval of
marijuana use were nearly 30 percentage points lower, 18 percentage points lower for
alcohol use, and 15 percentage points lower for tobacco use. The smallest difference
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 60

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

between the age groups for perceived peer disapproval was for misuse of prescription
drugs, which was 8 percentage points lower for high school than for middle school youth.

These findings suggest the need for DFC coalitions to continue efforts to help youth
understand peer disapproval, as well as to influence it. For example, far fewer high school
youth report past 30-day use of marijuana than report perceiving peers would disapprove
of such use. Social norms campaigns may be one strategy to inform high school youth about
the extent to which peers may disapprove of use given their own unwillingness to use a
given substance. As can be seen in Figure 19, perceived peer disapproval among high
school youth was lower for marijuana than for any other substance at most recent report.
This finding, in conjunction with findings on perception of risk presented next, suggest the
need to further inform middle and high school youth about the potential consequences of
marijuana use, especially marijuana use at these ages.

Perceived risk of tobacco use was
generally high (80% to 82% across grade
levels and samples). For middle school
youth, recent data based on the FY 2016
sample suggest that perceived risk of
tobacco use has decreased significantly
although this was unchanged across all
DFC since inception. Perceived risk of
tobacco use increased significantly from first report to most recent report for high school
youth across all DFC since inception but was unchanged for high school youth in the FY
2016 sample. Together these findings suggest there may be a renewed need to ensure that
youth, beginning in middle school, understand risks associated with tobacco use.

Perception of risk data suggest
that DFC coalitions may need to
engage in additional activities to
help youth understand the risk
associated with use, especially the
risk associated with marijuana

Across grade levels and samples, most youth (80% to 83%) perceived risk associated with
misuse of prescription drugs and this was unchanged from first to most recent report.
Interestingly, high school youth were somewhat more likely than middle school youth to
report perceiving risk associated with misuse of prescription drugs. Anecdotally, some DFC
coalitions reported that high school youth participating in sports received education with
regard to prescription drug misuse, while others had increased inclusion of this topic
during health classes. These types of activities may be contributing to an understanding of
the risks associated with prescription drug misuse in high school youth.

The findings for perception of risk of alcohol (binge use) suggest several needs. Slightly less
than three-fourths (69-73%) of middle school and high school youth perceived risk
associated with binge alcohol use, although this increased significantly in middle school
youth in the all DFC since inception sample and for high school youth in both samples. That
is, middle school youth and high school youth were very similar in their perceptions of risk
of alcohol use, and perceived risk associated with alcohol use was lower than for either
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 61

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

tobacco or prescription drug misuse. One explanation for why more youth may not
perceive risk may be that youth did not understand what binge drinking is and why it may
be particularly harmful. That is, they may not understand that “five or more drinks at a
single time” (core measure wording) is a high amount of alcohol consumption. DFC
coalitions may want to engage in activities that explain specific risks associated with binge
alcohol use to youth in both age groups. Given that alcohol is the most commonly used
substance by both middle and high school youth, increased understanding of associated
risks may also contribute to decreased use over time, or at least to decreased binge use.
DFC national evaluation data do not separate binge alcohol use from taking a single sip of
alcohol so it is unknown the extent to which youth are engaging in higher risk alcohol use
behaviors. These efforts need to begin in middle school, because reported past 30-day
prevalence of alcohol use increases from middle school to high school.

High school youth in both samples reported perceptions of risk of marijuana use that
decreased significantly from first report to most recent report. Middle school youth in the
most recent FY 2016 sample also reported a significant decrease in perceived risk of
marijuana use, while this was unchanged for the all DFC coalition sample. That is,
perceptions of risk of marijuana use among youth general changed in the wrong direction.
In addition, while nearly three-fourths (71%) of middle school youth perceived risk in
marijuana use at most recent report, by high school at most recent report only half (5152%) perceived moderate or great risk associated with marijuana use. In fact, high school
youth’s perceived risk of marijuana use at most recent report was lower than for any other
substance, including alcohol. This was also true for middle school youth, although the
difference between perceived risk of marijuana and alcohol use was smaller. One reason
for concern is that this decreased perception or risk may eventually be associated with
increased past 30-day prevalence of use, although that has not yet occurred in DFC
coalition communities. DFC coalitions may need to improve or increase efforts to develop
appropriate materials and training strategies to help youth better understand risk
associated with marijuana use in order to better inform youth.

