TRANSLATION

Also presented in Guam and Samoa, Filipino, Korean and Vietnamese.

TRANSLATION For Too Many Parents, Drugs Can Cause Blindness Many [Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese] children have tried drugs. Sadly, too many parents don’t believe that their own children could use drugs. There are several things you can do to help keep your children’s life drug-free. First of all, talk with them about the dangers of drugs. Also, know who their friends are, and make sure that your children have something to do after school like homework or sports. Let them see that you care about keeping drugs out of their future. Office of National Drug Control Policy Partnership for a Drug-Free America

Top

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities²

The U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free School Program (SDFSP) is the federal government’s primary vehicle for reducing drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, and violence, through education and prevention activities in our nation’s schools. The program provides support for research-based approaches to drug and violence prevention that are designed to prevent violence in and around schools and to strengthen programs that prevent the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs; that involve parents; and that are coordinated with related Federal, State, and community efforts and resources.

The SDFSP consists of two major parts: 1) State Grants for Drug and Violence Prevention Program; and 2) National Programs. State Grants is a formula grant program that provides funds to state and local education agencies, and governors, for a broad range of school- and community-based education and prevention activities. National Programs carries out a variety of discretionary initiatives that respond to emerging needs and national priorities. To improve the accountability of grants funded under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), Department regulations require that State and local grant recipients use their funds for prevention strategies that are based on the SDFSP Principles of Effectiveness. Examples of National Programs activities include direct grants to school districts and communities with severe drug and violence problems, program evaluation, and information development and dissemination.

Key initiatives of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program in 2000 have included the following discretionary grant programs: 1) Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative; 2) Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Program Coordinators Initiative; and 3) Effective Alternative Strategies to Reduce Student Suspensions and Expulsions and Ensure Educational Progress of Suspended and Expelled Students.

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, now in its second year, is a unique grant program jointly administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice. In April 2000, President Clinton announced more than $41 million in grants to 23 communities to make schools safer, to foster children’s healthy development and to prevent aggressive and violent behavior and drug and alcohol use among youth. The Initiative supports urban, rural, suburban and tribal school district efforts to link prevention activities and community-based services, including enhanced educational, mental health, social service, law enforcement, and as appropriate, juvenile justice system services. Added to 54 Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) projects funded in 1999, the new grants bring the total number of SS/HS grants to 77 nationwide. A national evaluation of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative is being conducted to document the effectiveness of collaborative community-wide efforts to promote safe schools and provide opportunities for healthy childhood development.

The Middle School Drug Prevention and School Safety Program Coordinators Initiative is based on research indicating that well-trained, full-time school safety and drug prevention coordinators can help reduce drug use, discipline problems and violent incidents. In 2000, the second year of the initiative, 113 school districts in 35 states received grants amounting to a total of $45 million to recruit, hire, and train middle school coordinators. In 1999, the first year of the program, 97 school districts received $34.6 million in grants. The three-year grants have been awarded to school districts and consortia of smaller districts with significant drug, discipline and violence problems in middle schools. Key responsibilities of the coordinators include assisting schools in adopting successful, research-based drug and violence prevention strategies, and developing, conducting and analyzing assessments of school drug and crime problems.

The purpose of Alternative Strategies to Reduce Student Suspensions and Expulsions and Ensure Educational Progress of Suspended and Expelled Students is twofold: 1) to decrease the number of suspensions and expulsions; and 2) to ensure continued educational progress for suspended and expelled students, through the use of high-quality programs and strategies that work. In 2000, $10.4 million was awarded to 14 school districts and other nonprofit organizations to create effective alternative programs and help educate students who have been suspended or expelled. While there is no single strategy that ensures an effective alternative setting, there are promising characteristics that include: small class size; clearly stated mission; measurable program goals and discipline codes; parental involvement; caring faculty that receives continual staff development; high expectations for student achievement; learning programs specific to the students’ learning styles; exposure to and preparation for the world of work; flexible school schedules with community support; and total commitment to each student’s success.

In addition to the discretionary grant programs described above, initiatives have also included interagency agreements for a broad range of activities. Examples of these include agreements between the Department of Education (ED) and the Department of Health and Human Services to provide support for the Centers for the Application of Prevention Technologies, for a multi-year study concerning the diffusion of prevention research and its effects on practice, and for grants to institutions of higher education that address issues related to binge drinking among college students.

In 1999, the Department of Education developed, and the president transmitted, to Congress a reauthorization proposal for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), which reflected the direction the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program (SDFSP) is taking to promote improvements in programs funded under the SDFSCA. The proposal would have improved program accountability by emphasizing the importance of research-based programs and concentrating funds on areas of high need. Specifically, the proposal would have required states to (1) award subgrants competitively to school districts and other applicants in accordance with the quality of the applicants proposal for the use of funds and how closely it is aligned with the SDFSCP Principles of Effectiveness; and (2) ensure that grants are of sufficient size and scope to help improve safety and order in the school and reduce student drug use. Congress did not complete work on the reauthorization proposal.

Top

After-School Initiatives

Reducing the precursors of drug use—aggression, conduct disorders, shyness, and lack of school and family attachment—can be achieved through after-school activities. Mentoring programs increase the involvement of high-risk youth with caring adults. Mentors help children by modeling, teaching, and reinforcing positive behavior. In FY 1999, the Departments of Justice and Education collaborated to support twelve grants providing one-to-one mentoring programs for youth at risk of educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in delinquent activities including gangs and drug use. SAMHSA/CSAP’S Project Youth Connect is evaluating the comparative benefits of youth-only approaches versus programs that involve parent and youth mentors. CSAP’s public education campaign, Your Time-Their Future, encourages adults to get involved with youth to help young people build skills, self-discipline, and competence to resist alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs. SAMHSA/ CSAP’s State Incentive Grant Program provides funding to communities and encourages them to utilize science-based programs, including those which focus on children and parents both in and out of the school setting.

