Page images
PDF
EPUB

and with the Regional Centers for Drug-Free Schools and Com

munities. To date, 56 grants have been awarded. The Department of Education supports a number of projects under the category of Federal Activities. They are:

(1) One hundred and two discretionary grants were awarded to educational institutions by the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Staff to support model program development, technical assistance, and curriculum development for drug and alcohol abuse education and prevention.

(2) The department issues a bi-monthly newsletter, The Challenge Newsletter, distributed to superintendents, principals and parent groups across the country, highlights successful programs, provides the latest research on effective prevention measures and answers questions about school-based efforts.

(3) In conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services, the department supports the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information with information and materials on drug education curricula, model drug education programs, and referrals for assistance and resources.

(4) The department issues the publication Schools Without Drugs to provide assistance to schools and communities in developing a comprehensive program to prevent the use of alcohol and other drugs, including tobacco and steroids.

(5) Growing Up Drug Free: A Parent's Guide to Prevention was issued by the department and distributed to parents, educators and community groups to help families take an active role in primary drug prevention. Spanish translations were first issued in July 1990.

(6) The Office of Educational Research and Improvement supports three initiatives designed to increase the available information about drug abuse education and prevention: (1) the Drug-Free School Recognition Program honors highly rated school drug and alcohol prevention programs; (2) the Network of Drug-Free Colleges supports a national network of over 1300 colleges committed to eliminating substance abuse on their campuses; and (3) the Drug Abuse Curricula Criteria guides school districts in the selection and implementation of elementary and secondary substance abuse curricula.

(7) The Planning and Evaluation Service supports two major studies on the department's drug prevention efforts. They are: (1) a two-year evaluation, due in October of 1990, of the implementation of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act state and local programs, conducted by Research Triangle Institute; and (2) a two-and-a-half year study of promising substance use education and prevention programs under the DrugFree Recognition Schools Program and the Federal Activities Grants Program, conducted by Aguirre International, which examines community-wide comprehensive K-12 prevention models and assesses the extent to which such promising programs are successful.

(8) The department supports two additional activities to improve the quality of data collected from state and local educational agencies, and other state and community agencies that operate prevention programs. They are: (1) the development of

an evaluation handbook for school- and community-based prevention programs, which will help program administrators identify the goals and objectives of evaluation activities, and describe how to design and conduct both process and outcome evaluations; and (2) the development of model reporting forms to assist school- and community-based substance use prevention programs to collect standard data on their activities and participants, and to improve the dissemination of information on effective prevention programs to educators, prevention researchers, and parent and community organizations.

(9) The department, in accordance with its legislative mandate, is planning: (1) Emergency Grants to provide funds to school districts that demonstrate a significant need for additional assistance in combatting drug and alcohol use. Administered by the Governors, districts will compete for funding to support a comprehensive range of services. (2) Innovative Alcohol Abuse Education will fund projects to develop materials for programs of alcohol abuse education, targeting students in grades five through eight and focusing on the effect of alcoholism on families, especially on children of alcoholics. (3) Early Childhood Education Drug Prevention Materials will support the development of drug abuse education and prevention curricula, programs and training materials for use in early childhood education. The department will support contracts to develop prevention materials for young children and their par

ents and caregivers. 5. Funding

The 1990 prevention budget for the National Drug Control Strategy was $677.1 million (10.7 percent) for all 19 federal entities for Fiscal Year 1989, $1.118 billion (11.8 percent) for Fiscal Year 1990, and $1.242 billion (11.7 percent) was requested in the President's 1991 budget. (Chart follows.)

Since the submission of the January 1990 drug strategy budget, the Office of the National Drug Control Strategy has revised the budget figures within each federal entity providing demand reduction services to reflect actual monies spent. Research funds were included within the treatment and prevention disciplines. While the revised budget figures are not available at this time, the new calculations regarding research funding are as follows: total prevention research for Fiscal Year 1990 was $127.8 million, making total prevention dollars across all 19 federal entities $1,245.9 billion (13.1 percent of the total National Drug Control Strategy budget). Prevention research funding for Fiscal Year 1991 is $154 million; prevention dollars total $1.396 billion (13.1 percent of the total drug strategy budget).

The Department of Education receives by far, the largest portion of the National Drug Control Strategy budget for school-based prevention activities. The department's allocation for Fiscal Year 1989 was $355 million (52.4 percent) of the total prevention funds, $538.2 million (48.1 percent) of the total prevention funds in Fiscal Year 1990, and $593.3 million (47.7 percent) of the total prevention funds is requested in the President's Fiscal Year 1991 budget.

According to the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, the budget allocation among OSAP, NIDA and from 20 percent of the Block Grants directed for prevention-related activities was $175 million (25.8 percent) of the total prevention funds for Fiscal Year 1989, $323.8 million (28.9 percent) of the total prevention funds for Fiscal Year 1990, and $387.9 million (31.2 percent) of the total prevention funds is requested in the President's Fiscal Year 1991 budget.

