NATIONA L DRUG 

CONTROL STRATEGY

Performance Reporting System Report

APRIL 2012

★ 1 ★

Chapter 1: Performance 

Reporting System Overview

The National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy) is a guide for the Nation in controlling the use and consequences of the illicit use of drugs. The Performance Reporting System (PRS) is a performance monitoring 

and assessment mechanism for gauging the effectiveness of this Strategy. It serves to foster interagency 

responsibility to the American taxpayer for drug control policies, programs, and budget.1 

The PRS is designed to appraise the performance of the large and complex interagency Federal effort set 

forth in the Strategy, as required by ONDCP’s 2006 Reauthorization Act.2

 Section 202 of the Act requires 

ONDCP to track and report on progress as reflected in performance measures and targets established for 

each goal and objective in the Strategy (see Addendum A for more detail about the Reauthorization Act 

as it pertains to the PRS).3 The PRS will monitor key performance measures to inform ONDCP whether 

drug control programs are performing as expected. The PRS is essential because it acts as a signal to 

indicate where the Strategy is on track, and when and where further attention, assessment, evaluation, 

and problem-solving are needed. Using the PRS, ONDCP will be able to adjust the Strategy’s policy and 

program actions accordingly to achieve the FY 2015 Goals.

A full glossary of acronyms, abbreviations, and performance terms mentioned in this report is located 

in Addendum B.

The Strategy’s Goals and Objectives for 2015 

The 2010 Strategy’s Goals and Impact Targets

The Strategy establishes two overarching Goals to reduce drug use and its consequences by 2015, as 

shown in Table 1-1. The table also includes, for each Goal, performance targets that reflect the desired 

impact of drug control programs and policies guided by the Strategy.

The Strategy, including its two Goals, was developed through an extensive consultation process with 

Federal, State, local, and tribal partners, and addresses the Nation’s call for a balanced policy of prevention, treatment, enforcement, and international cooperation. The Strategy also reflects the close 

and strong collaboration between ONDCP and its Federal drug control agency partners to undertake 

evidence-based programs, policies, and practices to achieve desired performance outcomes by 2015. 

1. The PRS in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 which 

requires cross-agency goals, focuses on the joint performance of agencies with the common mission of reducing drug 

use and its consequences.

2. The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-469), referenced as the 

Reauthorization in this report.

3. A performance “measure” represents the specific characteristic or aspect of the program (or policy) that is used 

to gauge performance. For example, a measure for “drug use” might be the percent of the population that used drugs in 

the past 30 days. A performance “target” shows the desired level of performance to be achieved during a specified fiscal 

year for that measure. See Addendum B for a listing of terms, acronyms, and abbreviations used in this report.
★ 2 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Note: For all goals and measures, 2009 data are used as the baseline in accordance with the 2011 Strategy 

although in some cases, 2009 data are not yet available. 

In accordance with the Reauthorization (P.L. 109-469), the Strategy aims to achieve two Goals as follows: 

Goal 1 focuses on reducing U.S. demand for drugs on two fronts: drug use among youth and young 

adults as well as reducing chronic drug use by users classified as “abusers of drugs” or “addicted.” Goal 

2 focuses on increasing public health and public safety by improving the health of the American public 

through setting meaningful targets to reduce mortality and morbidity associated with the disease 

of addiction. This Goal also targets other serious consequences such as drugged driving in order to 

improve public safety.

Both Goals are strongly supported by activities to reduce access to and the availability of drugs through 

domestic and international activities.  Efforts to reduce the supply of illicit drugs and to enforce the laws 

of the United States have decreased crime, increased the protection of U.S. borders, disrupted trafficking 

networks, and curtailed international and domestic production of drugs.

The Strategy’s Objectives

The Strategy constitutes a balanced approach to reducing drug use as well as its consequences, based on 

the perspective that abuse and addiction are serious public health problems. It articulates seven strategic Objectives (Table 1-2) for the two Goals presented above. Substantive guidance for each Objective 

is provided In the Strategy’s Chapters. The PRS incorporates the two Goals and seven Objectives and 

identifies performance measures and targets for each Objective. The Objectives articulate a broad range 

of efforts. Objectives 1 and 2 emphasize preventing the onset of drug use and intervening to stop use 

once initiated. Objective 3 focuses on the integration of treatment into mainstream health care and 

Table 1-1

The 2010 National Drug Control Strategy’s Impact Targets to be attained by 2015

Goal 1: Curtail illicit drug consumption in America

1a: Decrease the 30-day prevalence of drug use among 12–17 year olds by 15%

1b: Decrease the lifetime prevalence of 8th graders who have used drugs, alcohol, or tobacco by 15%

1c: Decrease the 30-day prevalence of drug use among young adults aged 18–25 by 10%

1d: Reduce the number of chronic drug users by 15%

Goal 2: Improve the public health and public safety of the American people by reducing the 

consequences of drug abuse

2a: Reduce drug-induced deaths by 15%

2b: Reduce drug-related morbidity by 15%

2c: Reduce the prevalence of drugged driving by 10%

Data Sources: SAMHSA’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (1a, 1c); Monitoring the Future (1b); What Americans 

Spend on Illegal Drugs (1d); and Prevention (CDC) National Vital Statistics System (2a); SAMHSA’s Drug Abuse Warning 

Network drug-related emergency room visits, and CDC data on HIV infections attributable to drug use (2b); National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) roadside survey (2c).
C hapter 1: Performance Reporting System Overview

★ 3 ★

expanding support for recovery services. Objective 4 articulates the need to address the nexus between 

public health and public safety and supports approaches to break the cycle of drug use and crime. 

Objective 5 addresses drug trafficking and production and supports efforts to reduce the availability 

of drugs in the United States. Objective 6 emphasizes the importance of strengthening international 

partnerships and reducing the supply of foreign-produced or cultivated drugs before they enter the 

United States. Objective 7 is distinct in that it seeks to generate new and improved sources of information about the drug market (supply and demand) so as to improve policies, programs, and practices. 

In order to gauge progress toward each Objective, the PRS includes performance measures with targets 

to be achieved by 2015. Detailed information about these measures and their sources of information 

are presented in Chapter 3.4 A summary listing of the performance measures and targets can be found 

in Addendum C.

Performance Monitoring

The Performance Measurement System

The PRS is one element of a broader performance measurement system. The key elements of this 

system are set forth in ONDCP’s Reauthorization which calls for a performance measurement system 

that includes (i) a monitoring system that indicates whether the Federal drug control community is 

on track to meet the FY 2015 Goals and Objectives of the Strategy; (ii) evaluation of the contributions 

of demand and supply programs with corrective actions when targets are not met; (iii) alignment of 

agency budgets and contributions to the Strategy, indicating the contributions of agencies and their 

budget resources; and (iv) assessment of the adequacy of data sources and instruments. This broader 

performance measurement system (represented in Figure 1-1) addresses these requirements as follows:

4. The PRS focuses on the interagency performance measures and targets. Information regarding specific Federal 

drug control initiatives that support these Objectives is presented in the National Drug Control Strategy, FY 2012 Budget 

Summary.

Table 1-2

Strategy Objectives

1. Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Communities

2. Seek Early Intervention Opportunities in Health Care

3. Integrate Treatment for Substance Use Disorders into Health Care and Expand Support for Recovery

4. Break the Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and Incarceration

5. Disrupt Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production 

6. Strengthen International Partnerships and Reduce the Availability of Foreign-Produced Drugs in the 

United States 

7. Improve Information Systems for Analysis, Assessment, and Local Management
★ 4 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

• Monitoring: The PRS is a monitoring system that assesses interagency progress toward achieving the Goals and Objectives of the Strategy. It provides early warning about progress through 

ongoing comparisons of targets against actual achievements for each measure. The PRS will, 

therefore, identify targets that are being met and those that are not - from among the seven 

impact targets (that show progress towards the Goals) and the twenty-six targets that reflect 

progress towards each Objective. 

The Strategy outlines various actions necessary to achieve the two overarching goals of reducing drug use and its consequences. The implementation of these actions by the interagency is 

monitored by ONDCP’s Delivery Unit that works with ONDCP Components to coordinate and 

track progress. 

• Assessment and Evaluation: The PRS is complemented by assessments and evaluations. 

When a target is not achieved, the PRS will serve as a trigger for an interagency assessment of 

potential causes and options for improvement. In collaboration with the Steering Committee5

and relevant Federal drug control agencies, ONDCP will initiate an in-depth diagnostic review 

to identify causal factors contributing to the problem. If the cause of the problem is not evident, 

a more in-depth assessment and/or evaluation may be undertaken.

Such joint assessments and evaluations will be in the form of in-depth, interagency-focused 

studies that seek to isolate obstacles to progress and recommend improvements. Since evaluations are expensive and time-consuming, the PRS will act as a filter mechanism to ensure scarce 

evaluation resources are directed to the most pressing problem areas. 

• Resources and Agency Performance: The National Drug Control Strategy, Budget Summary

focuses on the alignment of agency resources with agency contributions. It also examines 

agency performance in terms of its contributions to the Strategy. 

• Data Assessment: The National Drug Control Strategy Data Supplement (Data Supplement) 

reports up-to-date information on the availability and prevalence of illegal drugs. It also 

reports on the criminal, health, and social consequences of the illicit use of drugs, as well as the 

adequacy of existing data systems. The Data Supplement summarizes sources of data used to 

gauge the national drug problem, some of which are used as data sources in the PRS.

