[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Assessment of Exposure to High-Performing Schools and Risk of Adolescent Substance UseA Natural Experiment

Educational Objective To review if exposure to high-performing school environments is associated with a reduction in risky health behaviors for low-income minority high school students.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  Is exposure to high-performing school environments associated with a reduction in risky health behaviors for low-income minority high school students?

Findings  In this natural experiment of 1270 students who applied via admissions lotteries to high-performing public charter schools in low-income minority communities in Los Angeles, California, lottery winners had lower marijuana misuse scores, fewer marijuana-using peers, less truancy, greater teacher support for college, more orderly school environments, and less school mobility and spent more time studying than lottery losers.

Meaning  School environments may influence risky health behaviors and constitute an important prevention tool and target for addressing the social determinants of health.

Abstract

Importance  Although school environments are thought to influence health behaviors, experimental data assessing causality are lacking, and which aspects of school environments may be most important for adolescent health are unknown.

Objective  To test whether exposure to high-performing schools is associated with risky adolescent health behaviors.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This natural experiment used admission lotteries, which mimic random assignment, to estimate the association of school environments and adolescent health. A survey of 1270 students who applied to at least 1 of 5 high-performing public charter schools in low-income minority communities in Los Angeles, California. Schools had an academic performance ranked in the top tertile of Los Angeles County public high schools, applicants outnumbered available seats by at least 50, and an admissions lottery was used. Participants included lottery winners (intervention group [n = 694]) and lottery losers (control group [n = 576]) from the end of 8th grade and beginning of 9th grade through the end of 11th grade. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and instrumental variable techniques estimated the association of winning the lottery and attending high-performing schools with health behaviors and whether the association varied by sex. Data were collected from March 11, 2013, through February 22, 2017, and analyzed from October 1, 2017, through July 1, 2018.

Exposures  Schools were considered high performing if they placed in the top tercile of public high schools in LA County on 2012 state standardized tests. Most students attended that same school for 3 years (9th-11th grades).

Main Outcomes and Measures  Primary self-reported outcomes were 30-day and high-risk self-reported marijuana use. Additional health outcomes included 30-day alcohol use, alcohol misuse, ever being in a fight, ever having sex, and past-year delinquency. Potential intermediate factors (time studying, truancy, school mobility, school culture, school order, teacher support for college, and proportion of substance-using peers in students’ social networks) were also examined.

Results  Among the 1270 participating students (52.6% female; mean [SD] age at enrollment, 14.3 [0.5] years), ITT analysis showed that the intervention group reported less marijuana misuse than the control group (mean marijuana misuse score, 0.46 vs 0.71), as well as fewer substance-using peers (9.6% vs 12.7%), more time studying (mean, 2.63 vs 2.49 hours), less truancy (84.3% vs 77.3% with no truancy), greater teacher support for college (mean scores, 7.20 vs 7.02), more orderly schools (mean order score, 7.06 vs 6.83), and less school mobility (21.4% vs 28.4%) (all P < .05). Stratified analyses suggest that among boys, intervention participants had significantly lower marijuana use (mean misuse score, 0.43 vs 0.88; difference, −0.45; 95% CI, −0.78 to −0.13) and alcohol misuse (mean misuse score, 0.52 vs 0.97; difference, −0.44; 95% CI, −0.80 to −0.09) scores compared with control participants, whereas no significant health outcomes were noted for girls.

Conclusions and Relevance  This natural experiment provides evidence that school environments can improve risky behaviors for low-income minority adolescents.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: July 6, 2018.

Corresponding Author: Rebecca N. Dudovitz, MD, MS, Department of Pediatrics and Children’s Discovery and Innovation Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Room 12-358 CHS, Mail Code 175217, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (rdudovitz@mednet.ucla.edu).

Published Online: October 29, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.3074

Author Contributions: Dr Dudovitz had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Dudovitz, Chung, Wong.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Dudovitz, Shoptaw, Wong.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Chung, Reber, Kennedy, Tucker, Shoptaw, Dosanjh, Wong.

Statistical analysis: Reber, Wong.

Obtained funding: Chung, Wong.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Dudovitz, Kennedy, Dosanjh, Wong.