DFC coalitions successfully
mobilized communities to
address substance use,
including addressing opioids,
in line with the goals of DFC.
Evidence suggests that hosting
a youth coalition is a promising
practice for mobilizing and
engaging youth.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

The findings of this report provide valuable
insights into the makeup of DFC coalitions and
their effectiveness in mobilizing their
communities. On average, FY 2016 DFC
coalitions were led by 2 paid staff, with support
from 3 unpaid staff members, in mobilizing 40
community members from across 12 sectors to
actively engage in the work of the coalition.
Collectively, an estimated 30,500 community
members were mobilized in the 6 months
preceding the reporting submission (August

Page 62

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

2017). Youth and School sectors provided the highest median number (5 and 4,
respectively) of active coalition members, followed by Law Enforcement, Healthcare, and
Parent sectors providing 3 members each, on average. The School and Law Enforcement
sectors were the two highest rated sectors on involvement (mean of 4.3).

An examination of DFC coalitions’ engagement on addressing opioids provides further
evidence that DFC is succeeding at mobilizing communities and building capacity to
address substance use issues as they arise in the community. Almost all DFC coalitions
(87%) were targeting efforts to some extent to address opioids, including heroin and
prescription opioids. Much of this work was related to education around prescription
opioids and providing prescription drug take-back events. Almost all DFC coalitions
reported holding a prescription take-back event (95%) and nearly two-thirds (64%) of DFC
coalitions implemented these events as a result of receiving their DFC grant award. That is,
prescription drug take-back events were not occurring in many communities until the DFC
coalition was implemented. DFC coalitions also are implementing or are active in task
forces/subcommittees that focus on addressing opioids.
Approximately two-thirds (66%) of DFC coalitions reported hosting a youth coalition with
the majority (76%) of these providing participating youth with the opportunity to lead on
planning and implementing activities with support from the broader coalition. Collectively,
analyses comparing DFC coalitions with a youth coalition, versus those without one,
suggest that these youth coalitions are a promising practice for mobilizing and engaging
youth with the community coalition. For example, DFC coalitions with a hosted youth
coalition, versus those without one, were significantly more likely to perceive youth as very
highly involved with the coalition and less likely to perceive youth as having only some or
low involvement. The level of Youth sector involvement for DFC coalitions with a hosted
youth coalition was similarly high to that for the School and Law Enforcement sectors.

DFC coalitions with a hosted youth coalition, versus those without one, also reported a
significantly higher levels of involvement for the School and Law Enforcement sectors. In
addition, DFC coalitions hosting a youth coalition were more likely than those DFC
coalitions without one to have at least one member representing every sector (95% versus
88%), at least one active member in every sector (78% versus 69%), and at least one active
member in the youth sector (97% versus 89%).

Finally, DFC coalitions hosting a separate youth coalition also were significantly more likely
to have engaged in a number of activities. Most notably, DFC coalitions with a youth
coalition, versus those without one, were significantly more likely to have implemented at
least one alternative/drug-free social event (73% versus 54%), at least one youth training
(88% versus 75%), at least one parent training (58% versus 42%), and at least one teacher
training (44% versus 32%).
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 63

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Activities engaged in by the DFC coalitions fall
under each of the Seven Strategies for
Community Change, with just under two-thirds
(60%) of DFC coalitions implementing at least
one activity within each of the seven strategies.
Most (79%) DFC coalitions implemented at
least one activity within at least five of the
seven strategy types. Not surprisingly, a large number of activities were specifically
engaged in with youth or were intended to have direct impacts on youth. These included
trainings, alternative social events, and recreation programs. The most common
policies/laws that DFC coalitions reported working to educate and inform the community
about were associated with school policies. Collectively, these have resulted in high
engagement of youth in DFC coalition activities and may have contributed to an increase in
youth in DFC communities who do not report engaging in substance use within the past 30days.