Transitioning from elementary school to middle school or junior high, is a particularly challenging time for most youth. NIDA supported researchers found that prevention planners need to develop programs that provide support during these highest-risk periods. Prevention programs that bring together a variety of audiences, such as those that are tailored to both parents and schools are showing some positive results. The Adolescents Transitions Program is one example of a school-based program that focuses on parenting practices and integrates interventions that are universal (geared to the general population), selective (targeted to groups at risk), and indicated (designed for individuals). In short, NIDA researchers have found that the school setting has been shown to be an effective place to engage families in promoting drug abuse prevention.

Top

Drug-Free Communities

Government response is only a small part of the national effort to counter illegal drugs. Communities are significant partners for local, state, and federal agencies working to reduce drug use, especially among young people and deserve continued support. Local coalitions, comprised of a broad sector of community leadership, are working to devise sound strategies based on local data and knowledge of a growing body of scientifically supported program ideas. Local leaders know that they must sustain their efforts into the foreseeable future if we are to significantly reduce demand for illegal drugs at the community level.

The Drug-Free Communities (DFC) Program, created through the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, provides funds, knowledge, and other resources to help local leaders prevent youthful drug problems, including the underage use of alcohol, tobacco, and inhalants. This program now supports 307 communities located in forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Applicant communities must match their grant awards with equivalent funding from non-federal sources. Communities may re-apply for federal funds for additional years, depending upon annual appropriations. The intent of Congress is to support programs that have promise to be self-sustaining in the future.

The DFC Program operates with an unusually high level of federal agency and private-sector collaboration. Administrative and policy oversight of the program is carried out by ONDCP. Day-to-day program management and financial monitoring is the primary responsibility of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the Department of Justice. Additional technical and scientific support and training is provided by the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) in the Department of Health and Human Services. CSAP utilizes regional Centers for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT) offices to offer high quality, research-based knowledge and information to state and community prevention programs. Several major information clearinghouses, including the CSAP-sponsored National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) provide free or low-cost material directly to all U.S. communities.³

The Drug-Free Communities Program is complemented by a number of private sector organizations, including the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD), the National Prevention Network, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the National Inhalant Prevention Coalition, as well as other public agencies such as the National Guard Bureau, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the federal AmeriCorps program. These entities provide useful information, research, and frequent communications that inform and involve the Drug-Free Community Coalitions. The program is ably guided by the Advisory Commission on Drug-Free Communities, an eleven member, presidentially-appointed expert group representing many sectors and organizations across the United States. The Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) is a coalition membership organization that provides a wide array of technical support, program ideas, and advocacy to community coalitions around the U.S. CADCA⁴ actively assists the Drug-Free Community grantees on a regular basis. Join Together, a Boston University based organization,⁵ examines and reports on critical issues of interest to communities around the issues of drugs, guns, and violence.

During FY 2001, as many as 150 new grants may be awarded to other community coalitions that submit qualified applications in the national competition. The development and support of community coalitions and other local demand reduction strategies and activities continues to be an important component of ONDCP’s long-term demand reduction strategy.

At the national level, future initiatives will involve creating new training capabilities, detailed descriptions of successful local innovations that can be replicated through public/private coalitions, and better dissemination and utilization of scientific knowledge about the application of prevention strategies in the natural environments of neighborhoods and communities. New collaborative efforts with The National Guard Bureau will expand low-cost distance learning capabilities to more rapidly disseminate science-based prevention and treatment practices throughout the nation. In addition, efforts on the local level should be focused on improved data collection and analysis which can inform coalition leadership, so that they may make educated financial and personnel decisions in the best interest of the coalitions.

Top

Housing Initiatives

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Public and Indian Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) provides funds to public housing agencies, Indian tribes and their tribally designated housing entities, and owners of federally assisted low-income housing to support their anti-drug and anti-crime efforts. Since 1989 HUD has awarded over 7,000 grants totaling more than $2.2 billion to public housing agencies and tribally designated housing entities. Grantees have used these resources to fight crime by increasing police coverage and security and by providing residents with alternatives to crime and violence. In particular, they have used their PHDEP funding to employ security personnel and investigators; to contract with private security services; to reimburse local law-enforcement agencies for above-baseline services; to establish volunteer resident patrols; to implement physical improvements to enhance security; and to establish and operate drug prevention, intervention, and treatment programs, as well as youth violence prevention initiatives. Beginning with fiscal year 1999 grantees receive PHDEP funding through a formula allocation system. Prior to fiscal 1999, grantees were funded on a competitive basis.

Top

Prevention through Service Alliance

Volunteer-based organizations continue to make major contributions to the national counter-drug effort. Since November 18, 1997, at a signing ceremony at the Indian Treaty Room of the Old Executive Office Building in Washington, DC, an alliance of civic, fraternal, service, veterans, sports, and women’s groups has been helping young people pursue healthy, drug-free lifestyles. The Alliance represents more than a hundred million volunteers who are members of a “Prevention Through Service Alliance.” * Through the original resolution agreement, member organizations have pledged to increase substance-abuse prevention messages to their members and the youth they serve, establish a communication link to share programs and resources, collaborate on community prevention efforts, promote service opportunities for youth, and publicly recognize young people involved in community service. Alliance organizations offer mentoring programs, school-based curricula dealing with drug prevention, and educational brochures for youth. Other Alliance-supported activities that promote a drug-free lifestyle include youth groups, sports teams, scholarships, and specific drug-free events. Many Alliance groups have assisted in the ONDCP National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. During this coming year, a significant number of Alliance partner organizations will provide pro-bono contributions to the media campaign through their national publications and Web sites.⁶

Top

Workplace Prevention Initiatives

In 1999, more than 77 percent of all current drug users were employed—more than 9.4 million individuals, with 6.5 percent of full-time employed adults and 8.6 percent of part-time workers reporting use of illicit drugs in the past 30 days. This trend of slight increases over the past few year’s mirrors national employment figures—as unemployment rates have decreased, the proportionate rates of current drug use among the employed have risen. Of those unemployed, a rate of 16.5 percent was reported, down from 18.2 percent in 1998.⁷

Emerging trends in workforce drug use—1) a significantly higher rate of current illicit drug use by the next generation entering the workforce, and 2) a continued strong economy with its concurrent low rates of unemployment indicate a need to redouble effective workplace drug abuse intervention and prevention initiatives to successfully address our national commitments to reduce youth drug abuse and welfare dependency by increasing employment while sustaining our current record productivity gains. Making workplace prevention and intervention services available for new employees may be key to enabling those with untreated substance abuse barriers to make the successful transition from youth and welfare into successful work habits.