Supervision: Wong.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants RO1 DA033362 and 1K23DA040733-01A1 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health (NIH); grant UL1TR001881 from the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science, Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI), UCLA; and the Lincy Foundation through the UCLA CTSI Healthy Neighborhood Schools Initiative.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsor had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
Adler  NE, Glymour  MM, Fielding  J.  Addressing social determinants of health and health inequalities.  JAMA. 2016;316(16):1641-1642. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.14058PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Braveman  P, Egerter  S, Williams  DR.  The social determinants of health: coming of age.  Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:381-398. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101218PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Viner  RM, Ozer  EM, Denny  S,  et al.  Adolescence and the social determinants of health.  Lancet. 2012;379(9826):1641-1652. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60149-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Cutler  DM, Lleras-Muney  A.  Understanding differences in health behaviors by education.  J Health Econ. 2010;29(1):1-28. doi:10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.10.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Lewallen  TC, Hunt  H, Potts-Datema  W, Zaza  S, Giles  W.  The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child model: a new approach for improving educational attainment and healthy development for students.  J Sch Health. 2015;85(11):729-739. doi:10.1111/josh.12310PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Bonell  C, Parry  W, Wells  H,  et al.  The effects of the school environment on student health: a systematic review of multi-level studies.  Health Place. 2013;21:180-191. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2012.12.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Dudovitz  RN, Nelson  BB, Coker  TR,  et al.  Long-term health implications of school quality.  Soc Sci Med. 2016;158:1-7. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Shackleton  N, Jamal  F, Viner  R,  et al.  Systematic review of reviews of observational studies of school-level effects on sexual health, violence and substance use.  Health Place. 2016;39:168-176. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.04.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Campbell  F, Conti  G, Heckman  JJ,  et al.  Early childhood investments substantially boost adult health.  Science. 2014;343(6178):1478-1485. doi:10.1126/science.1248429PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Muennig  P, Schweinhart  L, Montie  J, Neidell  M.  Effects of a prekindergarten educational intervention on adult health: 37-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial.  Am J Public Health. 2009;99(8):1431-1437. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.148353PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Wong  MD, Coller  KM, Dudovitz  RN,  et al.  Successful schools and risky behaviors among low-income adolescents.  Pediatrics. 2014;134(2):e389-e396. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-3573PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Fryer  RG  Jr, Katz  LF.  Achieving escape velocity: neighborhood and school interventions to reduce persistent inequality.  Am Econ Rev. 2013;103(3):232-237. doi:10.1257/aer.103.3.232Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Dobbie  W, Fryer  RG  Jr.  The medium-term impacts of high-achieving charter schools.  J Polit Econ. 2015;123:985-1037. doi:10.1086/682718Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Bond  L, Patton  G, Glover  S,  et al.  The Gatehouse Project: can a multilevel school intervention affect emotional wellbeing and health risk behaviours?  J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(12):997-1003. doi:10.1136/jech.2003.009449PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Epple  D, Romano  R, Zimmer  R. Charter Schools: A Survey of Research on Their Characteristics and Effectiveness. In: Hanushek  EA, Machin  S, Woessmann  L, eds.  Handbook of the Economics of Education. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; 2016:139-208. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-63459-7.00003-8
16.
Bonell  C, Fletcher  A, Jamal  F, Aveyard  P, Markham  W.  Where next with theory and research on how the school environment influences young people’s substance use?  Health Place. 2016;40:91-97. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.05.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Booth-Kewley  S, Larson  GE, Miyoshi  DK.  Social desirability effects on computerized and paper-and-pencil questionnaires.  Comput Human Behav. 2007;23(1):463-477. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.020Google ScholarCrossref
18.
