<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:23687.wais]
DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET:
IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEGLECTING ILLEGAL DRUG USE PREVENTION?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-71
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-687 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
PATRICK T. McHenry, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DAN BURTON, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DIANE E. WATSON, California
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
CHRIS CANNON, Utah C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina Columbia
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. Marc Wheat, Staff Director
Nick Coleman, Counsel
Malia Holst, Clerk
Tony Haywood, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 26, 2005................................... 1
Statement of:
Curie, Charles, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], Department of
Health and Human Services.................................. 40
Dean, General Arthur T., ret., chairman and CEO, Community
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; Stephen J. Pasierb,
president and CEO, Partnership for a Drug-Free America;
Bonnie Hedrick, Ph.D, executive director, Ohio Resource
Network for Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities;
Clarence Jones, coordinator, Safe and Drug-Free Youth
Section, Fairfax County, VA Public Schools; Tracy McKoy,
parent coordinator, Fairfax County, VA; and Ashley
Izadpanah, student, Fairfax County, VA..................... 64
Dean, General Arthur T................................... 64
Hedrick, Bonnie.......................................... 131
Izadpanah, Ashley........................................ 149
Jones, Clarence.......................................... 142
McKoy, Tracy................................................. 148
Pasierb, Stephen J....................................... 119
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 11
Curie, Charles, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], Department of
Health and Human Services, prepared statement of........... 43
Dean, General Arthur T., ret., chairman and CEO, Community
Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, prepared statement of..... 67
Hedrick, Bonnie, Ph.D, executive director, Ohio Resource
Network for Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities,
prepared statement of...................................... 133
Izadpanah, Ashley, student, Fairfax County, VA, prepared
statement of............................................... 152
Jones, Clarence, coordinator, Safe and Drug-Free Youth
Section, Fairfax County, VA Public Schools, prepared
statement of............................................... 145
Pasierb, Stephen J., president and CEO, Partnership for a
Drug-Free America, prepared statement of................... 122
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana:
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Prepared statements of Mr. Peterson and Ms. Taft......... 26
DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 DRUG CONTROL BUDGET:
IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEGLECTING ILLEGAL DRUG USE PREVENTION?
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
room 2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Souder
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder, Cummings, Norton, and
Watson.
Staff present: Marc Wheat, staff director and chief
counsel; Nick Coleman and Michelle Powers, counsels; Malia
Holst, clerk; Tony Haywood, minority counsel; and Jean Gosa,
minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will now come to order.
Good afternoon and thank you all for coming. This hearing
is the third in a series of hearings providing oversight of the
President's budget proposal for drug control programs, as well
as for legislation to reauthorize the Office of National Drug
Control Policy in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
program.
This hearing will focus on the President's proposal for the
Federal Government's drug use prevention programs. Prevention,
``stopping use before it starts,'' in the words of President
Bush's recent National Drug Control Strategy Report, is a vital
component of any effective drug control strategy. In many
respects it is the most important component since it is a
demand for drugs that attracts the supply. Prevention aimed at
reducing drug use by young people is, in turn, the most
important kind of demand reduction.
The Federal Government's major prevention programs include
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program at the Department of
Education, which includes formula grants to the States, and
national programs; the National Youth Anti Drug Media
Campaigns--the so-called Media Campaign at the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, which helps fund a national
advertising campaign to educate young people and parents about
the danger of drug abuse; the Drug Free Communities Program at
ONDCP, which provides small grants to local coalitions of
organizations and individuals who come together for drug use
prevention efforts in their communities, and prevention
programs funded through grants provided by the Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention, part of the Substance and Mental
Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], at the Department of
Health and Human Services.
The Federal Government also funds significant research and
development of drug prevention methods through CSAP and
Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC], at ONDCP. The
Federal Government also funds research into the health risks of
drug abuse at the National Institute of Drug Abuse [NIDA], a
division of the National Institutes of Health [NIH], which are
also part of HHS, the Health and Human Services Department, the
results of which are then publicized by NIDA and other Federal
agencies.
The administration's budget proposals for these programs
raise very serious questions about the future of Federal
prevention efforts. The SDFS State Grants, Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, which Congress funded at $437 million in fiscal year
2005, are being targeted for total elimination. The national
programs would only increase from $155 million to $232 million,
creating a net loss of nearly $360 million in drug prevention
education funds.
The DFC and Media Campaign, which would be flat-funded,
which, when inflation is taken into account, especially
inflation in advertising rates, amounts to a decrease in total
resources for the programs. Even SAMHSA's prevention funds will
be reduced by $14 million, from $198 million for fiscal year
2005 to $184 million; while NIDA's prevention research funds
would increase by only $2 million, from $412 to $414.
As a result, prevention now accounts for only 13 percent of
the total drug control budget. This raises significant question
about the administration's prevention strategy.
Although the administration has valid concerns about how
effective our prevention programs have been in reducing drug
use, I believe the appropriate response is to reform existing
programs by making them more accountable or to propose new and
better programs. The administration's deep cuts, unaccompanied
by any new proposals, suggests a significant abandonment of
even the concept of prevention. That would be a serious
mistake. Unless the Nation is able to reduce drug use demand,
there will always be a market for illegal drugs.
These budget proposals are particularly regrettable given
the previous improvements the administration made in Federal
prevention strategy. For example, ONDCP has revitalized the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. In the late 1990's,
the Media Campaign had suffered from a lack of direction, as
well as contractor difficulties, due to accounting
irregularities by Ogilvy and Mather, the advertising firm
responsible for the Media Campaign. Questions were raised as to
whether the Media Campaign should be continued at all.
ONDCP Director John Walters made the Media Campaign a major
priority for the administration. First, ONDCP took steps to
resolve the accounting irregularities, eventually replacing
Ogilvy and Mather. Second, the Media Campaign sought to
maximize its impact by running a series of advertisements
intended to educate young people and parents about specific
problems, including the dangers of ecstasy and the link between
drug trade and terrorism, the importance of parental guidance,
and the risks of marijuana use.
The results--increased accountability, increased awareness
among young people of the dangers of drug use, and decreased
youth drug abuse--speak for themselves. Although not all of the
program's advertisements are equally successful, that is true
of any advertising campaign. Overall, the Media Campaign has
been established as a major component of effective drug control
policy.
The administration has also taken a leadership role in
promoting drug testing in the schools. Drug testing shows great
promise in preventing young people from using narcotics. It
also is a tool for identifying which students need treatment
and other special help to get them off drugs and achieve their
true potential. It also is an excellent tool for measuring the
success of other drug prevention programs, as it shows whether
the true bottom line, reducing drug use, has been achieved.
Instead of cutting Safe and Drug-Free Schools and other
programs, the administration should provide the same kind of
innovative leadership.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and similar programs have great
potential as a vehicle for bringing effective anti-drug
education to millions of young people in our schools. The
program has certainly suffered from a lack of accountability
due to statutory limits on data collection, as well as a lack
of focus on drug abuse education.
The administration has never attempted to reform this
program whatever, which ought to be the first step, not
eliminating it entirely. And I want to say this as a member of
the Education Committee, and as somebody who was on it when we
did this and we got no leadership at the time we authorized the
program either, other than eliminating it.
It is more important than ever for ONDCP to focus attention
on this vital area of drug policy. Regrettably, neither ONDCP
nor the Department of Education was able to send a witness to
discuss the administration's inadequate budget request.
However, I am pleased to welcome my friend and fellow Hoosier,
Charlie Curie, the Administrator of SAMHSA, to discuss the
prevention budget and strategy from the perspective of his
agency. We are grateful to him for joining us today.
As with all of our hearings dealing with these issues, we
try to reach out to private organizations and local communities
to learn about the potential impact of budget changes.
Representing two of the largest and most distinguished
prevention organizations, we are pleased to be joined by
General Arthur Dean, chairman and CEO of Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America; and Mr. Stephen Pasierb, president and
CEO of the Partnership for Drug-Free America.
We also welcome Ms. Bonnie Hedrick, executive director of
the Ohio Resource Network for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities; Mr. Clarence Jones, coordinator of the Safe and
Drug-Free Youth Section at Fairfax County, VA Public Schools;
Ms. Tracy McKoy, a parent coordinator in Fairfax County; and
Ms. Ashley Izadpanah, a student volunteer in Fairfax County.
We thank all of our witnesses for joining us today, and we
look forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.003
Mr. Souder. I now yield to our ranking member, Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to welcome to our
hearing some young people from the Close Up Foundation, and we
have students here from Michigan, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
We are very, very happy to have you all with us. You are
seeing government in action and issues that affect you, so it
is nice that you came on the day that you came, because a lot
of the issues that we deal with go to trying to prevent young
people from entering the world of illegal drugs. So we welcome
you.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just start off by quoting an
article that you are quoted in. It is by Paul Singer and it is
the National Journal, and it is dated April 23, 2005. Now, I am
not going to do your quotes, but I am going to say this. Let me
show you how the article starts. ``If you can name the current
drug czar, you are probably mad at him. Republican and
Democratic Members of Congress, law enforcement officials
around the country, academics who study drug policy, even
former and current staff members are raising complaints about
the performance of the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy. Under the leadership of John Walters, the
Office is accused of retreating from its mission, abandoning
key programs without consulting with Congress, and losing or
forcing out key staff members with years of experience.''
I will skip a little bit. Then it says, ``Walters has
clearly lowered the profile of the Office, critics say, and in
some cases withdrawn from consultation even with those agencies
that are considered allies.''
The reason why I read that, Mr. Chairman, is because I am,
too, very concerned that we would invite ONDCP here to talk
about what is going on in the Department and they not show up.
It is an insult to me; it is an insult to the Congress of the
United States of America. And I don't say that very lightly. I
don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but when I come to
Washington, I come to do the people's business. I have a lot of
work to do in Baltimore in my district. So when I rush down
here on a Tuesday, when I could get here at 6:30, and I get
here at 2, I expect the people that we want to come to testify
to be present.
And with that introduction and what has been said about
Drug Czar Walters--and understand he is a friend of mine. I
have supported him 100 percent even before he got into this
position, and have consistently done it. When you cannot send
an under-staffer, you know, send me somebody to defend your
budget and the situation, and then we have all these wonderful
people who can show up, it says a lot. And I think that
somebody needs to get that message to Drug Czar Walters, that
the Congress will not stand for that.