One important new comprehensive prevention and treatment integration initiative is focusing on Ecstasy, or MDMA (3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine) a Schedule I synthetic, psychoactive drug possessing stimulant and hallucinogenic properties. Because of the recent and rapid increases of Ecstasy use by youth, nationally, SAMHSA is addressing the urgent, national requirement for improved drug tests to detect current use in job applicants, employees, and in clinical treatment, and criminal justice settings. Additionally, work continues to get the prevention message out to youth, their families, schools, health care providers, and employers.

Since 1986, Executive Order 12564, the Drug-Free Federal Workplace, has mandated a comprehensive drug-free workplace program for all Executive Branch federal agencies. Elements include a clear policy of no use; employee education about the dangers of illicit drug use and the workplace consequences of drug use; supervisor training about their responsibilities under the policy; access to employee assistance programs (EAPs) and treatment referral; and accurate and reliable drug testing, consistent with the policy. These programs have been implemented in 120 federal agencies, with 1.8 million employees. As the nation’s largest employer, the federal government has continued to provide leadership by example. For federal job applicants and employees, the positive rate remains constant at 0.5 percent, compared to 4.6 percent for other workplaces nationally.⁸

The level of positive drug test results in the private sector has declined by 66 percent since 1988—from 13.6 percent in 1988 to 4.6 percent in 1999, based on over six million workplace drug tests conducted by the largest commercial drug testing provider. Of these test results, marijuana use represented 62 percent of all positive results, up from 59 percent in 1998.⁹

In the interest of public safety, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) oversees the largest mandatory drug-free initiative in our national workforce. This program has reduced illicit drug and alcohol abuse in the transportation industry for nearly a decade. Covering over 8.5 million safety-sensitive transportation workers in the industries of motor carriers, railroads, aviation, maritime, transit, and pipelines. These requirements include testing, education, supervisory training, employee evaluation and rehabilitation and have become a recognized standard for many non-regulated drug-free workplace programs. Currently, the Department of Transportation is introducing a substantial revision of its workplace procedures and regulations. The revised procedures represent a collaborative effort of the public and private stakeholders to incorporate the best practices and standards to produce clearer, better organized, and simpler rules for the transportation industry. These new regulations strike an excellent balance between public safety and cost and paperwork reduction issues.

To assist small businesses in achieving the same benefits of drug-free workplace programs experienced by big business, the Federal government has continued its long time commitment to assisting private sector employers to implement comprehensive and effective drug-free workplace programs. The Small Business Administration has completed its first year of an innovative program funded under the Drug-free Workplace Act of 1998. This demonstration grant/contract program allows SBA to make funds available to eligible intermediaries to assist small businesses in establishing drug-free workplace programs. Activities made possible by this program include: providing financial assistance to small businesses to provide free or reduced costs for Employee Assistance services and/or drug testing; educating small businesses on the benefits of a drug-free workplace; encouraging small business employers and employees to participate in drug-free workplace programs; and educating parents that work for small businesses on how to keep their children drug-free through its Web site www.sba.gov/news/drugfree.

Other Federal agencies such as the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention assist businesses to implement drug-free workplace programs through its Web site www.health.org/workplace, the Workplace Helpline, and by providing supplemental materials and training programs on request. The Department of Labor also provides assistance through its Working Partners for an Alcohol-and Drug-Free Workplace initiative which includes industry-specific small business materials, an interactive on-line Drug-free Workplace Program Builder, and informational materials on addressing substance abuse problems within the welfare and workforce development systems all available through its Web site www.dol.gov/dol/workingpartners.htm.

Top

Preventing Youth Drug Use Through Athletics and Drug-Free Sports

Each year approximately 2.5 million students play football and basketball in high school and junior high. Millions of children are involved in soccer and softball leagues, among other sports. Studies show that a young person involved in sports is 49 percent less likely to get involved with drugs than an uninvolved peer.¹⁰ Children admire professional athletes, but some stars often convey mixed messages pertaining to drugs. ONDCP’s Athletic Initiative uses sports as a vehicle to help prevent young people from turning to drugs.

Since its inception in 1998, ONDCP (with assistance from the Department of Justice) has reached out to America’s youth through their coaches with the distribution of over 100,000 copies of the Coaches Playbook against Drugs. Partnerships and cooperation from 18 Major League Baseball teams, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Major League Soccer, and National Football League players and coaches have delivered anti-drug messages to young athletes and fans nationwide. Through grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, each year, over 67,000 at-risk youth in 47 states and the District of Columbia were able to participate in summer programs that combine drug education with sports.

While seeking to employ sports as an alternative to drug use, American youth are increasingly endangered by the threat of performance enhancing drug-use within sport. The Monitoring the Future Study found past-year steroid use by eighth and tenth graders increased 50 percent between 1998 and 1999.¹¹ To address all aspects of drug use in sport, both internationally and domestically, a comprehensive federal policy was developed through a full inter-agency process in October 1999. In August 2000, the President issued an Executive Order creating a White House Task Force on Drugs and Sport to ensure the effective implementation of this strategy.

Working with the international community, ONDCP led efforts that resulted in the 2000 creation of an effective and independent World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). ONDCP serves on the WADA Board as the representative of the United States. For the 2000 Summer Olympic Games the WADA conducted 2,500 out-of-competition tests of the Sydney competitors. In addition, a team of independent observers from the WADA oversaw all aspects of the Summer Games drug-testing program, to ensure that this program was above reproach. These WADA efforts helped make the 2000 Games the most drug-tested games in history.

To build upon the success of the 2000 Summer Games, working with the Congress, the Federal government has provided $3.3 million to support the anti-doping program of the upcoming 2002 Salt Lake City Games. Through ONDCP and the White House Task Force on Drug Use in Sports, we will continue to assist the Salt Lake Olympic Committee in implementing a transparent and effective anti-doping program.