DFC coalitions engaged in a
comprehensive range of
strategies for developing local
solutions to a range of local
problems.

Limitations

In examining the findings, it is worth noting several limitations or challenges. First, while
DFC coalitions’ grant activities were designed and implemented to cause a reduction in
youth substance use, it is not possible to establish a causal relationship because there is not
an appropriate comparison or control group of communities from which the same data are
available. Comparisons were made to national YRBS data, but only for past 30-day use and
only for high school youth. There are not comparable national data for the remaining core
measures or for middle school youth. In addition, this report includes analyses on core
measures data provided for core measures that were introduced in 2012. Some core
measures were unchanged in 2012 and data from 2002–2017 from a large number of DFC
coalitions are available. The number of coalitions with change data on new core measures
introduced in 2012 was typically much smaller (in many cases fewer than 300 DFC
coalitions have change data for new measures). This was especially true for the core
measures on misuse of prescription drugs. As additional data becomes available, it will
become clearer whether the findings to date are representative of the broad range of DFC
coalitions.
Another challenge is that each DFC coalition makes local decisions regarding how to collect
core measure data, including the length of the survey used and the order in which survey
items are written. However, all surveys are reviewed by the DFC National Evaluation Team
for the core measures and core measures data may only be entered if the item has been
approved on the survey. Small variations are allowed (e.g., coalitions may ask youth to
report on how many days within the past 30-days they used a given substance [from 0-30]
rather than just the yes/no DFC question on past 30-day use). These variations across
surveys may influence how youth respond to a survey. However, because most DFC
Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 64

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

coalitions make only small changes to their survey over time and because change scores
are calculated within each DFC coalition to generate the national average, this challenge is
somewhat addressed.

While most report collecting data in schools, this is not always the case. Youth not currently
in school may report different experiences with substance use than youth attending school.
Few, if any, DFC coalitions collect data from youth not attending schools because these
samples are harder to locate and may be less willing to complete surveys. Each DFC
coalition’s survey also varies in length and content. Youth responding to longer surveys or
to surveys where core measures are later in the survey, for example, may respond
differently than youth whose surveys are shorter or where core measures appear earlier in
the survey. Finally, DFC coalitions are encouraged to collect representative data from their
capture area; however, each coalition is ultimately responsible for their own sampling
strategies. DFC coalitions indicate any concerns about the representativeness of samples
when reporting the data.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 65

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Appendix A. Core Measure Items
The following is the recommended wording for each of the core measure items, in place
since 2012. DFC coalitions submit surveys for review to ensure that they are collecting each
given core measure item. For example, many DFC coalitions collect past 30-day prevalence
of use by asking the number of days (0 to 30) in the past 30-days that the youth used the
given substance. Any use is counted as “yes” and therefore the data are to be submitted.

TABLE A.1. Core Measure Items Recommended Wording (2012 to Present)
Past 30-Day Prevalence of Use

During the past 30 days did you drink one or more drinks of an alcoholic
beverage?
During the past 30 days did you smoke part or all of a cigarette?

During the past 30 days have you used marijuana or hashish?
During the past 30 days have you used prescription drugs not prescribed to you?

Yes


No













Perception of Risk

How much do you think people risk harming themselves
physically or in other ways when they have five or more drinks
of an alcoholic beverage once or twice a week?
How much do you think people risk harming themselves
physically or in other ways if they smoke one or more packs of
cigarettes per day?
How much do you think people risk harming themselves
physically or in other ways if they smoke marijuana once or
twice a week?
How much do you think people risk harming themselves
physically or in other ways if they use prescription drugs that
are not prescribed to them?

No Risk

Slight
Risk

Moderate
Risk

Great
Risk

























Not at all
wrong


A little
bit wrong


Wrong


Very
wrong

































Perception of Parental Disapproval

How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to have one
or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day?
How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to smoke
tobacco?
How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to smoke
marijuana?
How wrong do your parents feel it would be for you to use
prescription drugs not prescribed to you?
Perception of Peer Disapproval

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 66



2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

How wrong do your friends feel it would be for you to have one or two
drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day?
How wrong do your friends feel it would be for you to smoke tobacco?
How wrong do your friends feel it would be for you to smoke
marijuana?
How wrong do your friends feel it would be for you to use prescription
drugs not prescribed to you?