Now, as we noted in the past, Mr. Chairman, drug abuse
accounts for the loss of some 20,000 lives in the United States
each year. Most of these deaths are attributable to the use of
hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, meth, and ecstasy, but all
illegal drug use takes a toll on our society, and the more
effective we are in preventing people from using any drug in
the first place, the better our chances for achieving a drug-
free America.
The costs inflicted on individuals, families, communities,
and the Nation as a whole--in terms of reduced academic
achievement, employment prospects and productivity, increased
risk of illness and substantial healthcare costs, family strife
and dissolution, drug-related crime and violence, soaring
criminal justice system costs, and loss of human promise--are
simply too immense for us not to do all that we can to educate
and persuade Americans to avoid using drugs. That is why I
believe that it is imperative that we do just that, that we
invest, but invest heavily, in drug prevention.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the President's budget for
fiscal year 2006 does not take that path. Instead, the
administration has made the choice to reverse ground on
prevention at a time when we clearly need to move forward.
Overall, the President's budget request of $12.4 billion
for drug control programs in fiscal year 2006, up from
approximately $12.2 billion in fiscal year 2005, according to
ONDCP, ``the President's fiscal year 2006 budget increases
funding levels for drug programs throughout the Federal
Government.'' But a close examination of the budget reveals
that the administration is proposing significant increases for
international supply reduction efforts at the expense of both
demand reduction and support for State and local drug
enforcement.
Whereas the fiscal year 2005 drug budget allocated
approximately 45 percent of Federal drug control funding to
demand reduction, only 39 percent would go to the demand
reduction side in fiscal year 2006. But the total of $4.8
billion allocated for demand reduction in fiscal year 2006 is
not just a smaller percentage of the drug budget; it also
represents a net reduction of about $270 million compared to
the level appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2005.
A mere 8.3 percent of the total drug control budget would
go to prevention programs, versus 11.3 percent in fiscal year
2005. In my opinion, the 13.3 was inadequate, and 3 percent
less is moving in the wrong direction.
And let us not overlook the fact that this is a drug
control budget that does not even account for more than $4
billion in Federal funds devoted to the incarceration of
convicted drug offenders.
The most severe program cut in the area of prevention is
the elimination of $441 million in funding for grants to States
under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program within the
Department of Education. If we enact the President's request,
the consequences will be felt in classrooms across the country,
where States and localities simply cannot afford to fund drug
education on their own.
The Drug-Free Communities Support Program, which leverages
the resource of community coalitions organized at the
grassroots level, is funded at $10 million below the level
authorized in fiscal year 2006, and the $2 million annual
budget of the National Coalition Institute, run by the
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, is slashed by more
than half.
And one of the sad things about this, Mr. Chairman, these
are the programs that we have so many people volunteering and
giving their blood, sweat, and tears to make work, and it is
probably one of the best investments that we can make because
not only do we get more bang for our buck, that is, that you
have a lot of unpaid people who we are helping to rid their own
communities of drugs and deal with prevention, but it also
makes them partners with the Government to do this.
So they become extremely sensitized to all of the problems,
and then the more they become sensitized and the more they
learn, then they can spread that word to other communities and
perhaps help them address the problem. So it is a wonderful
deal for our budget and our efforts.
The budget further proposes to eliminate the Drug
Enforcement Administration's Demand Reduction Program and to
cut funding for drug prevention efforts by the National Guard.
Under the President's budget, the Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention within SAMHSA would receive $15 million less
in fiscal year 2005. And I will be very interested to hear from
Mr. Curie with regard to how that will affect his efforts.
The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, the
Government's primary means of disseminating messages that
discourage teen drug use, would receive $120 million, an amount
equal to the figure appropriated in fiscal year 2005, but some
$60 million below the amount originally authorized for the
program in 1998. Mr. Chairman, if we want an effective anti-
drug media campaign, one that stands a chance of competing with
the countervailing messages that are pervasive in today's media
environment, we have to fund it at a level that will enable it
to have the reach and frequency required for it to have maximum
impact.
The President in 2002 announced a goal of reducing both
youth and adult drug use by 10 percent over 5 years and by 25
percent over 10 years. We all support those objectives. The
2005 National Drug Control Strategy states that the President's
5-year goal for youth drug use has not only been met, but that
it has been exceeded, and that is encouraging news.
But I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that the same Monitoring
the Future survey that shows a reduction in the use of any
illicit drugs among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders also shows
worrisome trends in the use of cocaine and heroin by youth in
the same age groups, as well as among young adults. Thus, while
a sharp drop in reported teen use of marijuana enables the
administration to claim victory in meeting the President's 5-
year goal for reducing overall drug use among youth, it is
clear that we must do more, not less, to ensure that we are
reducing the use of all dangerous drugs among both youth and
adults.
Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the administration's
budget priorities at the beginning of the President's second
term of office are informed by fiscal constraints relating to
homeland security, the war in Iraq, and other economic factors.
But the obvious erosion of emphasis on demand reduction, and
prevention in particular, cannot be explained by extraneous
factors when the overall drug control budget is being
increased. Moreover, the justifications that the administration
offers for cutting or eliminating some programs while boosting
funding for others simply do not appear to hold water.
ONDCP, in the President's 2005 National Drug Control
Strategy, attempts to make the case that severe cuts to
programs like Safe and Drug-Free Schools are based on the
failure of these programs to demonstrate effectiveness under
the administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART]. But
a recent analysis by former ONDCP staffer John Carnevale shows
that at least half of the Federal drug budget is exempt from
PART review and further concludes that PART was not central to
shaping the Federal drug control budget.
I am almost finished, Mr. Chairman.
The President and the Office of the National Drug Control
Policy are ultimately responsible for the shape of the Federal
drug control budget. ONDCP has explicit statutory authority to
review and certify the drug control budgets of agencies
throughout the Government and formulates the President's
National Drug Control Strategy. Congress placed that authority
in the Executive Office of the President to ensure that the
Federal budget provides adequate support for all the Nation's
drug control priorities, with the ultimate aim of reducing drug
use.
The clear shift of priorities in the proposed budget for
the coming fiscal year raises serious questions about how ONDCP
is utilizing its statutory authority.
And again, for all of those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am
disappointed that John Walters is not with us. But I do thank
all of our other partners who are here, and I want to say to
you, if I don't get a chance to say it in the future, I want to
thank all of you for doing what you do everyday to make a
difference in our country with regard to drugs, because you may
not realize it now, but you are affecting generations yet
unborn in a very, very positive way, and we do appreciate you.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.017
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Before proceeding, I would like to take care of a couple
procedural matters. First, ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to submit written statements
and questions for the hearing record; that any answers to
written questions provided by the witnesses also be included in
the record. Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents,
and other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses
may be included in the hearing record, and that all Members be
permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without
objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent to insert a statement from
Congressman John Peterson on the drug control budget, a member
of the Appropriations Committee, and also from the First Lady
of Ohio, Hope Taft, a statement on the drug prevention
programs. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Peterson and Ms. Taft
follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.031
Mr. Souder. Our first panel is composed of the Honorable
Charles Curie, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services and Oversight Committee.
It is our standard practice to ask all our witnesses to
testify under oath, so if you will stand and raise your right
hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that Mr. Curie responded in
the affirmative.
We look forward to your testimony, and you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES CURIE, ADMINISTRATOR, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [SAMHSA], DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. Curie. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Congressman Cummings. I especially want to thank you for the
opportunity to present SAMHSA's role in achieving the
President's goals for preventing substance abuse and reducing
addiction.
Over the past 4 years we have worked hard at SAMHSA to
align our resources and our vision of ``a life in the community
for everyone,'' and our mission is to ``build resilience and
facilitate recovery.'' Stopping drug use before it starts is
foundational to our success.
In partnership with other Federal agencies, States and
local communities, and faith-based organizations, consumers,
families, and providers, we are working to ensure that every
American has the opportunity to live, work, learn, and enjoy a
healthy, productive, and drug-free life.
Under the leadership of President Bush, we have embarked on
a strategy that is working. The most recent data confirms that
we are steadily accomplishing the President's goal to reduce
teen drug use by 25 percent in 5 years. Now at the 3-year mark,
we have seen a 17 percent reduction and there are now 600,000
fewer teens using drugs than there were in 2001.
This is an indication that our partnerships and the work of
prevention professionals--schools, parents, teachers, law
enforcement, religious leaders, anti-drug coalitions--are
paying off. We know that when we push against the drug problem,
it recedes; and, fortunately, today we know more about what
works in prevention, education and treatment than ever before.
We also know our work is far from over. To provide a
science-based structured approach to substance abuse
prevention, SAMHSA has launched the Strategic Prevention
Framework. The Framework allows States to bring together
multiple funding streams from multiple sources to create and
sustain a community-based approach to prevention. People
working with our youth and young adults understand the need to
create an approach to prevention that cuts across existing
programs. I have seen it firsthand.
I have had the privilege to visit many cutting-edge
prevention programs, programs that I have been tremendously
impressed as I have walked away, but time and time again I have
also been extremely frustrated. I see prevention programs
scrambling for limited dollars from multiple Federal, State,
local, public, and private sector funding streams. All have
specific and sometimes even competing requirements.
For example, in the Department of Health and Human Services
alone there is the Health Resources and Services
Administration, the Center for Disease Control, Administration
for Children and Families, National Institutes of Health, of
course, SAMHSA; and then there are the Departments of
Education, of Justice. And these don't even include State,
local, and private funding streams. Each alone provides a
trickling of a funding stream, but leveraged together in the
right way around a strategy they can produce an ocean of
change.
Whether we speak about abstinence or rejecting drugs,
tobacco, and alcohol, whether we are promoting exercise and a
healthy diet, preventing violence, or promoting mental health,
we are really all working toward the same objectives: reducing
risk factors and promoting protective factors.
Under the new Strategic Prevention Framework, this grant
program, participating communities will implement a five-step
public health process known to promote youth development,
reduce risk-taking behaviors, build assets and resilience, and
prevent problem behaviors. The steps include, first, a
community assesses its substance abuse related problems,
including magnitude, location, associated risks and protective
factors. Communities also assess service gaps in readiness, and
they examine all available funding, putting all the dollars on
the table.