ONDCP has also led efforts to help improve purely domestic anti-doping programs. ONDCP assisted the United States Olympic Committee in the development of the new United States Anti-Doping Agency, and provided $3 million in funding.

To set the agenda for future efforts at all levels in this area of policy, the White House Task Force on Drug Use in Sports held a field meeting in December of 2000, bringing together representatives from sports, youth groups, coaches’ organizations, and the Federal government. The Task Force will report out on the results of this agenda setting meeting early in 2001. Detailed information on all of ONDCP’s anti-doping activities can be found on the Internet at www.playclean.org.

To specifically address the problems of performance-enhancing drug use by youth, NIDA-supported researchers have developed a steroid abuse prevention program, Adolescents Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS). Consisting of interactive classroom and training sessions given by peer educators and facilitated by coaches and strength trainers, an evaluation of the program’s effectiveness showed that an athlete’s intent and actual use of steroids was significantly lower among participating students. As an additional benefit, illicit drug use and alcohol use was reduced, as were incidents of student drinking and driving and use of dietary supplements.

Top

Faith Initiative

The faith community plays a vital role in building social values, informing the actions of individuals and inculcating life skills that are critical to resisting illegal drugs. The clergy of faith-based organizations serve as civic leaders. Many run programs that provide much-needed counseling and drug treatment for members of their communities. Consequently, ONDCP encourages religious communities to speak out against drugs and further develop faith-based initiatives to prevent and treat drug use.

SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, in collaboration with the Congress of National Black Churches, One Church One Addict, and the Johnson Foundation Institute, convened five Faith Initiative conferences in Chicago, IL; Baltimore, MD; Washington, DC; Austin, TX ; and Minneapolis, MN.

It is anticipated that approximately 30 of SAMHSA/CSAT’s Targeted Capacity Expansion (TCE) and TCE HIV grantees will receive supplemental funds in FY 2001 to develop and implement faith initiative activities in their communities. These activities will consist of forming faith organization coalitions to address substance abuse and violence in the community, supporting substance abuse treatment activities, and providing substance abuse treatment education activities for both clergy and lay persons.

Top

Drug Prevention through Law Enforcement

Many federal agencies form government partnerships to prevent drug abuse. DEA’s Demand-Reduction Program supports youth-oriented drug prevention through educational activities like the Boys Scouts of America’s Law Enforcement Explorer Program. The FBI’s Community Outreach disseminates prevention material and sponsors youth programs like Adopt-A-School and Junior Special Agent Classrooms. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) helped revise the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) curriculum. D.A.R.E. is an extremely popular program for school-based drug abuse and violence prevention. It is being implemented by more than 8,600 law-enforcement agencies. The ATF’s Gang Reduction Education and Training (GREAT) program helps teach seventh graders to reject gangs and the drugs often associated with them. The United States Customs Service actively supports the Explorer program, maintaining over 30 posts that provide young adults with drug abuse prevention training for dissemination to the community. Additionally, it regularly sends officers, aircraft, and vessels to schools and community-sponsored events to educate the public about the negative impact of illegal drugs on society and how families can assist in combating the problem at the local level. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) supports projects related to juvenile substance abuse, like Enforcing the Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL) Program and the Juvenile Mentoring program. The National Citizens’ Crime Prevention Campaign focuses on reducing juvenile crime and drug use. The Office of Justice Programs supports projects related to juvenile substance abuse, like Combating Underage Drinking and the Juvenile Mentoring program. All Weed and Seed sites are required to have “Safe Havens”—after-school programs where anti-drug education joins a range of constructive activities. The DOJ- Drug Education for Youth (DEFY) program promotes positive life choices, including drug resistance, among youths age 9-12. DEFY’s two-phased curriculum covers summer leadership camp coupled with a school-year mentoring program.

Top

Legalization, Decriminalization, and Harm Reduction

Given the negative impact of drugs on society, the overwhelming majority of Americans reject illegal drug use. Indeed, millions of citizens who once used drugs have turned their backs on such self-destructive behavior. Study after study confirms that Americans want to guard against the risks of these deadly substances. A 1998 poll of voters conducted by the Family Research Council found that eight of ten respondents rejected the legalization of drugs like cocaine and heroin, with seven out of ten in strong opposition. Moreover, when asked if they supported making these drugs legal in the same way that alcohol is, 82 percent said they opposed legalization. Similarly, a 2000 Gallup poll found that 64 percent of Americans oppose the legalization of marijuana.¹² Many drug users enter treatment every year to help recover from chronic abuse of marijuana and other so-called “soft” drugs. The idea of legalizing even these substances overlooks the dangers they pose.

Decriminalization means that although drug use and possession would remain illegal, the penalties against these offenses would be so minimal–similar to those against jaywalking–that drug use would de facto be legal. In 1975 the Alaska Supreme Court decriminalized small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Even though marijuana remained illegal for children, the perception that marijuana was harmful decreased, and marijuana use rates among Alaskan youth increased significantly. Decriminalization ignores the facts that drug use affects the brain, may lead to addiction, causes untold misery to the user and his/her family, and costs society $110 billion annually in health and social costs.

Harm reduction is a theory that says because use of illegal drugs cannot be controlled by law enforcement, education, public-health intervention or other methods, we can at least reduce some of the harms associated with inevitable drug use. According to the theory of harm reduction, dispensing clean needles to addicts, for example, can reduce the incidence of AIDS; maintaining heroin addicts on heroin can reduce the amount of crime they would commit to maintain their habit.

The truth is that drug abuse wrecks lives. Addictive drugs were criminalized because they are harmful; they are not harmful because they were criminalized. If drugs were legalized, decriminalized or made more available through harm reduction policies, the costs to the individual and society would grow astronomically. It is shameful that more money is spent on illegal drugs than on art or higher education, that drug-exposed babies are born addicted and in pain, that thousands of adolescents lose their health and future to drugs.