Not at all
wrong


A little bit
wrong


Wrong


Very
wro
ng

























DFC coalitions also are permitted to collect and submit perception of risk and peer
disapproval alcohol core measures associated with the Sober Truth on Preventing
Underage Drinking (STOP) Act grant. These may be collected instead of or in addition to the
respective DFC core measure. These data were not included in the current report. For
perception of risk of alcohol use, the alternative item is “How much do you think people
risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they take one or two drinks of an
alcoholic beverage nearly every day?” For peer disapproval, the item is worded as attitude
toward peer use, “How do you feel about someone your age having one or two drinks of an
alcoholic beverage nearly every day?”

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 67



2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Appendix B. Comparison of Engagement in Activities by Youth
Coalition Status
Table B.1. Activities Implemented by Significantly More DFC Coalitions With a Hosted
Youth Coalition Versus Those Without One

Activity
Alternative Social Events: Drug-free parties,
other alternative events supported by the
coalition
Parent Education and Training: Sessions
directed to parents on drug awareness,
prevention strategies, parenting skills, etc.
Youth Education and Training: Sessions
focusing on providing information and skills
to youth
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)
Teacher Training: Sessions on drug awareness
and prevention strategies directed to teachers
or youth workers
Improved Signage/Advertising by Suppliers:
Suppliers making changes in signage,
advertising, or displays
Social Networking: Posts on social media sites
(e.g., Facebook, Twitter)
Information on Coalition Website: New
materials posted
Recognition Programs: Businesses receiving
recognition for compliance with local
ordinances (e.g., pass compliance checks)
Youth Recreation Programs: Recreational
events (e.g., athletics, arts, outdoor activities)
supported by coalitions
Youth Organizations: Clubs and centers
supported by coalitions
Media Coverage: TV, radio, newspaper stories
covering coalition activities
School policy: Drug-free schools
Identifying Physical Design Problems: Physical
design problems (e.g., hot spots, clean-up
areas, outlet clusters) identified through
environmental scans, neighborhood meetings,
etc.

Office of National Drug Control Policy

% of DFC
Coalitions
With a Youth
Coalition
Reporting
Activity

% of DFC
Coalitions
Without a Youth
Coalition
Reporting
Activity

Chi-square, p value

73.3%

54.2%

χ2(1) = 24.4, p < .0001

58.4%

42.2%

χ2(1) = 15.6, p < .0001

87.6%

75.1%

χ2(1) = 16.6, p < .0001

74.9%

62.2%

χ2(1) = 11.6, p = .0001

44.4%

32.4%

χ2(1) = 8.8, p < .01

31.3%

20.0%

χ2(1) = 9.5, p < .01

52.6%

43.6%

93.6%
36.8%

83.1%

χ(1) 2 = 18.0, p < .0001

27.6%

χ2(1) = 5.7, p < .05

χ2(1) = 4.9, p < .05

29.4%

20.4%

χ2(1) = 6.2, p < .05

85.7%

77.8%

χ2(1) = 6.7, p = .01

23.7%
30.3%
35.9%

15.1%

χ2(1) = 6.6, p = .01

22.2%

χ(1) 2 = 4.9, p < .05

28.0%

χ(1) 2 = 4.1, p < .05

Page 68

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Activity
Encourage Designation of Alcohol-Free and
Tobacco-Free Zones: Businesses targeted or
that made changes
Media Campaigns: Television, radio, print,
billboard, bus or other posters aired/placed
Treatment and Prevention: Sentencing
alternatives to increase treatment or
prevention
Information Dissemination: Brochures, flyers,
posters, etc. distributed
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