Second, communities must engage key stakeholders, build
coalitions, organize and train and leverage prevention
resources. Third, communities establish a plan for organizing
and implementing prevention resources. The plan must be based
on documented needs, build on identified resources, set
baselines, objectives, and performance measures. And, fourth,
communities implement evidence-based prevention efforts
specifically designed to reduce those identified risk factors
and promote identified protective factors. In other words, have
a tailored approach for that community. Finally, communities
will monitor and report outcomes to assess program
effectiveness and service delivery quality, and to determine if
objectives are being attained or if there is a need for
correction.
The success of the Strategic Prevention Framework will then
be measured by specific national outcomes. And I know at a
previous hearing we had a focus on those outcomes, and they
include: abstinence from drug use and alcohol abuse, reduction
in substance abuse-related crime, attainment of employment or
enrollment in school, increased stability in family and living
conditions, and increase social connectedness. These measures
are true measures of whether our programs are helping young
people and adults achieve our vision of a life in the
community.
I firmly believe that by focusing our Nation's attention,
energy, and resources, we can continue to make progress. We
also recognize that the most important work to prevent
substance abuse is done in America's living rooms and
classrooms, in churches and synagogs, in the workplace and in
our neighborhoods. Families, schools, communities, and faith-
based organizations shape the character of young people; they
teach children right from wrong, respect for the law, respect
for others, and, most importantly, respect for themselves. They
are indispensable, and we stand ready to assist them in every
possible way.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Framework and
taking an interest in this new and innovative approach to
preventing substance abuse. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cummings,
thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward
to continuing to work with you in partnership toward a healthy,
drug-free America, and I would be very pleased to answer any
questions or engage in discussion with the committee. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curie follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.038
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much. Let me first thank you for
your work in the areas of treatment. We have had multiple
hearings on treatment and, of course, that is one of the major
components. In many ways what is difficult about today's
hearing is we are trying to prevent things that then often the
Government has to deal with if we fail to prevent, whether that
be treatment, whether that be interdicting, eradicating,
throwing people in jail, trying to deal with the drug problems
in jail. And the big question we get a lot of times is how are
you focused on treatment and what are you doing.
So let me ask, because that is not the primary
responsibility of your agency, but the ONDCP budget summary
said that they viewed your program, the Substance Abuse
Prevention Treatment, as about 20 percent prevention and about
80 percent treatment. Is that a rule or just an estimate, or
how do you work through a number like that?
Mr. Curie. I think what they are referring to is the block
grant, and the intent of the block grant in statute is 80
percent of the block grant dollars, which is approximately $1.8
billion, is to be geared toward the treatment system. And I
describe that 80 percent as really the foundation of the public
substance abuse treatment system in this country, because other
public funding streams such as Medicaid and Medicare are a
very, very small portion as compared to other types of
illnesses and disorders.
So with SAMHSA's block grant, with our discretionary
program of funds, Access to Recovery, as well as with the State
match that is required in terms of the maintenance of effort,
that basically comprises the major part of the treatment system
in this country. Twenty percent of the block grants--we work in
partnership with State drug and alcohol authorities in
monitoring this process--are to go toward prevention
activities. Then we have the discretionary budget within CSAP,
where, again, the Strategic Prevention Framework is funded, so
we have the dollars in the CSAP budget that also go toward
prevention, which are approximately $190 million, in that
vicinity, $200 million.
Mr. Souder. So you are saying that was by statute it is 80/
20.
Mr. Curie. I believe it is required in the block grant. We
can double-check that, but I believe that is where it is coming
from, yes.
Mr. Souder. And how do you view yourself in the sense of
obviously you have more dollars in treatment, but, in fact, if
the administration were successful in wiping out Safe and Drug-
free Schools, other than the small national program, you are
the biggest prevention player on the block then.
Mr. Curie. I think that may be right. I would have to
double-check all those figures.
Mr. Souder. Because if you take your $190 plus one-fifth of
$1.8 billion, you are close to double anything else.
Let me ask another question, because one of the
frustrations that I see as a Congressman and I saw as a
staffer, we have so many different programs, for example, we
have who knows how many programs that, say they are reducing
low birth weight. Now the current trend is gangs, so all these
programs are going to run to the gangs question. Recently ONDCP
apparently acknowledged that they suspended regular meetings of
the Demand Reduction Working Group. Were you or any of your
deputies part of the Demand Reduction Working Group that is
supposed to be of the different agencies at work?
Mr. Curie. There have been some meetings over the past 4
years. I participated in some of those meetings or sent
representatives over the course, especially during the first
term. I can recall I attended personally at least two or three
of those meetings.
Mr. Souder. Do you feel they were useful?
Mr. Curie. I feel they were useful from the perspective of
sharing what we were all doing, as well as it gave ONDCP the
opportunity to share overall directions. What I found most
useful has been the ongoing dialog we have with ONDCP on a
pretty regular basis. It is more informal, but staff at various
levels of SAMHSA, including myself, having contact with ONDCP
has been occurring.
Mr. Souder. But nobody has ever come in and said, boy, we
are spending nearly $1 billion here on drug prevention, we
ought to have a coordinated drug prevention strategy? In other
words, you are saying it is useful to kind of swap notes, but
when you are pouring $360 million into the States, roughly a
fifth of $1.8 billion, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools is
pouring similar amounts in; you have another $190 million in,
they have some under the CTAC program; we used to have it in
Housing, which is now more optional in the Housing for various
types of activities, but can include drugs. Is anybody looking
and saying, boy, we have all this money going every which
direction. Rather than just saying that it is not working,
maybe we ought to figure out how to make it work. Instead, we
suspended the meetings, the little meeting that we did have. I
don't understand.
Mr. Curie. Well, again, I might be biased, but I clearly
think that is what SAMHSA is doing with HHS and working with
partnership with ONDCP and the other Federal agencies through
Strategic Prevention Framework. I couldn't agree with you more
in terms of the dynamic you describe, and ONDCP has been
extremely supportive of us pursuing SPF. I think our prevention
efforts, while there has been money out there at a lot of
levels--and, again, I know you are talking about some
reductions today. My concern has been we haven't had a handle
from the local community, the State level, or the national
level totally in terms of how many prevention programs are
really being funded and looking at it from a systemic level.
With Strategic Prevention Framework and working with the
States and communities, as I indicated, one of the first steps
is each community being empowered to put all their dollars on
the table, what they are receiving, and then embark on a
process of assessing the risks that are in that community that
contribute to the substance abuse problem in that community, as
well as the protective factors, and then from that have a
baseline of use and then begin to embark upon a plan to fund,
in a leveraged way and an augmenting way and a coordinated way,
in the community the evidence-based programs that address those
risk factors and for the first time have a real science base as
well as a framework which empowers entities at all levels. And
as I mentioned in my remarks, youth development agencies,
faith-based organizations, the school systems needing to be
very much a part of that process, local law enforcement, all
the entities that touch youths lives in a youth development
sort of way. And the anti-drug coalitions are, of course,
critical to that process as well, and we want to buildupon what
is already there.
So I couldn't agree with you more that we need to be
pressing a systemic look at prevention, how we are leveraging
it, and, most importantly, how we are empowering local
communities to leverage the resources they have. I have been
pleased with the enthusiasm and discussions I have had with
Justice, Education, as well as my fellow other operating
divisions in HHS around Strategic Prevention Framework, seeing
how their programs can fit into that.
The other thing, we are trying to make Strategic Prevention
Framework not another prevention program that is competing for
more dollars, but to be the framework to really help leverage
the dollars from other programs. And we think that is the most
important thing we can do in leadership right now.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you again for being here. I just want
to go back to something that you said. You talked about
reducing the risk factors. Talk about that a little bit more.
Mr. Curie. What we want to do and what you need to do in a
community is take a look at what are the types of potential
risk factors that exist. For example, a community that has a
lot of mobility in it, that there is not a real stable
neighborhood in that community, taking a look at identifying
how do you address that risk factor through bringing some
stability around a sense of neighborhood. How do you address
that? Is there a focus on strengthening family relationships,
the parent-child relationship, does the community do anything
about looking at that? How active are the children in
extracurricular activities and how active is the school system
in engaging that community? Again, that can either be a risk or
protective factor depending on what level you find. And there
is a way of identifying, there is a range and a way, and we can
show you risk factors that have been identified scientifically,
that can be identified in a community.
And then protective factors that already do exist in
communities, how do you strengthen those protective factors. A
community that has a real strong sense of community, a real
sense of its neighborhood and where the institutions are
connected together. That is a protective factor in and of
itself. There are ways you can promote those protective
factors.
Also, with our national registry of effective programs, we
have 65 evidence-based programs that have been demonstrated
through a scientific review to reduce substance abuse 25
percent or less. We want that to be a resource with Strategic
Prevention Framework that communities could select those
programs that would best meet the needs that community has
based on the risk factors identified.
So there would be a real tailored approach based on the
unique needs of that community.
Mr. Cummings. Going back to those 65 programs, these, I
guess, would be considered best practices for certain
circumstances, is that accurate?
Mr. Curie. Yes. It depends how you use the terms. I think
they would be better than best practices, actually, in terms of
being evidence-based. So they actually have an evidence base to
them that they have demonstrated that they have lowered
substance abuse use in communities.
Mr. Cummings. I don't know whether you were listening to me
when I was going over my opening statement.
Mr. Curie. I was.
Mr. Cummings. Right answer. Thought I would catch you
sleeping.
But you know the thing that I think Congressman Souder and
I, and I think many Members of Congress, will attest to, is
that when we go from neighborhood to neighborhood and we talk
to our constituents, there are so many people that want to do
something, but they don't know what to do and they don't know
how to do it. So that is why I am so big on this community
stuff, because I cannot imagine--I mean, if you can take some
people who are already committed to do something, I mean, you
think about all the competing tasks that we have as a parent,
our job and all that, and these people say, look, I want to
help. And a lot of times in some of our communities these are
people who don't even have children or their children are gone
on and they are professionals or whatever, but they still want
to help. So I am just trying to make sure that as we deal with
our budget priorities, that we are not only reducing money to
go to those kind of efforts. So, for example, you say $10
million. When it comes to manpower and all the volunteer hours
and the product--because I really believe that if somebody is
willing to go out there and volunteer, they may very well work
harder, maybe not as many hours, but harder than somebody who
is getting paid, and they have that sense of community.