Top

The Use of Marijuana as Medicine

Because of its high potential for abuse and lack of accepted medical use, the manufacture, acquisition, distribution, and possession or marijuana is subject to regulation under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most restrictive of the five federal classes of controlled substances. The medical use of Schedule II, drugs such as cocaine and methamphetamine, is also strictly controlled. Marijuana is regulated internationally by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to which the United States is a party. In the past decade, data has been gathered relative to the negative impact of marijuana on young people. As described in Chapter II, marijuana use by adolescents correlates with delinquent and antisocial behavior.

The Administration is adamantly opposed to the use of marijuana outside of authorized research.¹³ However, legitimate medications containing marijuana components have proven effective in relieving the symptoms of some medical conditions. Dronabinol, a synthetic form of the major psychoactive component in marijuana—tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to stimulate appetite in AIDS patients and to control nausea in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The pill form of THC has been available for fifteen years and sold under the trade name Marinol. Dronabinol was rescheduled in 1999 to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, making it easier for patients to obtain.

The Administration has provided information to states considering ballot initiatives on “medical marijuana” so that citizens will be informed about the ways such measures undermine the scientific process for establishing safe and effective medicines. These initiatives also contradict federal law and are potential vehicles for the legalization of recreational marijuana use. Ballot initiatives to date generally have not limited use of marijuana to a small number of terminally-ill patients, as most voters envisioned. Rather, they commonly allow marijuana to be obtained without prescription and used indefinitely without evaluation by a physician.

The U.S. medical and scientific communities have not closed the door on marijuana or any other substance that may offer therapeutic benefits. However, both law and common sense dictate that the process for establishing substances as medicine be thorough and science-based. Persons who intend to study or seek approval of marijuana for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease are subject to the “drug” and “new drug” provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) (21 USC 321 et seq.). The FDC Act requires an applicant to submit data from well-controlled clinical trials to the FDA for evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a proposed product. A New Drug Application (NDA) must contain sufficient information to satisfy the statutory standards for marketing approval. This rigorous process is in the interest of public health. Allowing marijuana, or any other drug, to bypass this process would be unwise and unlawful.

In light of the need for research-based evidence, ONDCP asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in January 1997 to review all scientific evidence concerning the medical use of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids. ONDCP felt that an objective, independent evaluation of such research was appropriate given the ongoing debate about the health effects of cannabis. The IOM published Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base in March 1999.¹⁴ This study is the most comprehensive summary of what is known about marijuana. It emphasizes evidence-based medicine (derived from knowledge and experience informed by rigorous analysis) as opposed to belief-based opinion (derived from judgment or intuition untested by science).

The IOM study concluded that there is little future in smoked marijuana as medication. Although marijuana smoke delivers THC and other cannabinoids to the body, it also contains harmful substances, including most of those found in tobacco smoke. The long-term harms from smoking make it a poor drug delivery system, particularly for pregnant women and patients with chronic diseases. In addition, cannabis contains a variable mixture of biologically active compounds. Even in cases where marijuana can provide symptomatic relief, the crude plant does not meet the modern expectation that medicines be of known quality and composition. Nor can smoked marijuana guarantee precise dosage. If there is any future for cannabinoid medications, it lies with agents of certain composition and delivery systems that permit controlled doses. Medical marijuana must conform to classical pharmacological practices that characterize clinical research.

The United Nations’ International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), which ensures an adequate world supply of drugs for medical purposes, has stressed that research must not become a pretext for legalizing cannabis. If the drug is determined to have medicinal value, the INCB maintains that its use needs to be subjected to the same stringent controls applied to cocaine and morphine. “Should the medical usefulness of cannabis be established,” the 1998 INCB annual report states, “it will be a drug no different from most narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Those drugs, however, must continue to be used for medical purposes only, in line with the requirements of the international drug control treaties.”¹⁵ The INCB report concluded: “Political initiatives and public votes can easily be misused by groups promoting the legalization of all use of cannabis for recreational use under the guise of medical dispensation.”

Top

“Industrial” Hemp

For centuries, civilization has derived hemp products from the fibers and seeds of various fibrous plants, including the Cannabis sativa and jute plants, just to name a few. Until relatively recently, it was believed that hemp products had no harmful effects on society. They were thought not to contain any psychoactive ingredients, such as tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or other controlled substances.

Such a belief formed the basis for a 1937 statutory definition of marihuana (also known as marijuana). In that definition, certain parts of the Cannabis sativa plant (specifically the fibers in the stalk and products derived from sterilized seeds) were excluded from the definition. However, in the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act in the early 70’s, the Congress augmented the definitional exclusion. The enactment provides a separate provision that specifies that any material, compound, mixture or preparation that contains any quantity of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is a Schedule I substance, unless it is specifically excepted or listed in another schedule.

With what we know today, the mere fact that a product is derived from parts of the Cannabis sativa plant excluded from the definition of marijuana is not enough to establish that it is not a Schedule I controlled substance. Should the product contain THC or other controlled substances, the product is controlled, unless specific action has been taken under the Controlled Substances Act to place it in another schedule or to specifically except it from control. Schedule I substances and the plants from which they are derived cannot be imported into the United States nor cultivated domestically without DEA registration and permits.

Although hemp products—fiber for use in the manufacture of cloth, paper and other products, as well as sterilized seed for birdseed and other products—were authorized for importation during the last decade, over the past several years, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) received information that sterilized cannabis seed, not solely birdseed, has been imported for the manufacture of products intended for human consumption. DEA has also learned, from the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, that individuals who tested positive for marijuana use subsequently raised their consumption of hemp products as a defense against their positive drug test. Consequently, the Administration is reviewing the importation of cannabis seeds and oil because of their THC content. We hope to have decisive DEA regulations addressing these issues in the very near future.

The government is also concerned that hemp cultivation may be a stalking horse for the legalization of marijuana. According to a recent report by the Department of Agriculture, U.S. markets for hemp fiber, yarn, fabric and seed in 1999 could have been produced on less than 5,000 acres of land. Further, the potential exists for these markets to quickly become oversupplied. Uncertainty about long run demand for hemp products and the potential for oversupply discounts the prospects for hemp as an economically viable alternative crop for American farmers.