% of DFC
Coalitions
With a Youth
Coalition
Reporting
Activity

% of DFC
Coalitions
Without a Youth
Coalition
Reporting
Activity

Chi-square, p value

17.2%

10.7%

χ(1) 2 = 5.0, p < .05

15.9%

9.8%

χ(1) 2 = 4.6, p < .05

83.2%

95.6%

76.0%

90.7%

χ(1) 2 = 5.0, p < .05

χ(1) 2 = 6.4, p < .05

Table B.2. Activities with No Significant Difference in Implementation of Specific
Activities by DFC Coalitions With a Hosted Youth Coalition Versus Those Without
One

Activity
Business Training: Sessions on server compliance, training on
youth-marketed alcohol products, tobacco sales, etc.
Community Member Training: Sessions on drug awareness,
cultural competence, etc. directed to community members,
(e.g., law enforcement, landlords)
Improve Access through Culturally Sensitive Outreach: People
targeted for culturally sensitive outreach (e.g., multilingual
materials)
Informational Materials Produced: Brochures, flyers, posters,
etc. produced
Direct Face-to-Face Information Sessions
Strengthening Enforcement (e.g., DUI checkpoints, shoulder
tap, open container laws)
Supplier Promotion/Liability: Supplier advertising,
promotions, or liability
Youth/Family Community Involvement: Community events
held (e.g., neighborhood cleanup)
Cleanup and Beautification: Clean-up/beautification events
held
Publicizing Non-Compliance: Businesses identified for noncompliance with local ordinances
Citizen Enabling/Liability: Parental liability or enabling
Improved Supports: People receiving supports for enhanced
access to services (e.g., transportation, child care)
Workplace: Drug-free workplaces

Office of National Drug Control Policy

% of DFC
Coalitions With a
Youth Coalition
Reporting Activity

% of DFC Coalitions
Without a Youth
Coalition Reporting
Activity

40.9%

33.8%

31.7%

25.8%

90.6%

86.2%

67.8%

86.4%
52.0%
13.1%

61.8%

81.3%
46.7%
8.4%

37.5%

33.8%

14.9%

11.6%

21.4%
18.2%
14.0%

11.0%

17.8%
16.0%
13.3%
10.2%

Page 69

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Activity
Youth/Family Support Groups: Leadership groups, mentoring
programs, youth employment programs, etc. supported by
coalitions
Sales Restrictions: Restrictions on product sales
Underage Use: Underage use, possession, or behavior under
the influence
Increased Access to Substance Use Services: People referred
to employee assistance programs, student assistance
programs, treatment services
Special Events: Fairs, celebrations, etc.
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)
Strengthening Surveillance (e.g., “hot spots,” party patrols)
Cost: Cost (e.g., alcohol taxes/fees, tobacco taxes)
Outlet Location/Density: Density of alcohol outlets
Identify Problem Establishments: Problem establishments
identified (e.g., drug houses) and closed or modified
practices
Source: DFC August 2017 Progress Report

Office of National Drug Control Policy

% of DFC
Coalitions With a
Youth Coalition
Reporting Activity

% of DFC Coalitions
Without a Youth
Coalition Reporting
Activity

21.4%

19.6%

19.8%

20.4%

17.5%
32.6%
83.0%
8.0%

29.9%
7.6%
7.4%
7.1%

16.9%
32.9%
83.1%
8.9%

31.1%
8.9%
8.9%
7.6%

Page 70

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Appendix C. DFC Coalitions Addressing the Opioid Epidemic
Table C.1. DFC Coalitions August 2017 Progress Report Data (FY 2016 coalitions) on
Opioids Relative to August 2016 (FY 2015 Coalitions) Progress Report Data and
Center for Disease Control’s Drug Overdose Death Data from 2016

CDC
Notesa

A,B,C
C
A,B,C
B,C
B,C
B

B,C
C
B
B,C
B,C
B,C
A,B,C
B,C
A,B,C
B,C
B

State

Number of
Coalitions
With FY 2016
Progress
Report Data

ID
ND
OH
NC
NH
ME
MA
VT
AK
MT
GA
CT
NY
NM
MI
NJ
FL
PA
TN
TX
KY
RI
UT
AL
WI

1
1
22
17
12
18
27
4
2
4
16
23
50
7
21
28
28
16
14
14
21
9
3
6
21

Number of
FY 2016
Coalitions
That
Mention
Opioids in
Open Text
Response
1
1
15
11
7
10
14
2
1
2
8
11
22
3
9
11
11
6
5
5
7
3
1
2
7