Implementing the Performance Reporting System

The PRS will collect and report on data for each performance measure including the data source, and the 

agency that reports the data. This information will be used to inform budget formulation and resource 

allocation, Strategy implementation, policymaking, planning, and provide information on progress 

toward the Strategy’s Goals and Objectives. ONDCP will release the PRS report each year to coincide 

with the release of the Strategy.

5. The Steering Committee, consisting of senior agency officials familiar with drug control policies and programs, 

was established to advise the Director of ONDCP on the design and implementation of the PRS.
C hapter 1: Performance Reporting System Overview

★ 5 ★

Assessing Performance

The lack of nationally representative data has limited ONDCP’s ability to assess demand and supply 

efforts. ONDCP recognizes this limitation and has placed great emphasis on improving information 

systems to advance understanding of the nature and extent of the drug problem, as well as provide 

better data for performance assessment. For performance monitoring, specialized types of data are 

required. Not all data are useable. Data must be collected and available on a regular schedule and also 

be representative of what is being measured. For the PRS measures, the data should ideally be collected 

annually and be representative of national trends. Other types of data, such as those from single research 

studies, intermittent surveys, and ongoing data collections representative of specific geographic areas, 

are useful in an auxiliary capacity to fully interpret interagency performance. 

The PRS development process resulted in the selection of measures that were supported by the best 

data available. In cases where optimal measures were not useable because of the lack of data, proxy 

measures were used. While there are limitations to using proxy measures (such as data not always 

reflecting the universe), they represent an invaluable option given the inadequacy of available data. 

Future analyses will augment PRS measure-related data with ancillary data to corroborate and set the 

context for interpreting findings. ONDCP will continue to improve measures as better data sets become 

available, as reflected in Objective 7 of the Strategy.

Performance Measurement System

Context Process Questions Answered Mechanism

Interagency Implementation Are Strategy actions on 

track?

Delivery Unit

Performance Monitoring Are we on track to meet 

the FY 2015 goals and 

objectives?

PRS

Assessment & Evaluation 

(planned)

• Why are we not meeting

 targets?

• What corrective actions

 can/should be taken?

Interagency Assessment 

& Evaluation (at ONDCP 

direction)

Agency Assessment of Agency 

Contribution

• What are agencies

 contributing?

• Using what budgetary

 resources?

• Budget Summary

• Budget-Performance

 Certification Process

Assessment of Agency 

Performance System

Does IG attest to the 

agency management 

assertions regarding validity, adequacy, of agency 

performance system?

Performance Summary 

Report

Interagency Adequacy of Data Systems Are available data adequate 

for policy & evaluation

Data Supplement
★ 6 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Diagnosing the specific cause(s) of performance shortcomings can be challenging. In-depth assessments and evaluations of underlying logic models and causal factors will be used to identify issues that 

result in gaps between targets and actual accomplishments. These may include:

• Errors in the logic model linking program actions to desired results. The logic structure may not 

include key internal and external factors, some of which may also not be controllable, associated with the objective. Also, the logic model may be based on assumptions and traditional 

practices not supported by research;

• Insufficient commitment from partners—Federal, State local, and Tribal agencies; non-governmental and private organizations; and international entities—working towards the same 

objective. Such failures could indicate a need for robust performance partnerships that reflect 

the relative contribution of each partner;

• Failure to accomplish relevant Action Items identified in the Strategy as necessary for achieving 

the Objective and its targets;

• Inadequate program administration; 

• Inadequate data to fully understand the issue;

• Failure to obtain the resources sufficient to impact the problem; and 

• Unrealistic performance targets.
★ 7 ★

Chapter 2: The Performance Reporting 

System Development Process

Overview of the PRS Interagency Development Process

The Performance Reporting System (PRS) was developed through an extensive interagency process that 

brought together subject matter experts, policy and program analysts, researchers, statisticians, and 

leadership from Federal drug control agencies. While not directly involved in the PRS process, State and 

local agencies, as well as non-governmental and commercial organizations contribute through their 

own policies and programs, to achieving the Goals of the National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy).  The 

PRS System will therefore be indirectly monitoring the efforts of non-Federal entities as it tracks progress 

towards the national Strategy’s Goals and Objectives.  

Using the Strategy’s overarching two Goals as a foundation, the PRS design process focused on developing appropriate performance measures and targets for each of the seven Objectives (Chapters) in 

the Strategy. A two-tiered process was undertaken. The first step instituted a senior-level Steering 

Committee6 with the authority to speak for agencies. The second step established five Working Groups 

to undertake the complex processes involved in identifying performance measures and targets. The 

roles of Steering Committee and Working Groups are described in further detail below.

The PRS Steering Committee: The interagency process instituted a Steering Committee comprised 

of senior agency officials familiar with drug control issues, policies, and programs. This Committee’s 

principal roles are to advise the Director of ONDCP on the design and implementation of the PRS, serve 

as primary liaisons with their agencies, bring individual agency concerns to the table for discussion, and 

review recommendations from the Working Groups.

During the development phase of the PRS, the Steering Committee met twice. The first meeting focused 

on initiating the PRS process, including the selection of experts for each Working Group. The second 

meeting occurred after the Working Groups identified draft measures and targets. The Committee 

reviewed the material, provided feedback, and developed recommendations for review and consideration by the ONDCP Director. This Committee will continue to be involved in the implementation of 

the PRS and in assessments and evaluations that result from its findings.

The Five PRS Working Groups: Five Working Groups were formed to address the seven Objectives 

of the Strategy, grouped around common themes. The Working Groups included agency subject 

matter experts, policy and program analysts, statisticians, researchers, line managers, and other 

drug program and data experts knowledgeable about drug control programs, policies, and research. 

Representatives from the following Federal agencies participated in Working Group activities: the 

Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, 

Labor, Transportation, Treasury, State, Veterans Affairs, and the Small Business Administration. 

6. A full listing of the Steering Committee members is provided in Addendum E.
★ 8 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

A summary of the Objectives covered by the Working Groups is presented in Table 2-1 (below). Working 

Group 1 addressed the first two Objectives focusing on prevention and early intervention. Working 

Group 2 focused on the third and fourth Objectives, dealing with treatment and recovery and breaking 

the cycle of drug use and crime. Working Group 3 addressed domestic drug trafficking and production while Working Group 4 concentrated on foreign drug production and international partnerships. 

Working Group 5 focused on improving drug data information systems. ONDCP subject matter experts 

served as Working Group chairs.

Table 2-1: The Seven Objectives Covered by the Five Working Groups

PRS Working 

Group

Strategy Objective(s)

Working Group 1 Objective 1:

Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Communities

Objective 2: 

Seek Early Intervention Opportunities in Health Care

Working Group 2 Objective 3:

Integrate Treatment for Substance Use Disorders into Health Care, and Expand 

Support for Recovery

Objective 4:

Break the Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and Incarceration

Working Group 3 Objective 5:

Disrupt Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production

Working Group 4 Objective 6:

Strengthen International Partnerships and Reduce the Availability of ForeignProduced Drugs in the United States

Working Group 5 Objective 7:

Improve Information Systems for Analysis, Assessment, and Local Management

Working Group Meetings

Each Working Group held meetings to develop and refine targets and measures for the Objectives. The 

Working Group process (detailed in Addendum D) included the following steps:

• Brainstorming about candidate measures for the assigned Objective;

• Identifying available data sources;

• Evaluating data sources;

• Assessing, ranking, and selecting measures; and

• Identifying targets based on trend lines for each selected measure.
C hapter 2: The Performance Reporting System Development Process

★ 9 ★

The Working Groups drew upon the most current research and data available to select performance 

measures and targets for each Objective. Research findings helped to identify optimal performance 

measures for each Objective. In some cases, however, data limitations precluded the use of ideal measures. In such cases, Working Groups opted to select a suite of measures to best reflect performance. 

Each Working Group used common criteria in selecting performance measures. These criteria were 

used to ensure consistency in the selection of measures across Objectives. These criteria required that 

performance measures should be:

• Quantifiable;

• Clear in meaning to both analysts and lay readers;

• A valid indicator for the Objective—that is, a plausible indication of success in achieving the 

Objective;

• Supported by a data source that is representative of the event/concept being measured (that is, 

data based on nationally representative samples in preference to data collected unsystematically 

or narrowly focused on a particular region or subpopulation); and 

• Reflect an outcome or an intermediate outcome.7

Additionally, each performance measure should:

• Reflect the contributions of more than one agency. Since the Strategy is meant to reflect interagency drug control efforts, the measures should reflect the collective work of contributing 

agencies in achieving each Objective;

• Allow documentation of small changes. Measures with baselines that are very low or very high 

will make it more difficult to document change. Also, if the pre-baseline trend is almost a straight 

line, it may be hard to document change unless some new factor is anticipated that is likely to 

affect change (e.g. new interdiction technology);

• Have data sources that are as unbiased, continuous, and likely to have funding until FY 2015, 

the target year;

• Be unambiguous—(e.g. price and purity are ambiguous measures since they are affected by 

demand elasticity); and

• Be complementary—that is, represent different aspects of success in achieving the Objective. 

