ONDCP seeks to foster healthy individuals and safe communities by effectively

leading the Nation’s effort to reduce drug use and its consequences.

October 2011

Marijuana or Alcohol Use and Academic Grades

In High School, 2009

Preventing Substance Abuse

In Our Communities

Drug and alcohol use affects public health, workforce preparedness, family life, military readiness, and 

academic outcomes. Findings from national surveys show that, while rates of illicit drug use did not 

change from 2009 to 2010, rates increased between 2008 and 2010, mostly due to increased marijuana 

use. Meanwhile, there has been a decline among youth in the perceived risk of marijuana use. Research 

shows that youth drug use increases when the perceived danger of using drugs decreases.1

Substance use has been shown to be 

associated with poor academic 

performance:

9th to 12th graders who 

received mostly grades of Ds 

and Fs were twice as likely to 

be current alcohol users, five 

times more likely to be 

current marijuana users, and 

13 times more likely to be 

current cocaine users, 

compared to students 

mostly receiving A grades.2

About 25 percent of college 

students report negative 

academic consequences of 

their drinking, such as missing class, falling behind, doing poorly on exams or papers, and 

receiving lower grades overall.3

America’s young people deserve every opportunity to live up to their full potential, and exposure to 

effective drug prevention programming in our schools, homes, and communities improves their chances 

of doing so. This not only makes good common sense, it is also cost-effective: Recent research has 

shown that each dollar invested in an evidence-based prevention program can reduce substance abuse 

costs by $2 to $30.

4
ONDCP seeks to foster healthy individuals and safe communities by effectively

leading the Nation’s effort to reduce drug use and its consequences.

October 2011

A Comprehensive Approach to Drug Use Prevention

Risk factors specific to substance use (e.g., access to drugs or peers and/or parents who use drugs or 

have favorable attitudes toward drug use) must be taken into account when designing prevention 

programs. Effective drug prevention should be comprehensive in scope and include a combination of:

Evidence-based interventions (e.g., school-based programs) to address factors that can increase 

and/or decrease the likelihood of use.

Tested public education (e.g., mass media) campaigns to emphasize the importance of a healthy 

lifestyle that includes avoiding drugs.

Sound environmental strategies (e.g., road compliance checks, alcohol server training) that 

change community policies and practices to reduce access to illicit substances and enforce the 

consequences for substance-related offenses.

Guiding Prevention Principles

The National Drug Control Strategy (available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp) provides a 

blueprint for the Administration’s approach to preventing drug use. Specifically, this entails 18 action 

items that, taken together, are designed to reduce drug use in our Nation. These action items are based 

on five guiding principles:

1. A national prevention system must be grounded at the community level. The community is 

where substance abuse occurs and where prevention must happen.

2. Prevention efforts must encompass the range of settings in which young people grow up.

Effective community-based prevention requires coverage of a broad range of domains in which 

young people grow up, including families, schools, clubs, worksites, faith communities, and 

recreational programs.

3. Information on youth drug, alcohol, and tobacco use must be developed and disseminated.

Despite extraordinary advances in prevention science, the expanse of new information on the 

causes, consequences, and solutions to youth substance use has not been as widely shared as it 

should be. 

4. Criminal justice agencies and prevention organizations must collaborate. Too often, different 

agencies with different missions and limited resources operate in separate worlds.

5. Preventing drugged driving must become a national priority on par with preventing drunk 

driving. Drugged driving poses similar threats to public safety due to adverse effects on 

judgment, reaction time, motor skills, and memory.

 

1

Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2011). Monitoring the Future national results on adolescent drug use: 

Overview of key findings, 2010. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of 

National Findings, NSDUH Series H-41, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 11-4658. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration, 2011.

2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). Alcohol and other drug use and academic achievement: 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior 

Survey. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/health_and_academics/pdf/alcohol_other_drug.pdf.

3 Engs RC, Diebold BA, Hansen DJ. The drinking patterns and problems of a national sample of college students, 1994. Journal of Alcohol and 

Drug Education, 41(3):13-33, 1996.

Presley CA, Meilman PW, Cashin JR. Alcohol and Drugs on American College Campuses: Use, Consequences, and Perceptions of the 

Campus Environment, Vol. IV: 1992-1994. Carbondale, IL: Core Institute, Southern Illinois University, 1996a.

Wechsler H, Lee JE, Kuo M, Seibring M, Nelson TF, Lee HP. Trends in college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts: 

Findings from four Harvard School of Public Health study surveys, 1993-2001. Journal of American College Health 50(5):203-217, 2002.

4 Aos, S., Lee, S., Drake, E., Pennucci. A., Klima. T., Miller, M., Anderson, L., Mayfield, J., and Burley. M. (2011) Return on investment: 

Evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes (Document No. 11-07-1201). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Guyll, M., Spoth, R, and Crowley, M. (2011) Economic Analysis of Methamphetamine Prevention Effects and Employer Costs. Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Vol. 72, Issue 4: pp. 577-585.

Miller, T., Hendrie, D. Substance Abuse Prevention Dollars and Cents: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. (2009) DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 07-4298. 

Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.