% of
% of
Coalitions
Coalitions
Mentioning Mentioning
Opioids in
Opioids in
FY 2016
FY 2015
100.0%
100.0%
68.2%
64.7%
58.3%
55.6%
51.9%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
47.8%
44.0%
42.9%
42.9%
39.3%
39.3%
37.5%
35.7%
35.7%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%

N/A
N/A
79.2%
53.3%
40.0%
55.6%
48.4%
25.0%
50.0%
0.0%
21.4%
61.9%
51.1%
28.6%
32.0%
41.7%
28.6%
26.3%
14.3%
20.0%
30.0%
57.1%
0.0%
20.0%
33.3%

Change in
Percent of
Coalitions
Mentioning
Opioids
From FY
2015 to
FY 2016
N/A
N/A
-11.0%
11.4%
18.3%
0.0%
3.5%
25.0%
0.0%
50.0%
28.6%
-14.1%
-7.1%
14.3%
10.9%
-2.4%
10.7%
11.2%
21.4%
15.7%
3.3%
-23.8%
33.3%
13.3%
0.0%

a N/A

indicates Not Applicable; CDC Notes:
A= State in CDC Top 5 opioid overdose deaths in 2016 (dark orange cells). Note that the District of Columbia would
be in the Top 5 if it were a State.
B=State in CDC highest category of opioid overdose deaths in 2016 (age adjusted rates of 21.1–52.0 deaths per
100,000 population). Note that all States in the Top 5 are also in the highest category (light orang cells, if B but
not A)

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 71

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report
C=State with statistically significant increase in opioid deaths from 2014 to 2015 (yellow cell if only C)

Appendix C. Table C.1 (continued)
CDC
Notesa

B,C
B
C
C
B,C
B,C
C
B,C
A,B,C
C

B,C
B
B,C

State

Number of
Coalitions
With FY 2016
Progress
Report Data

MS
MD
MO
SC
IL
IN
CA
OK
IA
MN
KS
LA
WV
WA
VA
AZ
CO
AR
NE
DE
NV
DC
WY
OR
HI
SD

3
6
12
10
24
14
39
11
11
28
4
8
9
27
9
14
6
6
6
1
1
3
2
13
1
2

Number of
FY 2016
Coalitions
That
Mention
Opioids in
Open Text
Response
1
2
4
3
7
4
11
3
3
7
1
2
2
6
2
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

% of
% of
Coalitions
Coalitions
Mentioning Mentioning
Opioids in
Opioids in
FY 2016
FY 2015
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
30.0%
29.2%
28.6%
28.2%
27.3%
27.3%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
22.2%
22.2%
22.2%
21.4%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

50.0%
28.6%
22.2%
25.0%
16.0%
42.9%
17.1%
15.4%
9.1%
11.1%
0.0%
0.0%
25.0%
3.8%
14.3%
6.7%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%

Change in
Percent of
Coalitions
Mentioning
Opioids
From FY
2015 to
FY 2016
-16.7%
4.7%
11.1%
5.0%
13.2%
-14.3%
11.1%
11.9%
18.2%
13.9%
25.0%
25.0%
-2.8%
18.4%
7.9%
14.7%
-33.3%
16.7%
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-16.7%
0.0%
0.0%

Sources: August 2016 DFC Progress Report, CDC data https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html. CDC
data does not include US territories but does include the District of Columbia.
a N/A indicates Not Applicable; CDC Notes:
A= State in CDC Top 5 opioid overdose deaths in 2016 (dark orange cells). Note that the District of Columbia would
be in the Top 5 if it were a State.
B=State in CDC highest category of opioid overdose deaths in 2016 (age adjusted rates of 21.1–52.0 deaths per
100,000 population). Note that all States in the Top 5 are also in the highest category (light orang cells, if B but
not A)