In recognition of the limitations imposed by insufficient data, the Working Groups recommended that 

PRS reports include discussion of appropriate auxiliary data when assessing target achievement. The 

presentation of the context of performance will enable a more complete interpretation of results. For 

instance, the measures on prescription drug abuse are augmented by information on the extent to 

which early intervention opportunities in the health care system are available. Similarly, since there 

7. An intermediate outcome occurs between outputs (services or products delivered) and outcomes (that 

reflect the purposes of the program or policy). An intermediate outcome is an event or result occurring from actions 

undertaken by entities other than the agencies responsible for the joint outcome and that are strongly likely to lead to 

the achievement of desired outcomes.
★ 10 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

are no national data on substance abuse recidivism rates for offenders, future PRS reports will include 

discussion of State and/or local recidivism data that are available, until a national rate becomes available. 

The process delineated above was captured through templates that reflected each stage in the discussion with candidate measures, available data sources, existing time-series data, Working Group assessments about the reliability and validity of each measure and its data, and additional concerns about the 

measures under consideration. Once each group felt confident that it had fully discussed the range of 

possible measures, it ranked each measure on a scale of 1-3:

Ranking 1—The measure and data meet most of the criteria listed above. For example, the measure 

is a valid interagency outcome measure and there are adequate data collected on a regular basis that 

would allow detection of small changes.

Ranking 2—The measure and/or data do not meet key elements of the criteria listed above. For example, 

the measure is an interagency outcome measure but the data are not collected routinely. Or, data are 

representative and reported annually but the measure would not sufficiently reflect the achievement 

of the Objective.

Ranking 3—Both the measure and the data have significant deficiencies with respect to the criteria 

identified above. For example, the measure does not reflect achieving the Objective and the data are 

not collected routinely.

The Working Groups thereafter refined the higher-ranked measures and arrived at consensus on the 

best measures to include in the PRS. Each Working Group also used historical data for trend analysis 

to identify FY 2015 targets for each of the final measures. These targets signal interagency success in 

reducing the Nation’s drug problem by 2015. In setting such targets, the most recently available baseline 

data for each performance measure was employed. 

Each year, ONDCP will collect data for the impact targets of the two Strategy Goals and the 26 performance targets established for the Strategy’s Objectives. The next chapter of this report presents 

the performance measures and targets recommended by the interagency Steering Committee and 

approved by the ONDCP Director. Addendum C presents details, including trend lines for measures for 

which data are currently available.
★ 11 ★

Chapter 3: PRS Measures and 

Targets for Strategy Objectives

The National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy) represents a comprehensive and balanced approach to 

reducing drug abuse and its damaging consequences. The measures and targets developed for each 

of the Strategy Objectives employed the most recent data available and constitute an important tool to 

measure interagency progress. Each measure—with its baseline, FY 2015 target, and data source—is 

described in detail in this chapter; baseline values and 2015 targets are provided in Addendum C. 

The PRS Objectives harmonize with the Strategy’s Chapters and include the following:

Objective 1 Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Our Communities

Objective 2 Seek Early Intervention Opportunities in Health Care

Objective 3 Integrate Treatment for Substance Use Disorders into Health Care, and 

Expand Support for Recovery

Objective 4 Break the Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and Incarceration

Objective 5 Disrupt Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production

Objective 6 Strengthen International Partnerships and Reduce the Availability of 

Foreign-Produced Drugs in the United States

Objective 7 Improve Information Systems for Analysis, Assessment, and Local 

Management

What follows is a description of the performance measures and targets selected for monitoring progress 

towards each of the seven Objectives.
★ 12 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Objective 1—Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Our Communities

Preventing drug use before it begins is a central component of a comprehensive drug control effort to 

protect individuals from the dangerous consequences of drug use and builds safe and healthy communities. Progress in substance abuse prevention is monitored through the Strategy’s overarching 

impact measures focusing on drug use prevalence and a suite of Objective level measures focusing on 

perception of risk and average age of initiation. Table 3-1 outlines the measures and targets that were 

selected to assess the progress of this Objective.

Table 3-1 Objective 1 Measures, Baselines, Targets, Data Sources, and Reporting Agencies

Measure Baseline 2015 Target Data Source Reporting 

Agency8

Percent of respondents, 

ages 12–17, who perceive 

a great risk in smoking marijuana once or twice a week

49.3% (2009) 51.2% National 

Survey on Drug 

Use and Health 

(NSDUH)

 SAMHSA

Percent of respondents, 

ages 12–17, who perceive 

a great risk in consumption 

of one or more packs of 

cigarettes per day

65.8% (2009) 68.0% NSDUH SAMHSA

Percent of respondents, 

ages 12–17, who perceive a 

great risk in consuming four 

or five drinks once or twice 

a week

39.9% (2009) 41.4% NSDUH SAMHSA

Average age of initiation for 

all illicit drugs

17.6 

(2009)

19.5 NSDUH SAMHSA

Average age of initiation for 

alcohol use

16.9 

(2009)

21.010 NSDUH SAMHSA

Average age of initiation for 

tobacco use

17.5

(2009)

18.0 NSDUH SAMHSA

Analysis of Measures

The measures and targets selected for Objective 1 fall into two categories: (i) risk perception and (ii) 

average age of initiation. Data for all six of the selected measures are collected by SAMHSA through 

their National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) on an annual basis which reports prior calendar 

year results each September. 

8. The Reporting Agency is the agency responsible for ensuring that the data are collected and reported to ONDCP. 

However, multiple agencies contribute to achieving the Strategy’s Goals and Objectives through programs, policies, etc.

9. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services

10. Age 21 is the end goal we are seeking; while it will be a challenge to achieve this by 2015, we do not want to 

lose sight of this intent.
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 13 ★

Risk Perception Measures:

• Percent of respondents who perceive a great risk in smoking marijuana once or twice a week 

• Percent of respondents who perceive a great risk in consumption of one or more packs of 

cigarettes per day 

• Percent of respondents who perceive a great risk in consuming four or five drinks once or twice 

a week 

These three measures were selected because of the research-based link between attitudes and drug 

use. Research has shown a strong relationship between youth attitudes and use; as the perception 

of risk and social disapproval decreases, drug use among youth increases.11 Additionally, effective 

prevention initiatives are those that are comprehensive, include messages directed at youth regarding 

the potential harms of drug use, target environmental factors, and fully engage communities. Hence, 

changes in perception are a good measure of whether such prevention messaging and programming 

is having the desired effect on attitudes and use. Attitudes about marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol 

use were therefore chosen as strong proxy measures for all drug use and as a measure of the overall 

effectiveness of prevention efforts. 

Targets for the risk perception measure were established based on historical NSDUH data. The NSDUH 

provides annual data on a range of populations and drugs of abuse. Young people’s negative attitudes 

regarding the perception of risk about drugs, including marijuana, have been softening since 2005: the 

2015 target aims to return to reverse this trend. In comparison, perceptions of risk for tobacco use have 

been increasing over time. Attitudes against cigarettes have strengthened each year since 2004: the 

2015 target seeks to increase the percentage to 68 percent from a 2009 high of 65.8 percent. Similarly, 

perceptions about the risk of consuming five or more drinks of alcohol, once or twice a week, have been 

increasing since 2004. The 2015 goal looks to increase the percentage from a 2009 level of 39.9 percent 

to 41.4 percent. 

Average Age of Initiation Measures:

• Average Age of Initiation for All Illicit Drugs

• Average Age of Initiation for Alcohol Use

• Average Age of Initiation for Tobacco Use

The age at which a user starts using illicit substances for the first time is a significant indicator of future 

drug use and abuse. The older the individuals are when they use a substance for the first time, the less 

likely they are to develop a long-term substance use disorder. Additionally, delaying the age of initiation 

is a sound indicator of the effectiveness of prevention initiatives that aim to reduce youth drug use. The 

age of initiation data is based on NSDUH respondents who reported using an illicit drug for the first 

time within the past 12 months. For alcohol and tobacco, the targets were identified in the context of 

the legal age for use for both substances.

11. Age 21 is the end goal we are seeking; while it will be a challenge to achieve this by 2015, we do not want to 

lose sight of this intent.
★ 14 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Objective 2—Seek Early Intervention Opportunities in Health Care

Health care professionals are logical providers of interventions given their role in early detection of 

substance abuse. Attention to the warning signs of drug abuse can help reduce the damaging consequences of abuse, including prescription drug abuse. Early interventions are an effective way to address 

early signs of substance abuse before they become well-established, chronic conditions. 

Table 3-2 outlines the measures and targets that were selected to assess the progress of this Objective.

Table 3-2 Objective 2 Measures, Baselines, Targets, Data Sources, and Reporting Agencies

Measure Baseline 

(Year)

2015 Target Data Source Reporting 

Agency

Percent of Federally 

Qualified Health Center 

grantees providing 

SBIRT services 

10% (2009) 15% Uniform Data 

System

HRSA

Percent of respondents 

in the past year using 

prescription-type drugs 

non-medically, age 

12 - 17

7.7% (2009) 6.5% National 

Survey on Drug 

Use and Health 

(NSDUH)

SAMHSA

Percent of respondents 

in the past year using 

prescription-type drugs 

non-medically, age 

18 - 25

15% (2009) 12.8% NSDUH SAMHSA

Percent of respondents 

in the past year using 

prescription-type drugs 

non-medically, age 26+

4.7% (2009) 4.0% NSDUH SAMHSA

SBIRT - Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment

Analysis of Measures

Percent of Federally Qualified Number of Health Center grantees providing Screening, Brief 

Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) services 

Screening and brief intervention approaches are an effective way for the health care system to intervene 

with individuals at risk for problem behaviors. SBIRT is a comprehensive, integrated, public health 

approach to the delivery of early intervention and treatment services for persons with substance use 

disorders, as well as those at risk of developing these disorders. Primary care centers, hospital emergency 
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 15 ★

rooms, trauma centers, and community settings provide opportunities for early intervention with at-risk 

substance users before more severe consequences occur. 