There is a guy in my neighborhood and he is a very
interesting fellow. Every Saturday and Thursday and Tuesday he
goes around and he picks up all the trash. He does a great job
for free. And I look at him sometimes and I say, you know--then
I go to the other neighborhoods where they have people cleaning
up, and he does a better job. But it is because it is coming
from somewhere in here.
I just don't want us to be in a position where we spend so
much time trying to pinch pennies and then leave communities
out, and then cause their morale--first of all, cause them to
say, OK, well, I guess there is nothing I can do, because that
is one of the easiest things for us to do, say there is nothing
I can do, and keep getting up, because we have all these other
things to do. So we lose that and we lose the product that they
would produce, and the prevention and all that kind of stuff.
We used to talk a lot about volunteerism and all this, and I
have to tell you in some kind of way we have to make sure we
use that here, because if we don't we have lost an incredible
resource.
Mr. Curie. I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, what
you have just described is exactly what I think Strategic
Prevention Framework can help empower community. One of the
things we envision is that a community actually brings its full
leadership, and we are talking from the faith community, the
school district again, city government, chamber of commerce,
law enforcement, all the youth development agencies, United
way, the anti-drug coalitions that are already in these
communities set up. Come to the table and, first of all, get a
sense of community; take a look at the resources. And the goal
of Strategic Prevention Framework long-term, in my mind, is not
only to better use the dollars we have--and I get real worried
that prevention is vulnerable all the time anyway. Prevention
is vulnerable because historically it has been hard to measure.
Prevention is vulnerable because it is hard to understand and
you can actually understand treatment a little more.
Now, I advocate continuing to keep treatment services
funded as well because we want to help the people who are
drowning in the river. But we also can make the most impact by
preventing people from getting in that river in the first
place. And with Strategic Prevention Framework, I am convinced
if a community knew how much they had in terms of prevention
resources and they were willing--and this is also to help give
incentives to doing away with the turf that can occur in the
communities. And if a community can have a clear point of
contact around a prevention framework, then those individuals
you just described, who have a desire to be of service, or they
are at a point in their life where perhaps their family has
grown and they really want to be invested in the community,
that they would know where to turn, because that community
would have a plan, a strategy; they would know where to go for
the resources and they would know where to volunteer.
So it gives an opportunity for a community to truly empower
people at all those levels, and that is why I feel this is a
rather profound approach, trying to do it at a systemic level,
and I think it is an appropriate level for the Federal
Government to be really working with States and communities to
empower them to do this, because I think it is hard to just do
that on your own.
Mr. Cummings. You know, last but not least, General Dean
and others had some folks come to Baltimore, and I just found
it so amazing that these people came to Baltimore and they met
with people who were neighborhood people who were struggling.
They came because they had good experiences in their
neighborhoods and they had discovered their power. So they came
to Baltimore and presented their--these are regular, everyday
people. I mean, it was so powerful. I sat there and I was just
like amazed that you could have one group that had figured it
out, and they looked just like the people they were talking to,
similar circumstances, and they flew in and they were like
superstars, you know, superstars of prevention. And my folks
looked at them and said, wow, you know, and they got ideas and
they were empowered by seeing people who looked like them, who
came from neighborhoods like theirs, who had effectively
addressed a drug problem in their neighborhood, and they were
able to say, hey, you know, we can do that too. So it became
contagious. That is the other piece.
And I am a big person on treatment, but I tell you, Mr.
Curie, as much as I am a big proponent of treatment, I tell
you, I hate for people to have to go through the process to
have to have treatment.
Mr. Curie. Absolutely.
Mr. Cummings. Because I see the destruction. I really do. I
live in a neighborhood--well, it has gotten better now, but I
live in a neighborhood where, if you bought your house in 1982
for $100,000, when crack cocaine came around, you could have
put $100,000 into that $100,000 house and you couldn't sell it
for $35,000 period. And that happens to neighborhoods. So the
wealth goes down, families are destroyed.
So all I am saying to you is when you have your
discussions, I hope that you will take back that message, since
you already believe in it, because there are so many people who
are out here, and I don't want them to be discouraged. I really
don't. I think that is one of the worst things that we can do.
That is our army. It is like telling your military we are not
going to support you, go home, see you later, and let us give
us. And I think that is one of the most crucial messages that
we have to get to the folks that make these decisions.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
I had a detailed question that is off the budget. I guess
this is more on ONDCP, but let me see if I can communicate this
clearly enough. If not, we can get it a written response.
In your budget, the President's budget you have a reduction
of $15 million in prevention programs and you have an increase
of about $23 million in treatment. It appears that almost all
the $15 million reduction is in ``programs of regional and
national significance.'' That is by looking at the breakout of
the budget as to where that occurred. Yet, later on in the
report it says that SAMHSA will be able to expand the Strategic
Prevention Framework, which is what you have been talking about
today, with five new grants, for a total of $12\1/2\ million.
If the program is going down 15, but you are increasing
that 12\1/2\, what is the money coming out of?
Mr. Curie. I am glad you asked that question. First of all,
as you all know, because you are dealing with it, it is very
challenging budget times all the way around, so overall there
is a 1\1/2\ percent reduction in the SAMHSA budget overall. And
I will be testifying tomorrow before the Subcommittee on
Appropriations about the overall budget. So we had some very
tough decisions to make in terms of prioritizing where we
needed to put dollars, to mitigate some of the issues that we
are facing, we developed some key rules of thumb as we made
some budget decisions. First of all, we generally looked at
grants and contracts that were coming to an end, and in those
$15 million that you have discussed in the Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention, it is primarily either programs that were
coming to their natural conclusion; second, some of them were
earmarks that were coming to their natural conclusion as well;
and, third, we were able to gain efficiencies by combining
contracts, our clearinghouse efforts and some other contracts.
And our director of CSAP, Beverly Watts Davis, worked to try to
gain some efficiencies through those contracts. So that is all
reflected in that $15 million.
Now, the additional dollars for Strategic Prevention
Framework is over the past 2 years we have been making a
decision to try to use some of the dollars that are not
continuing in grants that they were in, using our existing
budget as much as we can to shift toward Strategic Prevention
Framework, because, again, we felt that was also an appropriate
focus for CSAP, as the lead Federal agency around substance
abuse prevention, to set the stage for a framework for other
prevention programs that are being funded by other Federal
agencies, as well as State, local, and private sector
organizations.
So those three dynamics were in play as we evaluated where
we needed to make some reductions. We tried to mitigate it as
much as possible and at the same time make decisions.
One thing I haven't mentioned today is the SAMHSA matrix,
which is unusual for me, but on the matrix we have those
priorities outlined, Strategic Prevent Framework is one of
them, and that has been guiding us even in the better budget
years. It especially became useful in the tougher budget years,
when you had to make some tougher decisions to keep our eye on
the ball, so to speak, to fulfill our mission based on what we
have set in stage over the past 3 to 4 years.
Mr. Souder. I thank you. We may have some more written
questions. I may come back, but I want to do something else
first. Do you have another question for him?
Mr. Cummings. Let me make sure I understand what you just
said. You are saying that your staff was able to look at--is it
mainly duplication?
Mr. Curie. It can be duplication of management efforts, and
when you can consolidate contracts and grants, you do eliminate
and gain some overhead efficiencies.
Mr. Cummings. And the ones that were coming to an end, are
we missing out on something now? In other words, I assume those
are things, some of which, folks would have wanted to renew, is
that accurate?
Mr. Curie. Well, I would imagine some of the people that
were receiving the grants may have wanted to have an
opportunity to renew some, but it has not been unusual for a 3-
year grant cycle to end, and the grantee knows it is going to
come to an end. So, again, I think decisions were made trying
to keep that in mind, as well as we did make a clear decision,
a conscious decision over the past 2 to 3 years to try and move
our dollars as much as we can into funding the Framework,
because we felt ultimately those dollars will serve communities
better by leveraging all the other dollars than just going into
individual programs, because this way we can truly bring some
things to scale on more of a national level.
Mr. Cummings. Do you have more control when you put them in
the Framework also?
Mr. Curie. I believe we do.
Mr. Cummings. More accountability too?
Mr. Curie. Well, with the outcome measures, I am confident
we are going to have more accountability. And, again, the
outcome measures are going to be consistent outcome measures
that we are utilizing with all of our grants, but most
importantly coming from all communities and States. So for the
first time we hopefully will be able to paint a national
portrait, if you will, of really what these dollars are
impacting and affecting. And then my goal is not only to
continue to see substance abuse use go down, but to be in a
position where I can come to you or I can talk to, within the
executive branch, OMB and our budget folks and be able to
demonstrate that the dollars were used the best way possible
and any new dollars can go into these evidence-based efforts
that you can have confidence they are going to be used wisely.
And I think that has been one of the challenges that the
prevention community has been up against for many years.
Mr. Cummings. Well, as I listened to the President's State
of the Union, he was talking about programs in general, and he
said that they were duplicating and that he needed to get rid
of some programs. And after I began to look at some of the
programs--and I am not talking about your agency, I am talking
about in general--some of them were not things that were
duplicated. One could make the argument as to whether they fit
in the priority list of the President, but duplication was not
the right word for all of them, and I guess what I was trying
to get at is what it sounds like you all did.
Congressman Souder has heard me say it 50 million times. If
there is one thing that Democrats and Republicans agree on, it
is that their tax dollars be spent in an effective and
efficient manner, and that sounds like what you are talking
about. I guess what I want to make sure, though, is that when
we move toward effectiveness and efficiency, it is true
effectiveness and efficiency, and not perhaps leaving out
something or some things that although they may have gone under
discretionary--would that be the right category?
Mr. Curie. Programs of regional and national significance.
Mr. Cummings. Right. I just want to make sure--and even
some of them I would guess were probably good things.
Mr. Curie I think everything we have funded have been good
things.
Mr. Cummings. OK.
Mr. Curie. Historically. I mean, I think they are always
well intended. Again, if we see that there is a program that
isn't achieving the outcomes, we first of all try to provide
technical assistance to help them, but over time if they don't
``meet muster'' that is our responsibility, to do the
appropriate review and monitoring of that. But I think every
program that generally gets funded, the intention is always
good and it is addressing a need.
Mr. Cummings. All right, thanks.