Wall  M, Cheslack-Postava  K, Hu  M-C, Feng  T, Griesler  P, Kandel  DB.  Nonmedical prescription opioids and pathways of drug involvement in the US: generational differences.  Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;182:103-111. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.10.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Volkow  ND, Baler  RD, Compton  WM, Weiss  SRB.  Adverse health effects of marijuana use.  N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2219-2227. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1402309PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Wagner  FA, Anthony  JC.  Into the world of illegal drug use: exposure opportunity and other mechanisms linking the use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine.  Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155(10):918-925. doi:10.1093/aje/155.10.918PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Edelen  MO, McCaffrey  DF, Ellickson  PL, Tucker  JS, Klein  DJ.  Creating a developmentally sensitive measure of adolescent alcohol misuse: an application of item response theory.  Subst Use Misuse. 2009;44(6):835-847. doi:10.1080/10826080802484686PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Kann  L, McManus  T, Harris  WA,  et al.  Youth risk behavior surveillance: United States, 2015.  MMWR Surveill Summ. 2016;65(6):1-174. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Murphy  DA, Brecht  M-L, Huang  D, Herbeck  DM.  Trajectories of delinquency from age 14 to 23 in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth Sample.  Int J Adolesc Youth. 2012;17(1):47-62. doi:10.1080/02673843.2011.649401PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Tucker  JS, de la Haye  K, Kennedy  DP, Green  HD, Pollard  MS.  Peer influence on marijuana use in different types of friendships.  J Adolesc Health. 2014;54(1). doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.025Google Scholar
25.
Valente  TW, Fujimoto  K, Soto  D, Ritt-Olson  A, Unger  JB.  A comparison of peer influence measures as predictors of smoking among predominately Hispanic/Latino high school adolescents.  J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(3):358-364.Google ScholarCrossref
26.
McCallister  L, Fischer  CS.  A procedure for surveying personal networks.  Sociol Methods Res. 1978;7(2):131-148. doi:10.1177/004912417800700202Google ScholarCrossref
27.
McCarty  C, Bernard  HR, Killworth  PD, Shelley  GA, Johnsen  EC.  Eliciting representative samples of personal networks.  Soc Networks. 1997;19:303-323. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(96)00302-4Google ScholarCrossref
28.
Lee  KTH, Vandell  DL.  Out-of-school time and adolescent substance use.  J Adolesc Health. 2015;57(5):523-529. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.07.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Li  Y, Zhang  W, Liu  J,  et al.  The role of school engagement in preventing adolescent delinquency and substance use: a survival analysis.  J Adolesc. 2011;34(6):1181-1192. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Yazzie-Mintz  E.  Voices of Students on Engagement: A Report on the 2006 High School Survey of Student Engagement. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University; 2007.
31.
Matheny  AP  Jr, Wachs  TD, Ludwig  JL, Phillips  K.  Bringing order out of chaos: psychometric characteristics of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale.  J Appl Dev Psychol. 1995;16(3):429-444. doi:10.1016/0193-3973(95)90028-4Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Steinberg  MP, Allensworth  E, Johnson  DW. Student and teacher safety in Chicago public schools: the roles of community context and school social organization. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/downloads/8499safety_in_cps.pdf. May 2011. Accessed August 25, 2018.
33.
Luppescu  S, Hart  H, Rosenkranz  T,  et al.  CCRS’s Survey Reports for Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research; 2007.
34.
Hagan  J, MacMillan  R, Wheaton  B.  New kid in town: social capital and the life course effects of family migration on children.  Am Sociol Rev. 1996;61(3):368-385. doi:10.2307/2096354Google ScholarCrossref
35.
Angrist  JD, Pathak  PA, Walters  CR.  Explaining charter school effectiveness.  Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2013;5(4):1-27.Google ScholarCrossref
36.
Steinberg  L, Lamborn  SD, Darling  N, Mounts  NS, Dornbusch  SM.  Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families.  Child Dev. 1994;65(3):754-770. doi:10.2307/1131416PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Chen  P, Jacobson  KC.  Developmental trajectories of substance use from early adolescence to young adulthood: gender and racial/ethnic differences.  J Adolesc Health. 2012;50(2):154-163. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.05.013PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Chun  H, Mobley  M.  Gender and grade-level comparisons in the structure of problem behaviors among adolescents.  J Adolesc. 2010;33(1):197-207. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.03.010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Galama  T, Lleras-Muney  A, van Kippersluis  H. The effect of education on health and mortality: a review of experimental and quasi-experimental evidence. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. http://economics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.001.0001/acrefore-9780190625979-e-7. Accessed August 25, 2018.
40.
Flay  BR, Graumlich  S, Segawa  E, Burns  JL, Holliday  MY; Aban Aya Investigators.  Effects of 2 prevention programs on high-risk behaviors among African American youth: a randomized trial.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(4):377-384. doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.4.377PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Poulin  F, Pedersen  S.  Developmental changes in gender composition of friendship networks in adolescent girls and boys.  Dev Psychol. 2007;43(6):1484-1496. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1484PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Brener  ND, Eaton  DK, Flint  KH,  et al.  Methodology of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System–2013. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2013.
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close