Top

Child Welfare Initiatives

The safety of children and families is jeopardized by the strong correlation between chemical dependency and child abuse. Several studies recently demonstrated that approximately two-thirds of more than 500,000 children in foster care have parents with substance-abuse problems. A new federal law regarding adoption and child welfare, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89), requires that substance-abuse services be provided promptly for parents so that families are given realistic opportunities to recover from drug problems before children in foster care are placed for adoption.

In addition to compromising parental ability to raise children, substance abuse interferes with the acquisition and maintenance of employment. An estimated 15 to 20 percent of adults receiving welfare have substance-abuse problems that prevent them from working. If drug prevention and treatment are not provided for this high-risk population, these families will remain extensively involved in the welfare and criminal-justice systems at great cost to society and with devastating consequences for children. Historically, welfare agencies have not played a direct role in addressing substance abuse and therefore may need assistance in identifying addiction and making appropriate referrals.

To address these issues, SAMHSA/CSAP’s Parenting Adolescents and Welfare Reform Program focuses on the parenting adolescent (who often must rely on welfare) to prevent or reduce alcohol, tobacco, and drug use; improve academic performance; reduce subsequent pregnancies; and foster improvement in parenting, life skills, and general well-being. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has taken several steps to improve the delivery of substance abuse services to clients involved with child protection and welfare programs. Five states are implementing child welfare waiver demonstrations that test strategies to engage and retain clients in substance abuse treatment. Conferences and technical assistance workshops have been held around the nation, in cooperation with SAMHSA, to encourage improved partnerships between human services and substance abuse agencies and to highlight model programs. In addition, grants have been made to several schools of social work to develop cross-training curricula in these fields. Finally, research is being conducted on how to screen and assess substance abuse and other barriers to work and to evaluate a model of addressing clients’ substance abuse problems.

Top

Welfare-to-Work Initiatives

Although states have experienced remarkable success in decreasing welfare rolls, many of those who remain on welfare suffer from alcohol or drug addiction, which impedes their ability to secure and retain employment. To provide workforce preparation and job retention services to eligible long-term welfare recipients and non-custodial parents, DOL, through the $3 billion Welfare-to-Work (WtW) program, has awarded formula grants to States, and through States to local communities, totaling almost $2 billion. Many of these grants address substance abuse as one of the many barriers to be addressed in preparing eligible participants for employment. More specifically, seventeen of the 190 WtW competitive grants have a targeted focus on substance abuse and on providing substance abuse-related services. These substance abuse focused grants total almost $65 million.

In FY 1999, Congress authorized $24 billion for states to spend on children’s health services, to provide a safety net for children with substance abuse problems, whose parents are off welfare either because they have found jobs or have been taken off welfare. Subsequently at least nine have developed plans that specifically include substance-abuse services. Alabama, for instance, will provide specialty care to uninsured children and those with special needs. Delaware’s Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) includes 31 days of substance abuse and mental health treatment services annually, plus outpatient mental- health care. Florida’s health-care and children’s agencies will provide Medicaid and state-funded addiction and mental-health services, while the state mental-health agency will work with at-risk youth in the criminal justice system.

The Partners Project in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, funded by a one million dollar grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, provides comprehensive services to welfare recipients, and their children, in recovery from substance abuse problems. This project offers specialized addiction treatment and other services to families living in 22 subsidized apartments. In addition to the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, a treatment program, child development center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and a local women’s center for victims of domestic violence are part of the project.

Studies estimate that 15 to 20 percent of adults receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) have substance abuse problems that can significantly impair parents’ judgement and priorities, render them unable to provide consistent care, supervision, and guidance to their children, and interfere with their ability to acquire or maintain employment.

As welfare caseloads decline, States report that such problems may be even more common among those clients who remain on the welfare rolls. Reform of the Federal welfare and child protection laws in recent years has placed increased emphasis on parental responsibility for the financial support and social development of their children. Limited availability and duration of public support, and focused State and local efforts on preparing welfare recipients for work, makes it imperative that substance abuse problems among this population be addressed or the children will suffer the consequences.

Welfare agencies have limited experience in dealing with clients’ substance abuse problems and require technical assistance to design and implement effective procedures to identify clients’ addictions and refer them to appropriate treatment services.

It is critical to the long-term success of welfare reform that these issues be addressed throughout the welfare, child welfare and workforce development systems. A five-year national study by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (1997) found a 19 percent increase in employment among people who completed treatment and an 11 percent decrease in the number of clients who received welfare after treatment. Local communities must seize opportunity to intervene, treat, and support recovery for those whose addiction has exacerbated the barriers they face in achieving self-sufficiency.

Those responsible for assessing job readiness, training welfare recipients in job skills, making job placements, and managing the welfare-to-work transition must understand the impact of addictions on job readiness, learning, on-the-job behavior, and job retention. They need tools (such as screening surveys/questionnaires) and procedures for identifying those in need of substance abuse treatment and training in how to use such tools as part of an effective referral process. Treatment must be readily available, easily accessible, and affordable. The quantity and the quality of the treatment available to these families are both critically important. When a parent is unable to care for a child due to alcohol or drug use, the parent is likely to have developed a serious addiction requiring intensive outpatient or inpatient services. Inpatient programs, and especially those which can accommodate children in residence, are most costly, but also offer important advantages to attracting, and retaining a mother in treatment, and to developing the mother’s ability to be an effective, sober parent. Supportive services must extend long after the initial treatment episode, be available to workers, and include specialized on-the-job supports to assist in work-place integration, guard against relapse and increase job retention and wage progression.

States may use the federal TANF funds to pay for nonmedical aspects of substance abuse treatment under the TANF if such treatment is not otherwise available to the participant.

Substance abuse is only one among a number of health and behavioral barriers that thwart efforts of welfare clients to leave welfare and gain self-sufficiency through employment—many of which co-exist and exacerbate one another. It is however, among the most insidious because of denial and societal stigma associated with addiction and employer reluctance to knowingly “take a risk” on drug users. A relapsing, disease characterized by denial and often misattributed to moral failings, successful treatment requires a lifetime commitment with no guarantee of a “cure.” In WtW Partnership survey most employers (66 percent) agree that substance abuse is a problem they cannot overlook when making a decision to hire someone off welfare.”