Mr. Souder. I think to make this a little easier, because I
think for the record what we ought to have--basically it is $27
million, it is not a small amount, because you have a $15
million reduction and $12 increase, so it is a $27 million
switch. It would be helpful if you could provide for us a
list--I will talk to Mr. Regula, too, because I think the
Appropriations Committee should have that too, because it may
be we are in complete agreement, but I suspect, given your own
report, very minimal of that was ineffective programs. I think
you only had a small percentage of programs that were deemed
ineffective. He used the magical word, which was another way of
saying part of what is happening here is the administration
makes its request on what it thinks is important, but he used
the word earmarks in here. So we probably have a pretty good
chunk of this $27 million being earmarks, of which there will
always be earmarks.
So the question is then what happens to the drug budget.
And partly what happens here is when the administration comes
up with a budget and it isn't really a comprehensive budget
that calculates in what is going to happen in Congress, we
freelance. And instead of having a drug prevention budget, our
guys start to add things on the Hill because it wasn't thought
that, oh, my lands, you mean they might add something in
Congress? Of course they might add something in Congress, since
they do every year in every single program. And then we have to
go back and say we are short $27 million. So what does it come
out of? And, defacto, Congress winds up setting up a drug
policy program that is not necessarily well developed because
it hasn't been reflected in a realistic appropriations
question.
Now, this isn't directed at you. It is a little, but you
are asked to come up with what you think you would do in your
agency, and what I am saying is that, strategically, when OMB
clears what comes up, they also have to think a little bit of
what is realistically going to happen on the Hill. And I think
a listing of these projects will give us some indication of
what is happening, because we are likely to get earmarks back.
If half of that $27 million is earmarks, we are likely to get
that same amount again. Therefore, you are going to be $13
million short. And then we come back to our question that we
asked, which you don't have an answer yet today because you
don't know what the number is going to be. But that money is
going to come from somewhere, or there is going to have to be a
budget increase, and the question is what type of programs are
we giving up even when we do an earmark, because if we don't
have a realistic budget match-up, it is hard to figure out what
tradeoffs we are making when we do an earmark, when we do
different things in Congress; and it is a systemic problem, it
is not new this year.
But in my opinion, with all due respect, this year's
budget, of which yours are minor changes, but compared to
wiping out Drug-Free Schools and then moving the money over,
when you move figures like $360 million, as opposed to $15, or
try to wipe out most of the HIDTA program or knock out all the
Burn grant, the overall drug budget is so unrealistic and so
uncoordinated coming out of the administration this year it is
irrelevant. And what it is forcing Congress to do between the
House and Senate is put together for the first time--really,
working with the Senate you are getting more cooperation in
Congress, because what do we do when the administration chooses
not to lead? In drug treatment that has not been a problem, but
in drug prevention we have no coordinated leadership strategy.
We have no leadership strategy whatsoever. You are the only one
who is willing to even talk about it. I wouldn't want to talk
about it if I were the other agencies either. They don't have a
strategy. Department of Education is getting zeroed out. ONDCP
didn't like it last time that we said, how come you are gutting
the drug czar's office? It is basically a repeat of Bill
Clinton's administration, watching the drug czar's office get
gutted, and it is embarrassing to come up to the Hill and face
that.
Now, I have some questions I am going to put on the record,
because it should never be said that skipping a hearing is
easier than being at a hearing. So I have some questions that I
am going to ask publicly that I want written responses to, and
I will continue to work with the Appropriations Committee,
that, by the way, is equally appalled. These are questions I
would have asked ONDCP and the Department of Education had they
been here and been willing to defend their budgets, as Mr.
Curie has been.
No. 1, since Director Walters became head of ONDCP in 2001,
the administration has identified drug use prevention as one of
the critical three pillars of the effective drug control. The
percent of Federal funding proposed in the administration's
budget for prevention, however, has dropped to only 13 percent
of the total drug control budget. Why is this pillar so much
shorter than the other pillars?
Two, if the Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grants cannot
demonstrate results by OMB's reckoning, why didn't the
administration, at any time in the last 4 years, propose
reforming the grants to make them more accountable and
effective?
Three, if the administration has lost confidence in the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grants, but is prepared to
boost the funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools' national
program grants, then why didn't the administration propose
moving all of the funding for the State Grants to the national
programs instead of only a portion?
Four, the administration has proposed level funding for the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the Drug-Free
Communities Support Program. Given inflation, this amounts to a
reduction in total resources for both programs. Why didn't the
administration at least propose an increase to keep pace with
inflation?
Five, why did ONDCP suspend the regular meetings of the
Demand Reduction Working Group, which used to bring together
senior political appointees from the Federal agencies involved
in drug control?
Six, does the administration believe that student drug
testing alone, unaccompanied by education or other prevention
programs, will be effective? If not, what kind of programs need
to accompany the testing?
Now, remember, when I was a staffer in the Senate for
Senator Coats, I wrote the first drug testing provision, and it
was based off of a high school in Indiana, McCutchen High
School, where they had a problem on their baseball team, and we
allowed testing through Drug-Free Schools program for the first
time. We also worked with then Senator Danforth in the
Transportation drug testing, which were the first two drug
testing programs in 1989 and 1990, and I was a staffer, I was a
legislative director and we had a number of other staffers on
it that worked with this. I am enthusiastic of drug testing,
but drug testing alone does not solve the problems. Drug
testing is a monitor of the effectiveness of programs and of
treatment programs, it is not a prevention program, it is a
supplemental prevention program.
Seven, what changes to the law authorizing the Media
Campaign would ONDCP like to request from Congress? What should
the role of the Partnership for Drug-Free America and other
non-government organizations be?
And since they have chosen not to be here, we are going
ahead and writing a bill without them. And we would like at
least some written input, but it is a very frustrating process.
Now, let me make one other statement for the record. I find
it extraordinary that everybody from the administration comes
up and says how we are winning the war on drugs. But then they
want to wipe out the prevention part, and the local law
enforcement part, as we heard in an earlier hearing. If we are
winning, why would you gut the prevention leg strategy for more
or less, or at least take about 50 percent of it out, and why
would you take out the section on the Burn grants, which are
the local drug task forces, and the HIDTA funding, not to
mention most of CTAC, if your drug program is working?
Furthermore, as we learned, which is why they didn't want to
come forth, there are no studies that suggest that the HIDTA
program is a problem; there may be opinions. There are no
studies that suggest that the Burn grants weren't part of the
reduction. There are no studies that prove that Safe and Drug-
Free Schools--there is one GAO report that was 5 years ago.
Give me a break. And, furthermore, no suggestions of what the
alternatives will be.
And when they said they were going to transfer the crime
programs over to OCDEF, they had no proposal on the table, they
had no idea of what management plan there would be. Even though
they couldn't name a single HIDTA that wasn't working, they
couldn't name an alternative for what was going to substitute
for the HIDTA, because they had given no thought, no test, no
proposal to test, and it was supposed to be, take this, blind
Congress. Now we come to prevention programs and we have the
same thing. They don't even want to talk about it. They don't
even want to come up and explain Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
There have been no proposals with it; they are presenting no
evidence that Safe and Drug-Free Schools don't work, yet it
gets a big zero.
Then when we get to the other kind of general prevention
strategy, the fact is we aren't having coordinated meetings.
The director is meeting with Mr. Curie and says that he
believes his program is working. You have some of the biggest
programs. But we all know we have a huge coordination problem
at the local level and that this can't be done one-on-one, OK,
we are going to work on this group over here and this group
over here. We have to have a national prevention strategy,
which can only be done by getting the principal players
together and talking about it, starting with the President, a
national prevention strategy.
I just see a little bit, and this is one of my biggest
concerns, and I believe that your Strategic Prevention
Framework is a good idea, but we, as conservative Republicans,
are drifting to a very dangerous philosophy, and this budget is
the clearest example I have seen of it. I have believed from
the beginning--I am not a Libertarian. I believe we have a
Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation. I believe it
is important to have national programs. But I believe we
believe in local and State flexibility, and what we saw in the
local law enforcement hearing was an attempt to nationalize law
enforcement and say, instead of having a 50/50 vote on HIDTA's,
we are going to give it to OCDETF, where the Federal Government
can force them to do what these stupid people don't know how to
do themselves. And by taking the Burn grants, they are saying,
look at this local cops' money. Even though they do 90 percent
of the arrests, we think the Federal Government should set drug
arrest strategy.
Now we come to prevention programs. It appears that the
underlying reason why they don't like Safe and Drug-Free
Schools is it goes to the schools to determine the strategy,
which, quite frankly, if you get $600, it is tough at a given
school to come up with a strategy. So as we work through this
program, we need to figure out how to make it more effective.
But the solution then is to zero it out and only keep the
portion that is national, in other words, the portion that
Washington can say this is what we need to do, and Washington
is going to review and say this is how you should do programs
on national significance.
Now, in the Strategic Prevention Framework, the same thing
has to be, it has to be a true partnership. It doesn't have to
be the thousand pound gorilla telling these dumb yokels at the
local level what they need to know. The science can't be rigged
to throw out what is important, and that is sometimes, you
know, the passion of the individual at the local community
overcomes some of what is pure science here, because by getting
people who are very passionate, like you said, it is one at the
dinner table. And in prevention it is going to be a lot of the
one at the dinner table in the community, and it is messy and
it is hard. It is much easier to sit in the Washington office
and say this is what we think the prevention strategy ought to
be; this is what we think, we ought to go for these big crime
people, we shouldn't bother with the local police and State
police, and the local task forces and these local school people
and everybody. Just do what we say, we know, we are in
Washington; we have been on the Hill a while now, so we need to
do this.
The fact is that it has to be cooperative. When it is
cooperative, it is tough, because you have all these diverse
voices, and particularly in drug prevention, who don't agree on
anything, who, depending on the circumstances of their kids,
their neighborhood--my sociology prof used to call them my Aunt
Annie theory of evidence. It is tough. But if you are going to
make this Strategic Prevention Framework work, and if you are
going to in fact wind up knocking out, after we get the
earmarks done and stuff, a number of other programs that
historically went to grants to do Strategic Prevention
Framework, make sure that your program gives them a real voice
and not a manipulated voice that OCDETF says. OCDETF task
forces, by the way, are great for their limited function, but
their limited function heretofore has been the Federal
Government paying overtime for police officers to testify in
cases. As they want to get into the policy end, part of the
problem here is, as we heard from local law enforcement, do we
get a real voice or do we get to go to a meeting and be told
what to do? And that is the fundamental of cooperative, of true
empowerment, is there a vote to decide the Strategic Prevention
Framework; is there real input or is it this is what we want to
do, you are welcome to be on our board.