The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), through its Federally Qualified Health Center 

(FQHC) grantees, provides services to people in traditionally underserved areas and collects data on the 

types of services its grantees provide. HRSA is committed to expanding screening for substance abuse 

in their health centers. The target represents an increase of 50 percent by 2015 and reflects the commitment to significantly increase the SBIRT program. While HRSA only collects data on its grantees and 

does not survey all health centers, the grantees surveyed provide services to nearly 20 million people. 

The HRSA measure is a sound proxy for the expansion of screening services, given the absence of data 

on the aggregate performance of all health care providers and facilities.

Percent of respondents in the past year using prescription-type drugs non-medically 

Non-medical use of prescription drugs is a rapidly increasing problem spanning multiple generations. 

This Objective is focused on curbing non-medical use of prescription drugs; hence three of the measures 

for this Objective focus on reducing this growing problem. Measures for three separate age cohorts 

were chosen to reflect progress in multiple age groups by 2015.

• Non-medical Use of Prescription Drugs Ages 12-17

• Non-medical Use of Prescription Drugs Ages 18-25

• Non-medical Use of Prescription Drugs Ages 26 and Over

NSDUH collects data on non-medical use of prescription drugs for each of the three cohorts. Prescription 

drug use continues to be a serious problem. The 2015 targets identified for the above measures—6.5 

percent, 12.8 percent, and 4.0 percent, respectively - represent reductions of approximately 15 percent 

for each age group. NSDUH data is based on self-reported household survey data. It does not reflect 

individuals in the criminal justice system or in other institutions, or individuals who are homeless. As in 

any self-reported data there is the potential in NSDUH for over or under reporting specific behaviors. 
★ 16 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Objective 3—Integrate Treatment for Substance Use Disorders into Health 

Care, and Expand Support for Recovery

There are many barriers to receiving clinically appropriate substance abuse treatment, such as a lack of 

access to suitable clinical care, facilities, and insurance coverage. Additionally, coordination between 

primary medical care and treatment facilities is often poor. Objective 3 reflects the Strategy’s direction 

in shifting substance abuse treatment away from an episodic treatment care model to one grounded 

in primary health care that recognizes addiction is a chronic disorder associated with relapse where 

outcomes are greatly improved with augmentation by recovery support services. 

Table 3-3 outlines the measures and targets that were selected to assess the progress of this Objective.

Table 3-3 Objective 3 Measures, Baselines, Targets, Data Sources, and Reporting Agencies

Measure 2010 Baseline 2015 Target Data Source Reporting 

Agency

Percent of treatment 

plans completed

45.1% (2007) 50.0 % Treatment 

Episode Data 

Set - Discharge

SAMHSA

Percent of Health Center 

grantees providing substance abuse counseling 

and treatment services

23.0% (2009) 23.0% Uniform Data 

System

HRSA

Percent of treatment 

facilities offering at least 

4 of the standard spectrum of recovery services 

(child care, transportation 

assistance, employment 

assistance, housing 

assistance, discharge 

planning, and after-care 

counseling)

35.5%

(2008)

39.0% National Survey 

of Substance 

Abuse 

Treatment 

Services

SAMHSA

Analysis of Measures

Percent of treatment plans completed

Objective 3 addresses the improvement of current treatment services. In the absence of nationwide 

data on treatment effectiveness, a proxy measure on the percent of those completing treatment was 

adopted. This choice reflects the research correlating the completion of appropriate treatment with 

reductions in use and consequences. Multi-year data tracking clinical outcomes for individuals receiving 

treatment would have been ideal for this measure but those data are not available. 

Data for this measure are drawn from SAMHSA’s Treatment Episode Data Set on Discharges (TEDS-D). 

This data set covers areas such as treatment completion, length of stay in treatment, substance abuse 
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 17 ★

characteristics, and client demographics. All States report TEDS-D data, but the data reported are based 

on state administrative systems and their varying reporting methods. Data are collected regularly and 

published annually. 

Only two data points—for 2006 and 2007—were available to set the 2015 target. TEDS-D data are 

available for three years prior to 2006. However, fewer states reported data during these years which 

skews the data and prevents comparison to subsequent years. Between 2006 and 2007, there was a 

slight decrease in the percentage of treatment plans completed, from 47.1 percent to 45.1 percent. With 

45.1 percent as a baseline, it is expected that treatment completion will improve to 50 percent by 2015 

as a result of the Strategy’s action plans related to improving the quality of substance abuse treatment 

services. This target represents a 10.8 percent increase over the baseline. 

Percent of Health Center grantees providing substance abuse counseling and treatment services 

This measure focuses on a primary component of the Objective. Since data for all health care services 

in the United States are not available, data on HRSA’s Federally Qualified Health Center grantees and 

the 20 million individuals they serve, support this proxy measure for assessing the extent of substance 

abuse counseling and treatment services provided in primary care settings. An increase in the number 

of health center facilities offering these services is an indicator that substance abuse services are more 

integrated and expansive. Data for this measure are drawn from HRSA’s Uniform Data System (UDS) 

and are collected annually from HRSA grantees.

Percent of treatment facilities offering at least 4 of the standard spectrum of recovery services 

Recovery from substance dependence is a lifelong process and research has documented that treatment success is greatly improved by programs that facilitate recovery. In recent years, some Federallyfunded recovery services have resulted in favorable outcomes. For instance, programs such as Access 

to Recovery (ATR, now in its third cohort of grantees) have shown improvements in employment, family 

and living conditions, and reduced involvement with the criminal justice system.

Based on the data available through SAMHSA’s National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services 

(N-SSATS), it was determined that the following services be included as the measure’s definition of the 

standard spectrum of recovery services: discharge planning, after-care counseling, child care, transportation assistance, employment assistance, and housing assistance. An increase in the percentage 

of substance abuse treatment facilities that provide at least four of these services will serve to indicate 

recovery support services are expanding. N-SSATS is an annual survey that collects data from all facilities that provide substance abuse treatment services—both public and private—in the United States. 

This measure does not include all the recovery support services offered by facilities. Therefore, actual 

expansion of services may be underestimated. 

The goal is that, by 2015, 39 percent of all facilities will provide at least four of the six services defined 

by the standard spectrum, a 10 percent increase over the 2008 baseline of 35.5 percent. Since 2004, 

the percentage of facilities providing at least four of these services has remained fairly constant. A 10 

percent increase is reasonable given the recent focus on recovery support services and the documented 

success of grant programs such as ATR.
★ 18 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Objective 4—Break the Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and 

Incarceration

At the end of 2008, there were over 7.3 million adult men and women under the supervision of America’s 

criminal justice system. Recent studies have examined the amount of illicit drug use and dependence 

among this special population. In 2004, 53 percent of state prisoners and 45 percent of Federal prisoners 

met the criteria for drug dependence or abuse.12

Individuals commit crimes while under the influence of drugs, commit crimes to obtain drugs or money 

to purchase drugs, and commit crimes that are drug offenses, such as possession and trafficking. Many 

of these drug-related crimes stem from underlying, treatable, illicit drug dependence or abuse. The 

criminal justice system can play a substantial role in reducing drug use and its consequences. 

Table 3-4 Objective 4 Measures, Baselines, Targets, Data Sources, and Reporting Agencies

Measure 2010 Baseline 2015 Target Data Source Reporting 

Agency

Percent of residential 

facilities in the Juvenile 

Justice System offering substance abuse 

treatment

85.0% (2006) 90.0% OJJDP – 

Juvenile 

Residential 

Facility Census

DOJ/OJJDP

Percent of treatment 

plans completed by 

those referred by the 

Criminal Justice System 

46.8% (2007) 49.1% Treatment 

Episode Data 

Set – Discharge 

SAMHSA/CBHSQ

Analysis of Measures

Percent of residential facilities in the Juvenile Justice System offering substance abuse treatment

This measure focuses on treatment that is available to youth in the Juvenile Justice system and the 

importance of breaking the cycle of drugs and crime in this population at an early stage. The data are 

provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Juvenile Residential Facility 

Census (JRFC). The JRFC reviews a variety of information on facility operations and services, including 

substance abuse treatment. The rationale for using this proxy measure is that as more facilities offer 

treatment, more juveniles have access to treatment. In 2002, 86 percent of all residential juvenile facilities 

offered substance abuse treatment services. This survey was conducted most recently in 2006 when the 

percentage dropped to 85 percent, which is the baseline for this measure. The target for 2015 is for 90 

percent of surveyed residential juvenile justice facilities to offer substance abuse treatment. This target 

represents a 5 percent increase over the 2006 baseline. Actual achievement in 2015 will be estimated, 

based on the 2014 data, since this census is conducted every two years.

12. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004. Revised 

January 19, 2007.
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 19 ★

Percent of treatment plans completed by those referred by the Criminal Justice System 

Increased completion of treatment plans is correlated with improved treatment outcomes; according to 

the research, it is also a predictor of reduced drug use.13 The Treatment Episode Data Set on Discharges 

(TEDS-D) collects data annually, but data are reported two years subsequent to collection. In 2007, 

the baseline year, the most recent year for which data are available, 46.8 percent of all criminal justice 

referrals completed treatment, representing a slight decrease from the previous year (47.7 percent in 

2006). A 2015 target of 49.1 percent was selected, representing a 5 percent increase over the baseline.