In short, the success of these significant social services reform movements depends on the availability of high quality substance abuse treatment services tailored to the needs of parents and the provision of appropriate supportive services following job placement.

Progress to date:

Several efforts are underway to assist state and local agencies and employers successfully address substance abuse problems of welfare recipients seeking to enter the workforce and maintain employment. These include :

• Promoting Awareness—The Office of Family Assistance has been collaborating with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for the past two years on welfare reform issues. We have jointly funded and developed seven conferences, issued joint guidance and co-sponsored publications. These conferences have emphasized the importance of addressing substance abuse as a barrier to employment and have highlighted promising approaches from around the nation to address clients’ substance abuse while promoting work. Emphasis is currently on identifying individuals with substance abuse problems and making effective referrals for appropriate services.

• Training and Technical Assistance—We are now building on this work with SAMHSA by providing technical assistance to stakeholders serving welfare and low-income populations with substance abuse and mental health barriers to self-sufficiency. We are basing this technical assistance on the research and lessons learned by SAMHSA. SAMHSA is providing the majority of the funding for this joint initiative with the ACF regional offices and their respective States.

• The workshops will be designed to help agencies develop skill sets to identify and provide self-sufficiency services for TANF and low-income populations with substance abuse and mental health barriers. These workshops are also designed to help stakeholders detect and provide services to address the underlying causes of abuse and addiction (e.g., depression, domestic violence, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc.), and to recognize the need to coordinate with other systems (e.g., child welfare).

• Demonstration Grants—OFA provided fund to Anne Arundel County Department of Social Services in Maryland to address changing the culture of the welfare office. Included in this initiative was training for front-line workers on identifying barriers to employment such as substance abuse and mental health issues. As part of this initiative, a technical assistance video was produced by Maryland Public Television in June 2000 entitled “ Lessons Learned.”

• Research—ACF/OFA has funded research to fill important information gaps related to substance abuse and welfare reform. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. developed two guides that were published in July 2000.¹⁸

In addition, the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation is funding two additional efforts. An evaluation of New Jersey Substance Abuse Research Demonstration will provide information about the effectiveness of a type of evaluation several states are experimenting with to move substance abusing welfare clients toward self-sufficiency. The intervention New Jersey is implementing includes screening of welfare recipients for substance abuse problems, treatment referral mechanisms with enhanced case management, and substance abuse treatment coordinated with employment and training or vocational services. The evaluation will, using a random assignment model, compare two models for providing such services, looking at outcomes in several domains including employment and family self-sufficiency, substance use and associated behaviors, child development and family functioning, and child welfare involvement. The intervention being evaluated is intended to improve the post-welfare prospects of TANF recipients with substance abuse problems. The evaluation is being conducted in two New Jersey counties, Essex County and Atlantic County.

A study entitled “Screening and Assessment in TANF/WtW” will highlight and discuss critical issues in the development and use of screening and assessment tools designed to identify TANF and/or WtW recipients who experience barriers to employment. The barriers of specific interest for this study include substance abuse, mental health or illness, low basic skills, physical/developmental disabilities (including learning disabilities) and domestic violence. The project will describe state and local efforts to incorporate screening and assessment tools and procedures in their efforts to assist these recipients make the transition from welfare to work. Finally, this project will provide opportunities for federal, state, and local TANF/WtW staff and other interested parties share information on screening and assessment.

Top

Youth Tobacco Initiative

The Youth Tobacco Initiative is a multifaceted HHS campaign coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Its purpose is to reduce availability and access to tobacco and the appeal tobacco products have for youth. The NIH—through the National Cancer Institute, NIDA, and others—supports biomedical and clinical research on tobacco. SAMHSA, through its Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant, administers the Synar Amendment, which requires state legislative and enforcement efforts to reduce the sale of tobacco products to minors. Since the enactment of Synar in 1994, states increased retailer compliance rates from approximately 30 percent to nearly 81 percent in 1999, reported in 2000. SAMHSA provides states with support and guidance through the development of best practices documents and provision of individual technical assistance to assist them in meeting the Synar requirements. For example, to provide States with guidance for conducting compliance checks of tobacco retail outlets, SAMHSA developed the Teens Taking Action training program and the implementation guide, Implementing the Synar Regulation: Tobacco Outlet Inspection.

States are at the forefront of efforts to prevent tobacco use by youth. Arizona, California, Florida, and Massachusetts are conducting paid anti-tobacco media campaigns restricting minors’ access to tobacco, limiting smoking in public places, and supporting school-based prevention. CDC provides funding for state health departments and national organizations to conduct tobacco-use prevention and reduction programs, including media and educational campaigns, training, and surveys. The CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health has developed a four-point prevention and control strategy to support state campaigns. CDC’s Media Campaign Resource Center provides states with television and radio advertisements as well as printed materials. The federal government is responsible for the diffusion of science-based models and strategies in support of state and community efforts. Accordingly, the CDC funds evaluations of specific programs and disseminates information to the public. The CDC’s Guidelines for School Health Programs to Prevent Tobacco Use and Addiction, for example, includes recommendations for tobacco-use policies, tobacco prevention education, teacher training, family involvement, tobacco-use cessation programs, and evaluation.

Top

Youth Alcohol Use Prevention

SAMHSA and NIAAA have a variety of programs and projects to help curb underage alcohol use. Within SAMHSA’s prevention and treatment budget, it is estimated that $88.6 million is designated to fight underage alcohol use and NIAAA targeted $36.3 million to curb youth alcohol abuse. HHS’ existing projects include a collaboration between SAMHSA, NIAAA, and the Department of Education to fund five new grants, totaling approximately $2.9 million, to test a variety of interventions that have the potential to reduce alcohol abuse on college campuses, and a 5-year SAMHSA/ NIAAA partnership, totaling $3.9 million annually, to fund research programs related to treatment among adolescents. NIAAA recently published “Make a Difference: Talk to Your Child About Alcohol,” a guide for parents of kids, aged ten to fourteen years old. In addition, The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign’s pro-bono match requirement has generated more than twelve million dollars in public service advertising time and space for organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and NCADD.