So if you would like to comment on the Strategic Prevention
Framework, but it is a general concern I have across the board.
At least you are here today to defend your position and explain
what you are doing, so thank you.
Mr. Curie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The essence of
Strategic Prevention Framework is to empower the local
community, for them to really be able to get a handle on their
particular needs, their particular risk factors. And I see the
role of Federal Government is one of facilitation, one of
providing an economy of scale, of resources to State and the
community to be able to make decisions; not tell the community
this is what you must do, but open up the reservoir of
information that is available in efficient and effective ways
for the community so they know what type of assessment tool to
use in that community, so that they can begin making informed
decisions. When I mentioned NREPP earlier, and I know there are
efforts going forth right now to look among several Federal
agencies to increase the repository of evidence-based programs,
that a community not be told you have to use this program, but
a community takes a look and they select, based on their needs,
make an informed choice of what will work for their community.
And also I couldn't agree with you more. Both you, Mr.
Chairman, and Congressman Cummings talked about the passion of
the individual. I think bringing all those leaders to the table
in the first place, with the whole notion that this community
is going to have its own prevention strategy that is
coordinated, in which there is collaboration, begins to clearly
set the stage to open up the door to volunteerism. I have
spoken also to many private foundations about this concept, and
they are very enthused that if a community has a strategy and
they have a handle on what the needs of their community are and
then they have embarked upon a process of funding programs
which meet those particular needs, I think it is going to
invite the private sector to have more confidence to invest in
a community because they will see that a community has a true
basis and strategy that is going to be measurable.
And the other issue that I think for the Federal Government
plays a role is helping empower in terms of evaluation. That is
always difficult for a local community and State, but we can
help facilitate that process to paint that national picture.
And, again, I think we have a responsibility to keep those
measures clear, to keep them consistent and not put undue
burden on grantees or States.
So I would view the Federal role in Strategic Prevention
Framework as facilitation, technical assistance, providing an
economy of scale for information, and empowering so informed
decisions can be made.
Mr. Souder. I want to pursue just a little bit more. My
friend Bob Woodson always talked about--and by the time I leave
this place, I am going to put this in a certain number of
places, and we are moving toward it--a zip code test, that the
bulk of the grants have to go to people who live in the zip
code where the money goes through, because too often we have
tried to address this with overhead percents, that to some
degree what I feel is the Federal Government funds 10 different
committees to coordinate and very little money to actually do,
and that we need to figure out how to better streamline those
type of systems.
So I agree with you, evaluation is there, so maybe you put
a percent in evaluation, things that you can better do by
pooling. But now we come back to the fundamental question: How
in the world do you do this without talking to Safe and Drug-
Free Schools, without talking to the other big players at the
table? Because here is what you would theoretically do--and the
only place right now we have to do this is through ONDCP, but
they are not here, so I will ask you. You would think that all
of you would be sitting down together, because what really is
going to get people at the table is if they think dollars are
coming.
And if there was a way to reform some of these systems and
say, look, we have a schools-based program, we have a
communities-based program and the community anti-drug things,
we have all your dollars, which you are kind of trying to put
together through this Strategic Prevention Framework but, as
you said, not overlap with the other dollars that are already
out there, which is hard to do if you aren't sitting talking
together, and that in this Framework that you would have a
Strategic Prevention Framework that in fact would define and
the people would participate and want to participate, and if
they felt a sense of ownership, which has to be there,
otherwise we are never going to end the set-aside grants in the
schools. Even though multiple people have tried to do this, it
has never been struck out. Why? Because nobody wants to cut the
money for their local schools when there is no alternative
vision on the table.
And if there was an alternative vision on the table that
said this is going to flow in by region, and that we are going
to have a Strategic Prevention Framework, and the community
anti-drug people and whatever else you are doing with your
dollars, and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools dollars are going
to be looked at in a comprehensive way by region so that it
both flows as somewhat of an entitlement funding into a region
so it isn't a zero sum game--that California is going to get
all Indiana's money, for example--that there is some kind of a
fairness and equity in the distribution of funds, then maybe
people will come to the table and talk about this.
Right now it really and honestly, as somebody who has
worked with this for more than a decade now, looks so
incredibly random that CADCA grants are funded this way in a
bid process and this over here is a set-aside and an earmark
over here and this one over here, and Safe and Drug-Free
Schools entitlement down to the school, which, if you are a big
school you can probably do something; if you are a little
school, it is not enough dollars. Some of the programs are
great; some of the programs are at least a program and they are
saying drugs are bad, which is better than nothing.
And you look at that and say why didn't the administration
come forth with a more comprehensive way to address this rather
than just proposing, more or less, chopping in half--your
program is the least impacted, $15 million, but it is still a
reduction. Everybody else is nearly wiped out. Why is there not
any discussion? Have you heard any discussion about anything
that I just mentioned? Has anybody ever mentioned that in a
meeting?
Mr. Curie. Well, I couldn't agree with you more that I
think historically--and, again, that has been part of what I
think has been the challenge to prevention, as well as a range
of Federal programs, when there seems to be more of a funding
stream mentality where certain funding streams get created and
certain providers or certain grantees tend to find the end of
that funding stream and they kind of stay in place and they
never connect. And I think historically that is what we are up
against.
We have had discussions with Justice, with Education, and
with DEA and other agencies around our Strategic Prevention
Framework and discussed the very types of dynamics you just
described, how we envision at the local level if we can have
alignment at the Federal level, that other Federal agencies
recognize Strategic Prevention Framework and think of ways of
incentivizing grantees to be involved in that process.
And I think your regional approach has merit for
consideration, and as we make these awards to States, a State
can definitely consider a regional approach in terms of how
they manage this for local communities. But clearly I know the
need you just described has been identified, has been seen, and
we have had discussions, and I am pleased to say there has been
enthusiasm expressed by those other entities around our SPF
notion. I think what you have described is how can we continue
to take SPF and a national strategy to ensure it is
institutionalized, if you will.
Mr. Souder. Thank you. And I am going to say for the
record, and I have been a longtime friend of Director Walters
too, but this is part of what a drug czar is supposed to be
doing, and we need to have this proposed.
Thank you very much for coming today.
Mr. Curie. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Will the second panel please come forward?
Now that everybody is comfortable, I am going to ask you to
stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Let the record show that all the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
We are going to start with General Dean, chairman and CEO
of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America [CADCA].
Thank you very much for coming today.
STATEMENTS OF GENERAL ARTHUR T. DEAN, RET., CHAIRMAN AND CEO,
COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG COALITIONS OF AMERICA; STEPHEN J. PASIERB,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG-FREE AMERICA; BONNIE
HEDRICK, PH.D, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OHIO RESOURCE NETWORK FOR
SAFE AND DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES; CLARENCE JONES,
COORDINATOR, SAFE AND DRUG-FREE YOUTH SECTION, FAIRFAX COUNTY,
VA PUBLIC SCHOOLS; TRACY MCKOY, PARENT COORDINATOR, FAIRFAX
COUNTY, VA; AND ASHLEY IZADPANAH, STUDENT, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA
STATEMENT OF GENERAL ARTHUR T. DEAN
General Dean. Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings and
other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America and our more than
5,000 community members nationwide. I am very excited to
provide you with CADCA's perspective on the critical importance
of drug prevention.
According to national experts, drug addiction is a
development disorder that begins in adolescence, for which
effective prevention is critical. The younger a person first
uses drugs, the higher their chance of adult dependency and
addiction.
Drug prevention programs ensure that youth have accurate
information about the harmfulness of drug use, as well as the
skills necessary to refuse drugs.
Historically, drug prevention has been severely underfunded
relative to its importance and effectiveness in reducing drug
use.
Preventing drug use must be a major priority.
There is a core set of Federal drug prevention programs
that have worked to compliment each other in reducing youth
drug use by 17 percent over the past 3 years.
Each of these programs is unique and serves a specific
function in our Nation's drug prevention efforts. Together,
these programs constitute only 11.3 percent of the total
Federal drug control budget in fiscal year 2005.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposes the
elimination of the State Grants portion of the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities program and the DEA Demand
Reduction Program. It also proposes to reduce funding for the
National Guard Drug Demand Reduction Program and CSAP's Program
for Regional and National Significance.
The President's fiscal year 2006 budget would severely
under-fund drug prevention. My written statement goes into
detail about the importance of all the core Federal drug
prevention programs. My remarks, however, due to time
constraints, will focus only on two of these programs, the
State Grants portion of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Program and the Drug-Free Communities Program.
The State Grants portion of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Program is the backbone of the youth drug
prevention in the United States. There are a number of
misconceptions about the State Grants program that I would like
to address.
The first is that the program has not shown results. The
reality is the Department of Education has not yet implemented
the Uniform Management Information and Reporting System
required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Despite this fact,
States have exercised due diligence and collected the data to
show positive impacts and documented outcomes. A comprehensive
list of outcomes from selective States around the Nation is
attached to my written testimony.
Finally, there is a misconception that these funds are
spread too thin to be effective. In fact, local education
agencies who receive less than $10,000 have leveraged this
small amount of money to provide effective programs and
services. Under the President's proposed fiscal year 2006
budget request, the entire $441 million for State Grants would
be eliminated, while $87\1/2\ million would be added to the
National Program for Competitive Grants. The new program is
problematic. It will result in a very limited number of local
education agencies receiving funds while leaving the majority
of our Nation's schools and students with absolutely no drug
prevention programming.
CADCA is fully supportive of the President's fiscal year
2006 proposal to increase the funding for the President's
Student Drug Testing Initiative. CADCA is concerned, however,
that this program cannot be effective without school-based drug
prevention and intervention infrastructure provided by State
Grants program. Eliminating the funding for the State Grants
portion of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Program is simply not an option for our Nation. Congress needs
to intervene and restore this funding.
The Drug-Free Communities Program is an essential
bipartisan component of our Nation's demand reduction strategy.