Probation and Parole Related Measures

The PRS identified two additional measures that are valid and meaningful indicators of progress towards 

achieving Objective 4: (i) Of those on probation, percent that have used drugs in the past 30 days; and 

(ii) Of those on parole/supervised release, percent that have used drugs in the past 30 days. While data 

exist for these two measures, they are not ideal for performance monitoring since sample sizes are too 

small to allow confidence that estimated changes are statistically significant. The PRS will nonetheless 

monitor these data for possible trends.

13. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Second 

Edition, April 2009.
★ 20 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Objective 5—Disrupt Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production

While prevention, intervention, and treatment initiatives address reducing the demand for drugs, a comprehensive drug strategy must also include efforts to reduce the availability of drugs. Well-established 

Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) exist within U.S. borders, threatening the public safety and wellbeing of citizens. Objective 5 focuses on limiting access to illicit drugs by targeting organizations that 

distribute illicit drugs and by targeting the cultivation and production of illicit drugs. 

Table 3-5 outlines the measures and targets that were selected to assess the progress of this Objective.

Table 3-5 Objective 5 Measures, Baselines, Targets, Data Sources, and Reporting Agencies

Measure Baseline 2015 Target Data Source Reporting 

Agency

Number of domestic 

CPOT-linked organizations disrupted or 

dismantled

299 (2009) 380 Priority Target 

Activity and 

Resource 

Reporting 

System 

(PTARRS)

DEA

Number of RPOT-linked 

organizations disrupted 

or dismantled

119 (2009) 90 DOJ database 

on RPOT-linked 

organizations

OCDETF 

Number of meth lab 

incidents

9,723 (2009) 7,293 (25% 

Reduction)

EPIC DEA

CPOT—Consolidated Priority Organization Targets

RPOT—Regional Priority Organization Targets 

Analysis of Measures

Number of domestic CPOT-linked organizations disrupted or dismantled 

The measure, Number of domestic CPOT-linked organizations disrupted or dismantled, is used to assess 

domestic enforcement efforts. The Department of Justice’s CPOT List comprises a select group of DTOs 

that represent the greatest threat to the United States. DOJ’s Priority Target Activity and Resource 

Reporting System (PTARRS) documents the majority of data concerning the number of CPOT-linked 

organizations, as collected by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Organized Crime 

Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF). 

DEA, OCDETF, FBI, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

(HIDTA) Program all focus on disrupting and dismantling DTOs linked to the CPOT list and each agency 

documents its achievements in its own data systems.  Since these data systems use varying definitions 

and methodologies, the Working Group selected DEA’s PTARRS as a proxy data source representing the 

interagency focus in this area. 

Number of RPOT-linked organizations disrupted or dismantled

Similar to CPOT-linked organizations, Regional Priority Organization Targets (RPOTs) are drug trafficking 

organizations that are primarily responsible for a specific region’s drug threat. The RPOT list enables 
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 21 ★

the OCDETF regions to focus enforcement efforts on specific targets, and they encourage and facilitate 

coordination of related critical investigations.14 

The primary data source for the number of RPOT-linked organizations disrupted or dismantled is the 

OCDETF database to which OCDETF regions report data concerning disruptions or dismantlements. The 

number of organizations that law enforcement identifies fluctuates each year, greatly influencing the 

number of disruptions and dismantlements. In alignment with DOJ’s Strategic Plan, the 2015 target has 

been set at 90 RPOT-linked organizations disrupted or dismantled with a 2009 baseline of 119. This target 

is reflective of the current circumstance where, beginning in FY 2011, OCDETF reduced the number of 

possible RPOTs from 200 to 150.  The reason for this reduction is to ensure that the OCDETF regions are 

identifying and targeting the major drug traffickers operating throughout the region so that the limited 

resources available are used to disrupt and dismantle the most significant drug trafficking organizations 

in the region.  Therefore, the estimated targets for the number of RPOT-linked organizations disrupted 

or dismantled from FY 2011 through FY 2015 show a slight downward trend because of the reduced 

number of RPOTs identified.

Number of meth lab incidents

Methamphetamine (meth) abuse represents one of the most troubling and damaging drug threats. 

Federal and state laws regulate or prohibit the sale of pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient used in the 

production of meth. Meth lab incident data are collected by the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) and 

reported by ONDCP. The data do not reflect merely the number of labs seized but also information 

regarding dumpsites, chemicals, glass, and other relevant equipment used in the production of meth. 

This distinction is important since the data reflect not only illegal activity, but also any adaptations in 

production. Methamphetamine laboratory incident numbers decreased from approximately 15,335 

in 2005 to 6,296 by 2007.  This decline was a significant accomplishment, largely a result of State and 

Federal (via the Combating Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 or CMEA) retail purchase limits 

for products containing pseudoephedrine.  However, by 2008, lab incident numbers began to increase 

again, and in 2010, approximately 11,681 incidents were reported.  Lab incidents increased as lab operators learned how to circumvent the CMEA and State laws.  The post CMEA increase in lab incidents is 

directly related to “smurfing” 15pseudoephedrine/ephedrine at the retail level.  The vast majority of these 

labs discovered over the last several years were operated by local user/distributors with no organizational 

ties, and there have also been several multi-kilogram labs with ties to Mexican organized criminal groups 

who have “smurfed” large quantities of pseudoephedrine in order to produce significant amounts of 

methamphetamine for regional or national distribution. 

An aggressive target was set—a 25 percent decrease from the 2009 level—while recommending that 

the PRS assessment of progress consider auxiliary data on meth use and consequences when assessing 

progress. For example, if it is found that methamphetamine labs are decreasing domestically, and auxiliary data indicate both methamphetamine use rates and emergency department visits are decreasing, 

then it would reinforce a potential conclusion that a reduction in domestic labs was not an anomaly 

and may be impacting use.

14. Definition source: Department of Justice Fact Sheet

15. To circumvent laws that limit the amount of pseudoephedrine containing products that can be sold to any one customer, 

methamphetamine manufacturers adopted an approach to evade these controls by making purchases in several different store—a 

practice known as “smurfing.”
★ 22 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Objective 6—Strengthen International Partnerships and Reduce the 

Availability of Foreign-Produced Drugs in the United States

Disrupting and dismantling the violent criminal enterprises that transit drugs into the United States 

both reduces the supply of drugs and fulfills U.S. responsibility to foreign nations to respect and support 

the rule of law.

Objective 6 concentrates on international efforts to curb the amount of drugs that ultimately enter 

the United States and assisting Nations in addressing their own drug problems. Objective 6 focuses 

comprehensively on international partnerships, the rule of law, and disruption of international Drug 

Trafficking Organizations (DTOs). Furthermore, the renewed emphasis on supporting source countries 

in their supply reduction efforts, seeks to substantially reduce the flow of foreign produced drugs into 

the United States while stabilizing foreign partnerships.

Table 3-6 outlines the measures and targets that were selected to assess the progress of this Objective.

Table 3-6 Objective 6 Measures, Baselines, Targets, Data Sources, and Reporting Agencies

Measure Baseline 2015 Target Data Source Reporting 

Agency

Percent of selected 

countries on the Majors 

list* that increased their 

commitment to supply 

reduction **

TBD in CY 2012 Pending 

Baseline 

Determination

Special Survey 

by Department 

of State

Department of 

State

Percent of selected 

countries on the Majors 

list* that increased their 

commitment to demand 

reduction **

TBD in CY 2012 Pending 

Baseline 

Determination

Special Survey 

by Department 

of State

Department of 

State

Percent of Majors list 

countries showing 

progress since 2009 in 

reducing either cultivation or drug production 

potential 

Baseline 

year of 2009

100% Department of 

State

Department of 

State

Number of international 

CPOT-linked organizations disrupted or 

dismantled

65 (2009) 60 Priority Target 

Activity and 

Resource 

Reporting 

System (PTARRS)

DEA 

* Majors list—“Major ” countries are countries that are classified as major drug transit or drug producing countries for 

the purpose of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA).

**As these measures are new additional time is needed for the development and testing of the methodology, and 

analyzing the data for consistency and accuracy.
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 23 ★

Analysis of Measures

Percent of selected countries on the Majors list that increased their commitment to supply reduction efforts, and, Percent of selected countries on the Majors list that increased their commitment 

to demand reduction efforts

Increased commitment by a Majors list country is an indicator of its intent to curb the flow of illegal 

drugs into the United States and address substance abuse domestically. “Major” countries are countries 

that are classified as major drug transit or drug producing countries for the purpose of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA). ONDCP will work with the State Department’s Bureau of International 

Law Enforcement to develop procedures for the first year that will establish a baseline and eventually 

a FY 2015 target based on a selected list of countries from the Majors list for which these data are available, specifically Afghanistan, Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru and the Dominican 

Republic. The information collected will track historical support over time within a country for both 

supply and demand efforts. 

The definitions for support of supply and demand efforts are as follows:

• Supply Reduction. International partner support, including financial resources, for drug crop 

eradication, drug interdiction, judicial and law enforcement programs and institutional strengthening focused on drug trafficking.