The Administration's National Drug Control Strategy continues to emphasize supply reduction programs, and directs over 70 percent of the requested funds toward such activities and less than 30 percent for demand reduction efforts. Prevention programming continues to represent less than 12 percent of the total drug control strategy

[blocks in formation]

1. Federal Government

According to witnesses, interviews and research conducted by the committee, research on prevention programming efforts indicate that while there is no single measure that can provide a "magic bullet” return in the fight against drugs, there are some promising prevention approaches which when collectively utilized can positively impact American society. Results of the success of prevention efforts are illustrated by the fact that millions of people have been deterred from trying drugs through primary prevention and education, and millions of others have stopped experimenting with drugs before dependency.

Leadership Prevention planners at the state and local levels urge the Federal Government to provide stronger leadership and commitment to prevention efforts. ONDCP has not done this primarily because prevention is viewed as a relatively new discipline without a track record. Congress should examine the various agencies within the government charged with prevention activities and eliminate the

fragmentation and duplication that exists. While critics before the committee do not favor the creation of a sole entity whose responsibility would be to carry out and represent all federal agencies' prevention activities, they believe there is a critical need for coordination and cohesion in both policy and programming which would characterize an efficient, national effort. Further, it was felt that such an effort would provide better communication among federal agencies which may target similar communities without knowledge of the ventures of their counterparts, thus accounting for duplication or inconsistency in programming or policy. 33

Several witnesses and interviews revealed both curiosity and distress about the process by which ADAMHA and the Department of Education award grants. First, prevention practitioners were aggravated by the lack of information on the availability of grants and the amount of time allotted for applications. When a grant program has been announced in the Federal Register, a minimum of 60 days is required before the application deadline. More often than not however, local providers do not learn of these awards until the closing date nears. For example, representatives from the Southwestern Mexican-American communities indicated that this was a consistent problem for program managers and implementors serving their communities. 34 Jackie Butler, Director of the Alcoholism Clinic at the University of Cincinnati, has been serving communities of color and applying for grants for almost twenty years. She has been experiencing the problem of access to information on the availability of grants. She indicated that similar frustrations have been expressed by many colleagues in Ohio.35 The general consensus among witnesses and others was that stronger communication by federal and state representatives was needed on a timely basis as to the availability of relevant grants. The evidence indicates that the current process unintentionally favors larger organizations with the funds to hire professional grant writers.

Witnesses called for more accountability regarding prevention programming by the Federal Government through increased evaluations of programs and prevention research which includes analyses of the types of strategies working in communities of color. More effective legislation is needed to codify and improve existing laws which would better guide Congress in the decision-making process. These efforts in turn would make state agencies more effective and accountable to state legislatures.

Further, as a result of roller coaster funding cycles which depend on the commitments and biases of changing administrations, concern was expressed about the limited experience with prevention theory of government officials who are charged with administering and funding critical prevention efforts. Long time practitioners in the field attested to the extent to which it was necessary to keep

33 Cohen, July 17, 1990. op. cit. pp. 2-4.

34 Conference call with Charlene Doria Ortiz and 9 other representatives of the Mexican American communities of the Southwest. March 23, 1990.

35 Interview with Jackie Butler, Director, Alcoholism Clinic, and Associate Professor, University of Cincinnati. August 8, 1990.

"reinventing the wheel" with each change of government leader

ship.36

Funding A major concern was voiced for continuous and increased funds for prevention services. Prevention practitioners in Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles indicated anxiety about whether funding for federally-backed projects would continue. In most cases, local and state governments were unable to resume funding or provide technical expertise for community demonstration projects initiated by the Federal Government in the communities. According to Lonnie Wilson, Representative of the Community Youth Gang Services, "major obstacles (at the community level] and barriers to prevention participation) are other agencies competing for the same funds and their inability to network with each other.” 37 There was a consensus among community groups calling for direct access to all prevention funds from the Federal Government, echoing the thinking of the U.S. Conference of Mayors that bureaucratic "red tape" could be avoided and resources provided in a more expeditious manner to those who need them most through direct funding. 38

Speaking to the issue of direct funding for enforcement efforts, and later using this reasoning to apply to demand reduction strate gies in general, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has stated that, “experience to date has shown that only a small percentage of federal anti-drug funds has actually reached city governments, and that it has taken a long time for those funds to arrive." 39 According to J. Thomas Cochran, Executive Director of the Conference, of the total of $117,691,000 allocated to the 50 states and territories through the formula grants program for law enforcement, only 12 percent of $14.4 million was awarded to cities. 40 Philadelphia Mayor W. Wilson Goode articulated the Conference's concerns when he testified before the committee:

the Act solely authorized allocations to the states. As a result, they have had limited impact on the City of Philadelphia, since a major portion of the funds has been allocated on the basis of priorities established by the state, and not on local priorities determined by local authorities. In addition, initial distribution of funds to the cities for treatment took much longer than the urgency of the problem dictated it should have taken. In Philadelphia, for instance, we had to wait 18 months for our first share of federal funds. 41

36 Ibid.

37 Responses to questions from Lonnie Wilson, Representative, Community Youth Gang Services for the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, August 1990, p. 7.

38 Martin Tolchin, “Mayors Seek More U.S. Drug Aid,” The New York Times, January 25, 1990, p. 1.

38 J. Thomas Cochran, Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors memorandum on direct funding to its Task Force on Drug Control. January 24, 1990.

41 Statement of the Honorable W. Wilson Goode, Mayor of Philadelphia before the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, April 17, 1990, p. 3.

40 Ibid.

« PreviousContinue »