The Department of Education’s Safe and Drug Free Schools Program awarded grants to nine colleges and universities to prevent high-risk drinking and violent behavior among college students. The awards range from $188,000 to $226,000 for twenty-seven month period. In addition, ED made grant awards to six universities to identify innovative and effective alcohol and other drug-prevention models. These one year awards range from $50,000 to $90,000. ED also funds The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention, which provides support to all institutions of higher education in their efforts to address alcohol and other drug problems through training, technical assistance, evaluation, and publications and materials.

High-Risk Youth

A recently completed CSAP-sponsored cross-site evaluation of 48 high risk youth demonstration prevention programs yielded a number of important findings. 1) Youth who have already started to use cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana before entering a CSAP prevention program reduced their use after entering the program. 2) The more communities gave youth opportunities to take part in prevention activities, the greater the positive impact on substance use. 3) Prevention program results differed in that substance use outcomes were more positive for males than for females at program’s end but, positive outcomes emerged later and lasted longer for females. 4) More than two thirds of the programs had positive effects on youth’s substance use and/or on factors that made them less likely to use substances. 5) The programs that offered after-school programs were more effective in reducing substance use than those delivered during school hours. 6) High-risk youth who were connected to positive social environments (such as school and family) used substances less than those who lacked such connections. For youth at risk, connection plays an important role in effective program efforts.

Top

Comprehensive Prevention Systems

It has been well established that prevention works best when a comprehensive approach is used—including youth, family, school, and community activities. Results from SAMHSA/CSAP’s Community partnership and coalition programs reflect the positive nature of such an approach.

SAMHSA/CSAP’s State Incentive Grant (SIG) program is designed to coordinate all substance-abuse prevention funding within a state and to implement prevention programs in selected communities. This competitive grant program serves as an incentive for synchronizing state-wide prevention with private and community-based organizations. Eighty-five percent of SIG funds must be devoted to actual prevention programming, and 50 percent or more of the activities must involve science-based programs. To date, twenty-seven grants have been awarded to states and the District of Columbia. Some governors report having leveraged as much as ten dollars for every one dollar invested. For example:

• In Vermont, funds from United Way agencies, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, and other grants from state and local agencies and private businesses have been merged to support local prevention activities.

• The SIG program in Oregon calls upon the state to work with every county to develop a comprehensive plan incorporating substance-abuse prevention in schools, the juvenile justice system, and teen pregnancy programs. The state is also working for the first time with nine tribal governments to implement substance- abuse prevention.

• In Kansas the SIG prompted the governor to issue an executive order establishing a Governor’s Substance-Abuse Prevention Council. This Cabinet-level group has already conducted a county-level resource assessment and developed a science-based prevention publication that integrates guidelines and strategies across multiple federal and state funding sources.

So far, the SIGs have implemented 227 science-based programs, affecting more than 125,000 youth.

Through its National Registry of Effective Prevention Programs (NREPP), CSAP identifies model and promising programs. Fifteen criteria are used to assess programs, including theoretical foundation, threats to internal validity, and replication. To date, 19 models have been identified (on the CSAP Web site: , and 11 additional programs have been identified and will soon be included in the formal listing. CSAP also vigorously promotes model programs and engages national organizations as partners to ensure maximum dissemination.

Top

Centers for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPTs)

The CAPTs are the major national resource supporting the dissemination and application of substance abuse prevention programs that are scientifically sound and effective at the state and community levels. The CAPTs are prominently placed programmatically within SAMHSA/CSAP’s Knowledge Development and Application (KDA) and Targeted Capacity Enhancement (TCE) programs. The CAPT program is also an important part of the DHHS Secretarial Initiative called the Youth Substance Abuse Prevention Initiative, and ONDCP’s National Drug Control Strategy’s Goal 1.

The CAPTs’ primary clients are States receiving funds through CSAP’s State Incentive Cooperative Agreements for Community-Based Action (SIGs) program. Secondary clients include non-SIG States, U.S. Territories, Indian Tribes and tribal organizations, local communities, substance abuse prevention organizations, and practitioners.

Since 1997, the CAPTs have provided essential services to their clients in all fifty States and to thousands of prevention organizations within all congressional districts across the US. Among the strategies that each CAPT uses are:

• Establishing of technical assistance networks using local experts from each region.

• Convening of a regional advisory committees and learning communities.

• Conducting training conferences and workshops to promote skill development in prevention methods related to evidence-based models of prevention.

• Providing direct services to their clients via technical assistance and technology transfer.

The primary purpose of CAPTs technical assistance and training is to help their client consistently apply the latest research-based knowledge about effective substance abuse prevention programs, practices, and policies. These services to clients include (but are not limited to):

• Developing client readiness and ability to acquire and apply “best practices” and new prevention technologies (e.g., web based decision support systems).

• Evaluating and reporting process and outcomes of prevention programs.

• Increasing competencies in applying specific prevention methods or skills.

• Repackaging and adapting effective scientific prevention materials, products or services to fit the unique circumstances of local cultural contexts and environments.

• Analyzing and facilitating development of local and State prevention infrastructures.

• Identifying how the clients’ programs contribute to the national prevention system.

CSAP created the CAPT program as a necessary inter-mediary infrastructure that accelerates the application of scientific knowledge into effective prevention actions. Thus, the CAPTs are designed to help practitioners to Apply Prevention that Works by connecting scientific dissemination of prevention knowledge with effective application of that scientific knowledge.

Top

Decision Support System (DSS)

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention has developed an on-line substance abuse prevention decision support system for the use of prevention specialists throughout the nation. The system is highly interactive software program that actively guides community practitioners and State system managers toward making well-informed decisions about a broad range of useful options for prevention programs.

The system provides step-by-step procedures for assessing community needs, building capacity and identifying resources, selecting and implementing “best and promising” interventions, developing outcome evaluations, and writing reports. On-line technical assistance and training is provided each step of the way. State system managers can also access a special software developed for managing Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant funds.

Prevention scientists, service providers, experts in computer information technology, and leaders from the nation’s public and private sectors all worked collaboratively with CSAP staff to design and develop the DSS.

The DSS will be updated every six months with new features and additional information.

Top

Previous

Contents

Next