• Demand Reduction. International partner support , including financial resources, for drug 

prevention programs, to include: media, education programs in the public schools, testing, 

community organization, family focused programs, and training to recognize drug abuse in 

schools and the workplace, professional training, research and development, drug abuse treatment programs and facilities, and alternatives to incarceration such as drug courts.

Percent of Majors list countries showing progress in reducing either cultivation or drug production potential 

Reducing the cultivation or drug production potential of a Majors list country represents a success 

of international efforts to reduce the flow of illicit drugs. “Majors list” countries are those that meet 

specific State Department criteria for illicit drug production or transit of illicit drugs. Currently the following countries are classified as major drug-transit or drug-producing countries for purposes of the 

FAA: Afghanistan, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 

Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela. 

The Majors list countries for which 2009 data exist that can be used to track this measure include: 

Afghanistan, Burma, Laos, Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. For these countries, the cultivation or 

production of opium poppy, heroin, coca, and marijuana will be estimated.

The baseline that will be used is 2009 and the target is 100 percent, meaning, between 2009 and 2015, 

all of the selected seven Majors list countries should show progress in reducing drug cultivation or 

production.
★ 24 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Number of CPOT-linked international organizations disrupted or dismantled 

The Department of Justice’s Consolidated Priority Organization Targets (CPOTs) are the most significant 

international drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for 

the Nation’s drug supply.16 Disrupting and dismantling CPOT-linked international organizations has great 

impact on the Nation’s illicit drug supply and the flow of foreign-produced drugs into the United States. 

DEA, OCDETF, FBI, DHS, and the HIDTA program all focus on disrupting and dismantling priority drug 

trafficking organizations linked to DOJ’s CPOT list and each agency documents its achievements in its 

own database.  Since these databases use varying definitions and methodologies, the Working Group 

selected DEA’s Priority Target Activity and Resource Reporting System (PTARRS) as a proxy data source 

representing the interagency focus in this area. 

16. Definition source: Department of Justice Performance and Accountability Report
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 25 ★

Objective 7—Improve Information Systems for Analysis, Assessment, and 

Local Management

Using data for evidence-based decision making is the cornerstone of a strategic approach to both supply 

and demand reduction efforts. Currently, there are over 70 drug-related data systems that are used to 

inform policy and decision making. The primary systems identified by the Strategy include:

− National Survey on Drug Use and Health

− Monitoring the Future

− Drug Abuse Warning Network

− National Forensic Laboratory Information System

− National Seizure System

− Drug and Alcohol Services Information System

− System to Retrieve Information on Drug Evidence

− Youth Risk Behavior System

− Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

− Vital Statistics Multiple Cause Mortality Data

− Uniform Crime Reports

Objective 7 addresses existing data deficiencies for the purpose of informing drug-related policy, decision making, and performance monitoring. Improvements in data systems will contribute to more 

effective programs, policies, initiatives, and performance monitoring, thereby contributing indirectly 

to the Strategy’s Goals and Objectives. 

Table 3-7 outlines the measures and targets that were selected to assess the progress of this Objective.
★ 26 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Table 3-7 Objective 7 Measures, Baselines, Targets, Data Sources, and Reporting Agencies

Measure 2010 

Baseline

2015 Target Data Source Reporting 

Agency

Increase timeliness (year-end 

to date-of-release) of select 

Federal data sets above their 

baseline by 10%

Treatment Episode Data 

Set(TEDS)17

15 months 13 months SAMHSA SAMHSA

Increase the utilization 

(number of annual web hits, or 

number of documents referencing the source) of select 

Federal data sets by 10% from 

the baseline

Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Data Archive (SAMHDA)

200,000 web 

hits per year

300,000 web 

hits per year

SAMHDA SAMHSA

National Survey of Drug Use 

and Health (NSDUH) (Journal 

articles referencing NSDUH)

37 per year 50 per year SAMHSA SAMHSA

Increase Federal data sets that 

establish feedback mechanisms to measure usefulness 

(surveys, focus groups, etc.)

SAMHSA Funded Data Sets18 0 1 CBHSQ/

SAMHSA

SAMHSA

Analysis of Measures1718

Federal data sets that increase timeliness of data by 10 percent 

The timeliness of federal data sets was identified as an area for improvement. Improved timeliness 

and reduced lag times between an event and reporting it, allows policy and decision makers to 

more quickly address new and emerging threats. The faster data is reported after it is collected, 

the more actionable and relevant it becomes. The Drug Abuse Warning Network and Treatment 

Episode Data Sets reports were identified as important data sources and good candidates for improving lag times between collection and reporting. Given year-to-year variation in reporting times, 

targets for this measure were developed based on historical 3-year moving average of timeliness.

 

17. The 3-year moving timeliness of the initial TEDS report over the period 2002-2008 was used to estimate the 

3-year average timeliness in 2010 (for the 2008 report). 

18. SAMHSA is sponsoring a conference for the users of SAMHSA’s data sets; conference will generate 

recommendations for implementation.
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 27 ★

Federal data sets that increase utilization of data by 10 percent 

The rate of utilization of Federal data sets is a clear indication of the relevance, utility, and importance 

of the data that is being reported. Improved data sets can better inform policy, program development 

and management. Two key sources of data are the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive 

(SAMHDA) and the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). SAMHDA promotes the access 

and use of the nation’s preeminent substance abuse and mental health research data by assuring 

accurate public use data files and documentation. The NSDUH is a key source of data on drug use in 

the United States. 

The baseline for SAMHDA web hits per year is based on current SAMHSA information and sets a target of 

300,000 web hits per year by 2015. The baseline for NSDUH was based on current information SAMHSA 

and sets a 2015 target of 50 journal articles/year referencing NSDUH data.

Percent of National Drug Control Strategy data actions implemented 

In order to reduce data gaps, the Strategy outlines a series of actions to help attain Objective 7. These are:

• Sustain and Enhance Existing Federal Data Systems

• Collect further data on drugged driving

• Enhance the Drug Abuse Warning Network emergency department data system

• Improve the National Survey on Drug Use and Health

• Sustain Support for the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System

• Better Assess Price and Purity of Illicit Drugs on the Street

• Strengthen Drug Information Systems Focused on Arrestees and Incarcerated Individuals

• Develop and Implement Measures of Drug Consumption

• Transition Drug Seizure Tracking to the National Seizure System

• Enhance the Various Data that Inform Common Understanding of Global Illicit Drug Markets

• In Coordination with International Partners, Improve Capacity for More Accurately, Rapidly and 

Transparently Estimating the Cultivation and Yield of Marijuana, Opium, and Coca in the World

• Develop a Community Early Warning and Monitoring System that Tracks Substance Use and 

Problem Indicators at the Local Level

ONDCP will report on the success of the interagency efforts on these actions. The current baseline is 

zero percent and the 2015 target is 100 percent completion.

Federal data sets that establish feedback mechanisms to measure usefulness

Changes in Federal data sets must be based on the program and policy needs of Federal, State and 

local stakeholders. Establishing feedback mechanisms will ensure that Federal data sets are meeting 

the needs of the individuals and organizations who use them. SAMHSA is convening a conference for 

the users of SAMHSA-supported data sets; these data sets represent a significant Federal investment in 

understanding drug use and its consequences and treatment patterns in the United States. SAMHSA’s 

conference is intended to generate recommendations, including those for improving the usefulness 

of the data sets.
★ 28 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Addendum A: ONDCP’s Statutory Requirement to Develop and Implement 

a Performance Reporting System

Section 202 of The National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006, provides: 

(c) Performance Measurement System.—Not later than February 1 of each year, the Director shall submit to Congress as part of the National Drug Control Strategy, a description of a national drug control 

performance measurement system, that:

1. Develops 2-year and 5-year performance measures and targets for each National Drug Control 

Strategy goal and objective established for reducing drug use, availability, and the consequences 

of drug use;

2. Describes the sources of information and data that will be used for each performance measure 

incorporated into the performance measurement system;

3. Identifies major programs and activities of the National Drug Control Program agencies that support 

the goals and annual objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy;

4. Evaluates the contribution of demand reduction and supply reduction activities as defined in section 702 implemented by each National Drug Control Program agency in support of the National 

Drug Control Strategy;

5. Monitors Consistency between the drug-related goals and objectives of the National Drug Control 

Program agencies and ensures that each agency’s goals and budgets support and are fully consistent 

with the National Drug Control strategy and;

6. Coordinates the development and implementation of national drug control data collection and 

reporting systems to support policy formulation and performance measurement, including an 

assessment of:

A. The quality of current drug use measurement instruments and techniques to measure supply 

reduction and demand reduction activities;

B. The adequacy of the coverage of existing national drug use measurement instruments and 

techniques to measure the illicit drug user population, and groups that are at risk for illicit drug 

use;

C. The adequacy of the coverage of existing national treatment outcome monitoring systems 

to measure the effectiveness of drug abuse treatment in reducing illicit drug use and criminal 

behavior during and after the completion of substance abuse treatment, and ;

D. The actions the Director shall take to correct any deficiencies and limitations identified pursuant 

to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this subsection
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 29 ★

Addendum B: Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and 

Performance Terms

Acronyms

ADAM Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Justice 

ATR Access to Recovery, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center 

for Substance Abuse Treatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

CBHSQ Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, SAMHSA

CBP Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

CPOT The Consolidated Organization Priority (CPOT) List identifies the most significant international drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and those primarily 

responsible for the nation’s drug supply.