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 72

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report
C=State with statistically significant increase in opioid deaths from 2014 to 2015 (yellow cell if only C)

Appendix D. Core Measures Data Tables

Table D.1. Long-Term Change in Past 30-Day Prevalence of Usea

School Level and
Substance
Middle School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs
High School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
All DFC Grant Award Recipients
Since Program Inception
%
%
Report
Report
Use,
Use,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
1161
1153
1146
361
1229
1215
1212
408

12.5
6.3
5.0
2.8
35.8
17.9
18.1
6.3

9.1
4.2
4.2
2.5

29.0
12.8
16.9
5.2

-3.4*
-2.1*
-0.8*
-0.3*
-6.8*
-5.1*
-1.2*
-1.1*

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
FY 2016 DFC Grant Award
Recipients
%
%
Report
Report
Use,
Use,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
411
404
406
283
442
432
437
323

10.2
4.7
4.2
2.7
32.4
14.9
17.5
6.3

6.7
2.9
3.6
2.5

24.6
9.1
16.0
5.2

-3.5*
-1.8*
-0.6*
-0.2
-7.9*
-5.8*
-1.5*
-1.1*

Notes: * p<.05; n represents the number of DFC coalitions included in the analysis; difference scores may not equal
percentage point change due to rounding.
a Outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC coalition based on the total number of youth used in the
percentage point change calculation (i.e., adding the number of youth surveyed for the first observation to the number
surveyed for the most recent observation). Outliers beyond three standard deviations were removed. All numbers
were rounded; percentage point change was rounded after taking the difference score.
Source: Progress Report, 2002-2016 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 73

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

TableD.2 provides the same data as in Table D.1, but data are calculated as prevalence of
non-use of substances in the prior 30-days. These are calculated as 100 percent minus the
prevalence of past-30-day use (Table D.1).
Table D.2. Long-Term Change in Past 30-Day Prevalence of Non-Usea

School Level and
Substance
Middle School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs
High School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
All DFC Grant Award Recipients
Since Program Inception
%
%
Report
Report
Non-Use,
Non-Use,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
1161
1153
1146
361
1229
1215
1212
408

87.5
93.7
95.0
97.2
64.2
82.1
81.9
93.7

90.9
95.8
95.8
97.5
71.0
87.2
83.1
94.8

3.4*
2.1*
0.8*
0.3*
6.8*
5.1*
1.2*
1.1*

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
FY 2016 DFC Grant Award
Recipients
%
%
Report
Report
Non-Use,
Non-Use,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
411
404
406
283
442
432
437
323

89.8
95.3
95.8
97.3
67.6
85.1
82.5
93.7

93.3
97.1
96.4
97.5
75.5
90.9
84.0
94.8

3.5*
1.8*
0.6*
0.2
7.9*
5.8*
1.5*
1.1*

Notes: * p<.05; n represents the number of DFC coalitions included in the analysis; difference scores may not equal
percentage point change due to rounding.
a Outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC coalition based on the total number of youth used in the
percentage point change calculation (i.e., adding the number of youth surveyed for the first observation to the number
surveyed for the most recent observation). Outliers beyond three standard deviations were removed. All numbers were
rounded; percentage point change was rounded after taking the difference score.
Source: Progress Report, 2002–2016 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 74

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table D.3. Long-Term Change in Perception of Risk/Harm of Usea

School Level and
Substance
Middle School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs
High School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
All DFC Grant Award Recipients
Since Program Inception
%
%
Report,
Report,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
379
1068
349
295
411
1122
377
330

69.5
80.4
71.2
80.3
70.8
80.8
55.2
82.6

72.7
81.2
70.6
80.8
72.8
82.4
52.3
82.5

3.2*
0.8
-0.6
0.5
2.0*
1.6*
-2.9*
-0.1

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
FY 2016 DFC Grant Award
Recipients
%
%
Report,
Report,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
276
371
268
246
308
394
298
278