This program empowers citizens to get directly involved in
solving their local drug issues. Drug-Free Communities Grants
have achieved impressive results in communities throughout the
country. My written testimony highlights significant outcomes
achieved by Drug-Free Communities Grants across America.
Since CADCA received a grant to manage the National
Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, it has worked directly
with hundreds of communities across the country to build and
strengthen their capacity. Last year's appropriation included
$2 million for the Institute. A funding level of $2 million is
also necessary for fiscal year 2006 to ensure the effectiveness
of Drug-Free Communities grantees.
CADCA and its members are disappointed that the President's
fiscal year 2006 budget did not include a request to increase
funding for the Drug-Free Communities Program. This program not
only has a proven track record in reducing drug use, but
funding for it has historically been insufficient.
In conclusion, all youth must have the benefit of effective
prevention efforts. Cutting or eliminating any of the core
Federal programs will strain already insufficient levels of
activities and services available to prevent drug use. When
funding for drug prevention wains, youth drug use surges. With
drug use on the decline over the past 3 years, this is not the
time to eliminate or cut funding for critical drug prevention
programs. Enhanced drug prevention funding is needed to raise
awareness about the dangers, costs, and consequences of illegal
drug use, and provide the skills and support for youth to stay
drug-free.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
subject, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Gen. Dean follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.090
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Stephen Pasierb, president and CEO of the
Partnership for Drug-Free America.
Thank you for coming.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN J. PASIERB
Mr. Pasierb. Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me testify
today. I want to thank this subcommittee, and particularly you,
Mr. Chairman, for your steadfast attention to this issue and
your tireless efforts. Particularly, Mr. Cummings, if you were
in the room, you have done so much for this effort over the
years that we are deeply, deeply appreciative.
The Partnership, as you know, is a coalition of volunteers
from throughout the communities industry. We are best known for
our research-based education campaigns that have been proven to
be effective not only in changing attitudes about drug use, but
in changing behavior: reducing illicit drug use.
Since 1998, the Partnership has served as the primary
creative partner to the Office of National Drug Control Policy
on the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. As you know,
Congress authorized the Media Campaign knowing that the private
sector, working through the nonprofit Partnership for a Drug-
Free America, had agreed to contribute its time, its talent,
and its expertise in advertising and marketing to this first-
of-a-kind effort in the truest sense of a public-private
partnership.
I am happy and proud to report, Mr. Chairman, that the
private sector volunteerism has delivered on this commitment
and has contributed approximately $125 million to the
advertising campaigns and professional services of the Media
Campaign. And the good news is that commitment remains
absolutely steadfast.
The President's budget has requested $120 million for the
Media Campaign for fiscal year 2006, which is the same allotted
by Congress for this fiscal year, fiscal year 2005. This is
down from $145 million in the previous year and, as was noted
earlier, a far cry from the $195 million originally
appropriated in 1998. Congress appropriated $195 million in
1998 so that the Campaign could achieve very specific
objectives in terms of reach and frequency, and it is important
to note that the Campaign is operating with much less today, in
an environment where media costs far exceed what they were in
1998. In fact, given annual inflation in the costs of media,
just to keep pace with 1998's investment of $195 million would
require $256 million today. The gap between the current $120
million, or even the preferred $145 million investment, and
$256 million is very obvious.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, every cut to the Campaign
translates into a double cut in exposure, if you will, because
the media is required by law to match every dollar invested by
the Government with a dollar in equal quality free time. So
when $25 million was cut from the Campaign, the fact is that
$50 million was cut from the impact on reaching at-risk teens
and their parents.
To remain effective, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign requires a sustained investment, not cuts. In the
business world, when marketing campaigns are producing solid
results like this campaign is, brand managers invest even more,
not less, to sustain and accelerate the results.
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America is advocating that
the Media Campaign's funding level for fiscal year 2006 be
restored to the previous level of $145 million. We do so, Mr.
Chairman, because we believe this program is delivering
unprecedented leverage and excellent results for the
investments that have been provided so far.
I would like to offer some evidence on the effectiveness of
the Media Campaign from data drawn from the 2004 Partnership
Attitude Tracking Study. This is the 17th year of our Nations
largest study on attitudes and drug use. The study was
conducted on over 7,000 high school and middle school kids in
private, parochial, and public schools. We know some things
from this study specific to the Media Campaign.
First, significantly fewer teenagers are using marijuana
today when compared to 1998, the year the Media Campaign was
launched. Reductions are evident in all measured categories, of
prevalence, be it lifetime, past year, or past month.
Marijuana-related risk attitudes among teens have improved
significantly over the same time. And, as you know, the Media
Campaign has focused primarily on marijuana abuse.
Second, significantly few teenagers are using ecstasy. In
fact, the data report a 25 percent decline in the number of
teens using this dangerous drug since it peaked in 2001. Our
collective efforts to reduce demands for ecstasy have produced
exceptional results.
Third, the PATS data continue to report strong correlations
between heavy exposure to Media Campaign advertising and lower
drug use and stronger anti-drug attitudes among our teens. In
2003, RoperASW reported that teens exposed frequently to ads
were far more likely to have stronger anti-drug attitudes and
up to 38 percent less likely to use drugs. Ed Keller, who is
the CEO of RoperASW, is quoted as saying, ``There is a clear
correlation between exposure to anti-drug ads and the decisions
teens make regarding drugs.'' He added, ``With a relationship
this strong, it's evident that working to boost the number of
teens who see or hear anti-drug messages on a daily basis can
help drive down drug use.''
Fourth from the study, the number of teenagers reporting
learning a lot about the risks of drugs from television
commercials has increased steadily since the launch of the
Media Campaign. In fact--and this is somewhat a mixed story--
the data report this year for the first time in history that
teens are more likely to cite television commercials as a key
source of anti-drug information than any other source. And,
unfortunately, parents slipped to the No. 2 position in that
study.
Finally, 2004 was the first year the data reported a
decline in the number of teenagers reporting seeing or hearing
anti-drug messages daily or more frequently. Cuts in funding
are starting to hurt the Media Campaign and put our hard-won
progress at risk.
As long as we are blessed with each new generation of
children, we are going to need to educate them about the
dangers of an ever-changing, even more dangerous drug
landscape.
Mr. Chairman, committee, we will not find a more efficient,
more effective way to reach and educate teenagers about the
dangers of illicit drugs than through research-based efforts
like the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. We will not
find a more efficient way to educate teens about the dangers of
drugs than through the power and influence and reach, most
importantly, of mass media.
Consider, Mr. Chairman, that even at a restored funding
level of $145 million, the Media Campaign is exceptionally
efficient, requiring just $6 per teenager per year. Consider
that every year, to sell its products, Proctor and Gamble
spends well over $1 billion on television advertising alone;
Walt Disney Co. $800 million; PepsiCo $740 million; McDonald's
$560 million for burgers, fries, and soft drinks.
While $145 million is indeed a great deal of money, we face
stiff competition to reach teenagers in America. We must give
the Media Campaign every chance to continue to produce results.
Reducing the demand for illicit drugs by changing consumer
attitudes works. That is what the Media Campaign is all about,
and we must invest more in it, not less, to realize its full
potential.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pasierb follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.099
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Our next witness is Dr. Bonnie Hedrick, executive director
of the Ohio Resource Network for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities at the University of Cincinnati.
Thank you for joining us today.
STATEMENT OF BONNIE HEDRICK
Ms. Hedrick. Thank you and good afternoon. Thank you,
Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and other committee
members, for allowing me to speak today. I will be sharing
information about drug prevention efforts in Ohio as it relates
to one of the findings of the Rand Report on the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools State Grant program. I reference this report as it
was quoted frequently in the PART review of Title IV, which has
contributed to its proposed elimination.
One criticism emphasized in the Rand Report is the formula-
based distribution of funds. The report recommends that a
competitive grant process be used and that funds be reserved
for schools in greatest need. They contend this approach would
be superior to the current practice of spreading the money too
thinly across all schools.
I am here to tell you today that Title IV operations in
Ohio, the people who operate those operations, contend that
assumption. They say that even meager amounts help small rural
towns with minimal resources.
Ohio, like many States, is approximately 75 percent rural
farmland. We have found that people in these areas approach
prevention in non-traditional ways, but in the end they
accomplish their goals, as you will see in the handout that has
been prepared for you. Ohio schools have used their Federal
funds to leverage local dollars, volunteers and donations to
get the job done.
For example, in Lucas County, Maumee Junior High School
only gets about $8,000 a year in Title IV funds, but the local
hospital contributes another $25,000 to keep the student
assistance program running. In Mahoning County, South Range
Elementary School gets even less, $5,200, and the school
guidance counselor, who serves as the Safe and Drug-Free School
coordinator, still manages to run an after-school mentoring
program by using volunteers and donations. That is the kind of
effort that the Congressmen were speaking about earlier.
Ohio ``scatters'' our $15.7 million in Title IV funds over
790 Local Education Agencies in 88 counties. Despite what the
Rand Report would call a ``misdirected program,'' we reach over
a million school children every year. That figure includes
every 5th and 7th grade student in Cincinnati public schools
who receive life skills training. The Governor's portion funds
another 44 programs in 26 counties and reach 70,000 children
who are frequently out of school, runaway youth, homeless
youth, youth in detention centers, pregnant and parenting
teens.
If Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding is eliminated, or if
it is allocated only to a select number of schools, with a good
grant writer, I might add, the new cohort of Cincinnati
students will not have the opportunity to build social
competencies that will make them more employable in the future.
Newly settled Latino families in East Cleveland and Toledo will
lose culturally relevant support during their transition into
America. But the children of Mahoning County will probably
still have a mentor, because once a good mentoring relationship
is established, they don't fade away with the absence of
funding.
Ohio, like other States, has seen decreases in alcohol and
other drug use over the past few years. Title IV funds have
contributed to that. Drugs that have not received a lot of
attention, however, are creeping back on the scene. Four
students near my hometown, for example, have died of heroin
overdose.
I ask you to refer to your handout to look more
specifically at what the accomplishments have been for that
program specific to Ohio.
Last week, news surfaced about the gang rape of a female
student in Columbus that occurred behind the curtain in the
school gym. Later that day we learned about a riot on a
playground during a fire drill at another school near
Cleveland. One of my staff finished the day by counseling a
parent of a child who had been chronically bullied since the
beginning of school in another school near Cleveland. Our work
is real and it is not finished.