CPOT-linked An organization is considered linked to a CPOT if credible evidence exists (i.e., from corroborated confidential source information, phone tolls, Title III intercepts, drug ledgers, 

financial records or other similar investigative means) of a nexus between the primary 

investigative target and a CPOT target, verified associate, or component of the CPOT 

organization.

DAWN Drug Abuse Warning Network, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice 

DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOI U.S. Department of Interior 

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DOS U.S. Department of State

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

DTO drug trafficking organization; complex organization with a highly defined command-andcontrol structure that produces, transports, and/or distributes large quantities of one or 

more illicit drugs.

DVA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

EPIC El Paso Intelligence Center, U.S. Department of Justice 

FAA Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

HIDTA High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, Office of National Drug Control Policy

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
★ 30 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services

ICE Imigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

INCSR International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, U.S. Department of State 

JRFC Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Juvenile Residential Facility 

Census, U.S. Department of Justice 

N-SSATS National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

NSDUH National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, U.S. Department of Justice 

OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice 

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, The White House 

PTARRS DOJ’s Priority Target Activity and Resource Reporting System; reports the majority of 

data concerning the number of CPOT-linked organizations collected by the Department 

of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF).

RPOT The Regional Priority Organization Target (RPOT) Lists identify those significant regional 

drug trafficking and money laundering organizations that are primarily responsible for 

regional drug threats.

RPOT-linked The RPOT Lists consist of those organizations having a significant impact on the drug 

supply within the designated OCDETF Regions. OCDETF participants apply the same 

standards for establishing a “link” to a RPOT as they use to establish a credible link to a 

CPOT. 

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services

SBIRT Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

SBA Small Business Administration

TEDS-A Treatment Episode Data Set on Admissions, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

TEDS-D Treatment Episode Data Set on Discharges, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

UDS Uniform Data System, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services 

UCR Uniform Crime Report, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice

USCG United States Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 31 ★

Abbreviations

Majors list—countries that are classified as major drug transit or drug producing countries 

for the purpose of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; Currently the following countries meet 

State Department criteria for illicit drug production or transit: Afghanistan, the Bahamas, Bolivia, 

Brazil, Burma, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, 

Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela.

PRS Steering Committee—comprised of senior agency officials familiar with drug control issues, policies, and programs. This Committee’s primary roles are to advise the Director of ONDCP on the design 

and implementation of the PRS, serve as primary liaisons with their agencies, bring individual agency 

concerns to the table for discussion, and to review the recommendations of the Working Groups.

The Strategy—2010 National Drug Control Strategy—guide for the nation in controlling the use 

and consequences of the illicit use of drugs.

PRS Working Groups—representatives from the Federal drug control agencies whose purpose was to address the seven Objectives of the Strategy; working groups included agency 

subject matter experts, policy and program analysts, statisticians, researchers, line managers, and 

other drug program or data experts knowledgeable of drug control programs, policy, and research. 

Representatives from the following Federal agencies participated in the Working Group activities: the 

Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, 

Labor, Transportation, Treasury, State, Veterans Affairs, and the Small Business Administration. 

Performance Terms

Impact Target—shows the impact of policies, programs, and initiatives.

Intermediate Outcome—result or event occurring from actions taken by entities other than 

the agencies responsible for the joint outcome and that are likely to lead to the achievement 

of desired outcomes. These usually occur between outputs (services or products delivered) 

and outcomes reflecting the purpose of the policy or program.

Performance Measure—represents the specific characteristic or aspect of the program (or 

policy) that is used to gauge performance. For instance, a measure for “drug use” might be the 

percent of the population that used drugs in the past 30 days. 

Performance Reporting System (PRS)—performance monitoring and assessment mechanism 

for gauging the effectiveness of the Strategy.

Performance Target—shows the desired level of performance to be achieved during a specified fiscal year for that measure. 

Reporting Agency—The Reporting Agency is the agency responsible for ensuring that the 

data are collected and reported to ONDCP. However, multiple agencies contribute to achieving 

the Strategy’s Goals and Objectives through programs, policies, etc.
★ 32 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Addendum C: Goals, Objectives, Measures, Baselines and FY 2015 Targets

National Drug Control Strategy Goals

Goals Measures Baseline (Year) FY15 Target Data Source

Strategy Goal 1—

Curtail Illicit Drug 

Consumption in 

America

Decrease the 

30-day prevalence of drug use 

among 12 - 17 

year olds by 15%

10.0 (2009) 8.5 NSDUH

Decrease the lifetime prevalence 

of 8th graders 

who have used 

drugs, alcohol, or 

tobacco by 15%

TBD TBD MTF

Decrease the 

30-day prevalence of drug use 

among young 

adults aged 18 - 

25 by 10%

21.2 (2009) 19.1 NSDUH

Reduce the number of chronic 

drug users by 

15%

TBD TBD Data Source TBD

Strategy Goal 

2—Improve the 

Public Health and 

Public Safety of the 

American People 

by Reducing the 

Consequences of 

Drug Abuse

Reduce druginduced death by 

15%

12.8 (2009) 10.9 CDC 

Reduce drugrelated morbidity 

by 15%

TBD TBD Data Source TBD

Reduce the 

prevalence of 

drugged driving 

by 10%

4.4 (2009) 4.0 NSDUH

TBD: To be Determined
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 33 ★

PRS Objectives

Objectives Measures Baseline (Year) FY15 Target Data Source

Objective 1—

Strengthen Efforts 

to Prevent Drug Use 

in Our Communities

Percent of 

respondents, 

ages 12 - 17, who 

perceive a great 

risk in smoking 

marijuana once or 

twice a week

 49.3 (2009) 51.2 NSDUH

Percent of 

respondents, 

ages 12 - 17, who 

perceive a great 

risk in consumption of one or 

more packs of 

cigarettes per day

65.8 (2009) 68.0 NSDUH

Percent of 

respondents, 

ages 12 - 17, who 

perceive a great 

risk in four or five 

drinks once or 

twice per week

39.9 (2009) 41.4 NSDUH

Average age of 

initiation for all 

illicit drugs

17.6 (2009) 19.5 NSDUH

Average age 

of initiation for 

alcohol use

16.9 (2009) 21.0* NSDUH

Average age 

of initiation for 

tobacco use

17.5 (2009) 18.0 NSDUH
★ 34 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

PRS Objectives

Objectives Measures Baseline (Year) FY15 Target Data Source

Objective 2—Seek 

Early Intervention 

Opportunities in 

Health Care

Percent of 

Federally 

Qualified Health 

Center grantees 

providing SBIRT 

services

10% (2009) 15% Uniform Data 

System

Percent of 

respondents in 

the past year 

using prescription-type drugs 

non-medically, 

age 12 - 17

7.7 (2009) 6.5 NSDUH

Percent of 

respondents in 

the past year 

using prescription-type drugs 

non-medically, 

age 18 - 25

15 (2009) 12.8 NSDUH

Percent of 

respondents in 

the past year 

using prescription-type drugs 

non-medically, 

age 26+

4.7 (2009) 4.0 NSDUH
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 35 ★

PRS Objectives

Objectives Measures Baseline (Year) FY15 Target Data Source

Objective 3—

Integrate Treatment 

for Substance Use 

Disorders into 

Health Care, and 

Expand Support for 

Recovery

Percent of 

treatment plans 

completed

45.1 (2007) 50.0 TEDS

Percent of 

Health Center 

grantees providing substance 

abuse counseling 

and treatment 

services

23% (2009) 23% Uniform Data 

System

Percent of treatment facilities 

offering at least 

4 of the standard spectrum 

of recovery 

services (child 

care, transportation assistance, 

employment 

assistance, housing assistance, 

discharge planning, and aftercare counseling)

35.5 (2008) 39 NSSATS

Objective 4—

Break the Cycle of 

Drug Use, Crime, 

Delinquency, and 

Incarceration

Percent of 

residential 

facilities in the 

Juvenile Justice 

System offering 

substance abuse 

treatment

85.0 (2006) 90.0 Juvenile 

Residential Facility 

Census

Percent of 

treatment plans 

completed by 

those referred 

by the Criminal 

Justice System

46.8 (2007) 49.1 TEDS-D
★ 36 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Objective 5—Disrupt 

Domestic Drug 

Trafficking and 

Production

Number of 

domestic CPOTlinked organizations disrupted or 

dismantled 

299 (2009) 380 PTARRS

Number of RPOTlinked organizations disrupted or 

dismantled

119 (2009) 90 DOJ database 

on RPOT-linked 

organizations

Number of meth lab 

incidents

9,723 (2009) 7,293

Objective 6—

Strengthen 

International 

Partnerships and 

Reduce the Availability 

of Foreign-Produced 

Drugs in the United 

States

Percent of selected 

countries on the 

Majors list that 

increased their 

commitment by 

increasing their 

budgets for supply 

reduction

TBD in 2012 Dept. of State - 

Special survey

Percent of selected 

countries on the 

Majors list that 

increased their 

commitment 

by increasing 

their budgets for 

demand reduction

TBD in 2012 Dept. of State - 

Special survey

Percent of Majors 

list countries showing progress since 

2009 in reducing 

either cultivation 

of drug production 

potential

Baseline of 2009 100 Dept. of State 

records

Number of international CPOT-linked 

organizations 

disrupted or 

dismantled 

65 (2009) 60 PTARRS

PRS Objectives

Objectives Measures Baseline (Year) FY15 Target Data Source
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 37 ★

Objective 7—

Improve Information 

Systems for Analysis, 

Assessment, and 

Local Management

Increase timeliness (year-end to 

date-of-release) 

of select Federal 

data sets above 

their baseline by 

10% - TEDS

15 months 13 months SAMHSA

Increase the utilization (number 

of annual web 

hits, or number 

of documents 

referencing the 

source) 

• SAMHDA

• NSDUH 

- 200,000 web 

hits/year

- 37/year

- 300,000 web 

hits/year

- 50/year

SAMHDA 

SAMHSA

Increase Federal 

data sets that 

establish feedback mechanisms 

to measure usefulness (surveys, 

focus groups, 

etc.) – SAMHSAfunded data sets

0 1 CBHSQ/SAMHSA

* Age 21 is the end goal we are seeking; while it will be a challenge to achieve this by 2015, we do not want to lose sight of this intent.