71.0
79.9
71.8
81.0
70.7
81.9
54.3
82.9

72.2
78.6
70.5
80.9
72.2
81.7
51.3
82.6

1.2
-1.3*
-1.3*
-0.1
1.5*
-0.2
-3.0*
-0.4

Notes: * p<.05; n represents the number of DFC coalitions included in the analysis; difference scores may not equal
percentage point change due to rounding.
a Outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC coalition based on the total number of youth used in the
percentage point change calculation (i.e., adding the number of youth surveyed for the first observation to the number
surveyed for the most recent observation). Outliers beyond three standard deviations were removed. All numbers were
rounded.
b Perception of risk of five or more drinks once or twice a week
c Perception of risk of smoking 1 or more packs of cigarettes per day
d Perception of risk of smoking marijuana 1-2 times per week
e Perception of risk of any use of prescription drugs not prescribed to you
Source: Progress Report, 2002-2016 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 75

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table D.4. Long-Term Change in Perception of Parental Disapprovala

School Level and
Substance
Middle School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs
High School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
All DFC Grant Award Recipients
Since Program Inception
%
%
Report,
Report,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
291
1010
1028
288
323
1068
1077
324

93.7
91.4
92.5
95.5

87.2
85.0
86.3
93.3

94.4
93.9
94.0
95.0
89.4
88.1
86.6
93.4

0.7*
2.5*
1.5*
-0.5
2.2*
3.1*
0.3
0.1

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
FY 2016 DFC Grant Award
Recipients
%
%
Report,
Report,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
237
356
360
238
267
382
386
271

93.9
93.8
94.5
95.6
87.2
88.4
87.6
93.3

94.6
95.6
94.7
95.2
89.5
91.6
86.8
93.6

0.6
1.8*
0.2
-0.4
2.2*
3.3*
-0.8*
0.3

Notes: * p<.05; n represents the number of DFC coalitions included in the analysis; difference scores may not equal
percentage point change due to rounding.
a Outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC coalition based on the total number of youth used in the
percentage point change calculation (i.e., adding the number of youth surveyed for the first observation to the number
surveyed for the most recent observation). Outliers beyond three standard deviations were removed. All numbers
were rounded.
b Perception of disapproval of one or two drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day
c Perception of disapproval of any smoking of tobacco or marijuana
d Perception of disapproval of any use of prescription drugs not prescribed to you
Source: Progress Report, 2002-2016 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 76

2017 DFC National Evaluation End-of-Year Report

Table D.5. Long-Term Change in Perception of Peer Disapprovala

School Level and
Substance
Middle School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs
High School
Alcohol
Tobacco
Marijuana
Prescription Drugs

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
All DFC Grant Award Recipients
Since Program Inception
%
%
Report,
Report,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
279
290
300
272
318
320
330
305

85.2
87.1
86.0
90.2
62.8
67.8
55.4
78.9

86.9
88.6
86.5
90.5

68.4
73.4
57.0
81.9

1.7*
1.5*
0.5
0.3
5.6*
5.6*
1.6*
3.0*

Long-Term Change:
First Observation to Most Recent
FY 2016 DFC Grant Award
Recipients
%
%
Report,
Report,
Most
%
First
Recent
Point
n
Outcome Outcome Change
234
236
243
226
267
261
272
256

86.2
88.7
87.4
90.9
63.5
68.9
56.3
79.5

87.3
89.4
87.2
90.6
68.8
74.4
57.5
82.2

1.1*
0.8
-0.2
-0.2
5.3*
5.5*
1.2
2.6*

Notes: * p<.05; n represents the number of DFC coalitions included in the analysis; difference scores may not equal
percentage point change due to rounding.
a Outcomes represent weighted averages for each DFC coalition based on the total number of youth used in the
percentage point change calculation (i.e., adding the number of youth surveyed for the first observation to the number
surveyed for the most recent observation). Outliers beyond three standard deviations were removed. All numbers
were rounded.
c Perception of disapproval of any smoking of tobacco or marijuana
d Perception of disapproval of any use of prescription drugs not prescribed to you
Source: Progress Report, 2002-2016 core measures data

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Page 77