PRS Objectives

Objectives Measures Baseline (Year) FY15 Target Data Source
★ 38 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Addendum D: Template & Process for Identifying Outcome Measures

Figure D-1: Template 

Process

Identifying performance outcome measures and targets involved collaboration among many participants especially the representatives of organizational units contributing to the achievement of the 

targets. Based on previous experience, ONDCP developed the template above for working through the 

various viewpoints of persons with different perspectives on the joint mission, following diverse professional disciplines, and subject to varying institutional and data constraints. It allowed for a systematic 

assessment of options to arrive at majority, if not consensus, decisions. 

It was important to establish an interagency Steering Committee of key senior officials and involve it in 

setting up working groups grouped by objective (or set of similar objectives). Working group members 

were expected to contribute expertise in policy, program, research, data, budget, and performance 

areas. For smooth functioning, working group chairs were trained in using these procedures (template 

above) before working group meetings commenced.

The working group process took about 3 meetings of two hours each. Especially thorny areas required 

an additional session. The final selection was then presented to the Steering Committee for review and 

adoption.

How to identify 

outcome measures 

for the Objective?* 

(Facilitator)

What are possible 

outcome measures?

What data needed? 

Numerator? 

Denominator?

Are these 

data 

available?

Candidate 

outcomes from last 

meeting

Additional 

considerations

Selected outcome 

measures Data sources

Which agency 

reports?

Agency POC 

for reporting

Baseline data: 

use most 

recent year 

available 

(specify which 

year)

Data for 

year 1 

before 

baseline

Year 2 

before 

baseline ... ... ...

Target 

for year

Final WG draft 

measures & targets Gaps in data

Data gap 

recommendations

Select 

presenter to 

interagency 

committee

1st meeting

Are there any 

additional costs to get 

the data? How much?

Are these data appropriate 

for assessing the outcome? 

**

When are data 

reported? 

(timeliness)

Candidate 

outcome 

measures

3rd meeting

NOTE: Homework at the end of each meeting is to (i) review decisions made at previous meeting, and (ii) draft responses for decisions to be made at the next meeting.

* What does success look like? (What are the indicators that show reduction in the problem implied in the Objective?)

** Will we know we are making a difference if we use this measure & data?

2nd meeting
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 39 ★

Each working group used the following process (completing its own template spreadsheet) to 

develop and refine measures and targets for each objective:19

• Brainstorming about candidate measures for the assigned objective

• Identifying available data sources

• Evaluating data sources

• Assessing, ranking, and selecting measures

• Identifying targets based on trend lines for each selected measure

Working groups drew on the most current research and data available to make final selections of 

performance measures and targets for each objective. Research findings often suggested optimal 

performance measures. However, data limitations often precluded the use of these ideal measures. 

In such cases, working groups identified proxy measures or developed a suite of measures to reflect 

various aspects of performance. 

The following criteria were useful in selecting among candidate performance measures, enabling 

consistency across objectives. To assess effectiveness, performance measures should:

• Be quantifiable;

• Be clear in meaning to both analysts and lay readers;

• Be a valid indicator for the objective—that is, a plausible indication of success in achieving the 

objective20;

• Be supported by a data set that is representative of the event/concept being measured (that is, 

data based on nationally representative samples in preference to data collected unsystematically 

or narrowly focused on a particular region or subpopulation); and 

• Be an outcome or an intermediate outcome.21

Additionally, each performance measure:

• May reflect the contributions of more than one agency. For interagency missions, the measures 

should reflect the collective work of contributing agencies in achieving a particular objective;

• Should allow the documentation of small changes. Measures with baselines that are very low 

or very high will make it more difficult to document change. Also, if the pre-baseline trend is 

almost a straight line, it may be hard to document change unless some new factor is anticipated 

that is likely to affect change (e.g. innovations anticipated);

• Have data sources that are as unbiased, continuous, and likely to have funding until FY 2015, 

the target year;

19. This process described earlier in the body of this report is detailed here in order to present a full picture of the 

interagency process.

20. Psychometric terms such as “validity” should be made user-friendly. 

21. An intermediate outcome occurs between outputs (services or products delivered) and outcomes (that 

reflect the purposes of the program or policy). An intermediate outcome is an event or result occurring from actions 

undertaken by entities other than the agencies responsible for the joint outcome and that are strongly likely to lead to 

the achievement of desired outcomes.
★ 40 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

• Be unambiguous—(e.g. price and purity are ambiguous measures since they are affected by 

both the demand reduction and the supply reduction of drugs); and

• Be complementary—that is, represent different aspects of success in achieving the objective. 

In recognition of the limitations imposed by insufficient data, working groups recommended that 

annual reporting include discussion of appropriate auxiliary data when assessing target achievement. 

A presentation of the context of performance will allow for a more complete interpretation of results. 

For instance, measures on prescription drug abuse can be augmented by information on the extent to 

which early intervention opportunities in the health care system are available. Similarly, since there is 

no national data on recidivism rates, the annual report can include discussion of available State and/or 

local recidivism data until a national rate becomes available. 

The process described above were captured on templates that reflected each stage in the decision 

process—with candidate measures, available data sources, existing time-series data, working group 

assessments about the reliability and validity of each measure and its data, and additional concerns 

about each measure under consideration. The process was expedited by projecting at each meeting 

an on-line template on a large screen and participant comments and ideas added to the template in 

real-time.  This ensured that everyone’s comments were entered, assessed, and decisions made clear 

to all.  Completed templates were sent to each participant after each meeting, enabling the completion of preparatory work for the next meeting. The next meeting started with the final template of the 

previous meeting.

Once each group was confident that it had fully discussed the range of possible measures, it ranked 

each measure on a scale of 1-3:

Ranking 1—The measure and data meet most of the criteria listed above. For example, the measure 

is a valid interagency outcome measure and there are adequate data collected on a regular basis that 

allows the detection of small changes.

Ranking 2—The measure and/or data do not meet key elements of the criteria listed above. For example, 

the measure is an interagency outcome measure but the data are not collected routinely. Or, the data 

are representative and reported annually but the measure does not adequately reflect the achievement 

of the objective.

Ranking 3—Both the measure and the data have significant deficiencies with respect to the criteria 

identified above. For example, the measure does not reflect achieving the objective and the data are 

not reliable or credible.

The highest-ranked measures were thereafter refined and the best ones selected. Historical 

trends (starting with baseline data) were identified for determining feasible long-term targets 

for each of the final measures: budget projections were also considered. The final selection was 

presented to the Steering Committee of senior officials for modification and adoption.
C hapter 3: PRS Measures and Targets for Strategy Objectives

★ 41 ★

Addendum E: PRS Interagency Steering Committee Members

U.S. Department of Defense

William Wechsler, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Counternarcotics and Global Threats) 

Caryn Hollis, Principal Director (Counternarcotics and Global Threats)

U.S. Department of Education

Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Norris Dickard, Director, Drug-Violence Prevention—National Programs, Office of Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Richard Frank, Ph. D., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Disability, Aging, and Long-Term Care Policy, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)

Peter Delany, Director, Office of Applied Studies, (SAMHSA)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Kimberly O’Connor, Ph.D., Chief of Staff, Counternarcotics Enforcement,

Bruce Lichtman, Assistant Director of Policy, Counternarcotics Enforcement 

U.S. Department of the Interior

John Rolla, Branch Chief, Drug Enforcement

U.S. Department of Justice 

Thomas Padden, Deputy Director, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces

Jeffrey Sutton, Assistant Director, Justice Management Division 

U.S. Department of Labor

Barbara DesMarteau, ETA—Deputy Assistant Secretary

Karen Staha, ETA—Director, Division of Performance Accountability, Office of Performance and 

Technology, Employment and Training Administration 

U.S. Department of State 

James A. Walsh, Deputy Executive Director, Bureau of International Narcotics & Law Enforcement

U.S. Department of Transportation

Jim L. Swart, Director Office of Drug & Alcohol Policy & Compliance 

Bob Ashby, Deputy Assistant General Counsel 
★ 42 ★

2012 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Stephen Haselton, Director, Treasury Operations Center

Martin Melone, Director Strategic Planning and Performance Management 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Robert L. Jesse, MD, Ph.D., Acting Principal Deputy Under-Secretary for Health 

John Paul Allen, Ph. D., Associate Chief Consultant for Addictive Disorders 

Small Business Administration

Meaghan K. Burdick, Deputy Chief of Staff and White House Liaison

Antonio Doss, Associate Administrator, Office of Small Business Development Centers