Dana is a testament to the impact that Safe and Drug-Free
School coordinators have on the lives of students. Her school
receives $56,000 in Safe and Drug-Free School funds, which is
enough to hire a full-time coordinator; not much left of
programming. When a Lorain County student, Dana was a constant
referral for behavior problems; she was failing, she was
dropping out of school, she had been suspended. And then she
got referred to the Safe and Drug-Free School coordinator. When
she started working with her, it was discovered that Dana was
trying to support her family. Her mom was an alcoholic, she had
two younger siblings, there was no father present. She was
working at McDonald's to make money to keep the family going.
Homework was left until late at night, if she had energy to do
it.
With the support of a caring adult and Children of
Alcoholics support group, Dana has since graduated and gone to
college. Today she is doing very well. Without intervention and
support from a caring adult at school, Dana would have likely
dropped out of school and continued the cycle of addiction that
had been modeled for her in her home.
What is scary is that under the Rand proposal, Dana's
school would never have met the criteria of a school in
greatest need. That didn't preclude Dana from being a child of
great need.
Certainly there are flaws in the present Safe and Drug-Free
School program that require fixing, but not elimination. As a
Nation, I don't see how we can afford to eliminate a program
that has changed the lives of children like Dana. Schools might
deny that this is not their problem, but Safe and Drug-Free
School coordinators know better, and they act differently.
Thank you for allowing me to share Ohio efforts with you
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hedrick follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.108
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Now we are going to focus in on Fairfax County for a little
bit here. Mr. Clarence Jones, coordinator of the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools Youth Section, Fairfax County Public Schools.
Thank you for joining us today.
STATEMENT OF CLARENCE JONES
Mr. Jones. Thank you.
Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and other
distinguished members of the Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and
Human Resource Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today on behalf of Fairfax County Public
Schools.
I am pleased to be here today to share my concerns about
the 2006 budgetary decision to eliminate funding from the State
Grants portion of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program. I am
here representing Fairfax County Public Schools Safe and Drug-
Free Section and the school system at large.
Fairfax County Public Schools receives approximately
$564,000 each year from the Virginia Department of Education
Safe and Drug-Free School's office to accomplish anti-drug
related programs. These funds are the foundation on which
Fairfax County Public Schools drug prevention efforts are
based. These funds help provide anti-drug prevention programs
to over 230 schools which serve more than 170,000 students in
the 12th largest school system in the United States.
The No Child Left Behind Act requires all Safe and Drug-
Free Schools programs to adhere to the principles of
effectiveness and to use funding on scientifically based
programs. Fairfax County Public Schools has been using these
principles of effectiveness since it was first introduced by
the Virginia Department of Education, long before No Child Left
Behind made it mandatory.
Mr. John Walters, head of the Office of ONDCP, invited the
Safe and Drug-Free Youth Section staff to meet with him and his
staff after he entered his position. He wanted to see how an
effective school system blended funding from local, State, and
Federal sources into a working process to get the desired
results and to prove that their programs were making a
difference. We provided Mr. Walters with information on how we
use our funding and impressed upon him that the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools program funding was the foundation of all programs
in Fairfax County Public Schools. Fairfax County Public Schools
was also the school system chosen by President Bush to bring
Mr. Walters when he was announced as the new head of ONDCP.
Fairfax County Public School system was chosen because of its
outstanding drug prevention programs.
In 2001, Fairfax County Public Schools completed the
Community that Cares Survey. This survey provided Fairfax
County with much needed information on the direction of its
drug prevention programs. In 2003, the followup survey was
conducted with the following results. And you have those in
front of you, but I do want to point out some of the stats.
Within a 30-day period prior to the survey, the use of
alcohol was reported as 12.8 percent of 8th graders, compared
to 21 percent in 2001, a big drop; 33.2 percent of 10th
graders, compared to 36 percent in 2001, another drop; 27.6
percent of 12th graders reported binge drinking in the last 2
weeks, compared to 31 percent in 2001.
The use of Safe and Drug-Free funding helped to reduce
alcohol use at all of the survey grade levels.
Same situation with marijuana use: 2.8 percent of 8th
graders, compared to 5.1 percent in 2001; 11.6 percent of 10th
graders, compared to 13 percent in 2001; and this also using
Safe and Drug-Free moneys.
Also, when you talk about cigarettes, the same scenario is
happening: 4.1 percent of 8th graders, compared to 9.3 percent
in 2001; and you see the trend going on and on and on.
The use of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
moneys made a major difference.
The above information just demonstrated that the use of
Safe and Drug-Free funding is making a difference. The next
youth survey will be conducted in October 2005. Because of the
increase in the prevention programs I am about to mention, we
believe these percentages will continue their downward trend as
we continue to use Safe and Drug-Free funding to support our
programs.
Mr. Cummings said earlier that he would love to see other
parts of the community come together, and he did this here, he
pointed to his heart, for those volunteers right here: I can
say this. Fairfax County Public Schools has established school
community coalitions in order to bring parents, community
members, medical, law enforcement, business, faith, and many
other sectors into the prevention family. Educating the
community on the dangers of drugs and how they can support the
drug prevention efforts of the schools has proven to be
invaluable. These coalitions have become the bridge from the
schools to the community, and now we all can speak the same
drug-free language.
Fairfax County, VA is one of the most diverse counties in
America. These drug prevention coalitions have made it possible
to reach out to the many different cultures in our county. We
have the No. 1 diverse high school in America, Stewart High
School, that has over 110 different languages spoken in that
particular school.
Using scientifically researched-based programs in schools
paid for by Safe and Drug-Free funding has proven, as I said,
to be invaluable. Such programs as Too Good for Drugs, Life
Skills, and Guiding Good Choices are just a few that have
provided students and parents with information to help in the
prevention of drugs in our schools and communities.
There is a perception that the Program Assessment Rating
Tool [PART], score justifies eliminating the State Grant
portion of the Safe and Drug-Free program. If that same rating
tool is used in Fairfax County Public Schools, it would soon
become evident that our system met the requirements as well as
collected data to show a very positive impact with documented
outcomes.
The Virginia Department of Education has produced this
document right here with all the different programs provided
using Safe and Drug-Free funds in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
These programs are making a difference.
As a member of the Executive Board of the National Network
for Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator, I feel it is also
my role to speak for school systems across America. Elimination
of this funding will have a catastrophic effect on the balance
of drug users among school-aged children in America. Many
school systems across America have found unique ways to combine
these funds with very little local moneys in order to provide
the highest level of drug prevention.
Removing the monetary foundation of these programs could
cause many, if not all, of them to collapse. I know this
because in our system, one of the wealthiest in the Nation,
elimination of these funds would severely impact or cancel many
well developed, well documented and successful drug prevention
programs. I can't imagine how drug prevention programs in other
smaller systems will survive.
In closing, I want to say this here: As a veteran of the
U.S. Air Force for 24 years, and now retired, I understand the
need to fully fund programs that deter and prevent undesirable
and negative behavior that will impact the American way of
life. My current role as the coordinator of the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools for Fairfax County Public Schools is not much
different. I am still in the role of finding ways to prevent
undesirable and negative behaviors: in this case drug use among
our youngest citizens. Therefore, I was shocked when I first
heard the news of President Bush's budget for 2006. The message
that this budget is sending to our youth and communities is
simple: we don't care about the health and well-being of our
children.
I, as well as other school systems across America, am
asking for your support to continue to prove to all Americans
that our children are truly worth the effort. This funding does
make a difference.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this subject.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.111
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Ms. Tracy McKoy, parent coordinator in
Fairfax County.
STATEMENT OF TRACY MCKOY
Ms. McKoy. Chairman Souder, Mr. Cummings, and committee
members, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you.
Though I am a middle school educator by profession, I am
here today as the parent of three daughters, each of whom has
benefited from the program set forth by the Safe and Drug-Free
School and Community Act. With the help of these programs, my
girls have successfully navigated through their teenage years.
They have successfully navigated through the halls of their
high school drug and alcohol-free. They have made the choice to
walk away from substance abuse.
Jaime was a Just Say No Club president in her elementary
school 14 years ago. She learned leadership skills and
developed confidence as she conducted meetings and school-wide
assemblies. She attended rallies at the Patriot Center here in
northern Virginia along with thousands of other students. They
learned through music, drama, the Air Force band, speeches from
the attorney general that you can have fund and be successful
without alcohol and drugs.
My second daughter just graduated from college last week.
She was also a member of the Just Say No Club in elementary
school and as a senior in high school she was successful as the
president of the Youth to Youth Club, which promotes prevention
and alcohol substance abuse. Members of this club travel to
many schools, confidently sharing their views of the importance
of keeping their lives drug-free. Stacey and her friends were
excellent role models for their younger audiences.
Yesterday I asked her to reflect on her experiences. She
said, ``Mom, I don't know how much I impacted the elementary
schools that I visited when I was a senior and through my high
school years, but I know that it affected me a lot to listen to
the high school kids when they came to me in 5th and 6th grade.
That's why I did what I did.''
She believes if parents include staying away from drugs and
alcohol in the teaching of their moral values, this program
gives kids the confidence to make choices that they want to
make anyway. It shows them how to make good choices and how to
stick to them.
Currently, my third daughter, Erin, serves on the same
committee that Ashley does, and you will hear from her in a
moment. She too has learned leadership skills and has brain-
stormed with other teenagers on how to keep our communities and
school drug, alcohol, and tobacco-free. Recently she
participated in a public service announcement which airs
frequently. This particular announcement is focused on
educating parents as to what some of their children may be
doing and where they may be hiding some of the paraphernalia in
their own homes.
As a youngster, Erin was the vice president of her Just Say
No Club in elementary school, and as a 7th grader she wrote
this paragraph regarding her experiences there: ``I have had
numerous leadership positions throughout the past few years. In
the 6th grade I was a Just Say No vice president as well as a
second counselor in my church youth group. Serving as Just Say
No vice president was a great experience for me because of the
opportunities I had. Walking down Eldon Street in the middle of
a cold October homecoming parade, chanting at the top of my
lungs with a couple hundred group of kids from my elementary
school is an experience I will never forget. The whole town
heard what I thought about drugs that day. Losing my voice and
having people yell 'sing it, girl,' are some of my favorite
memories.''
And later she writes about citizenship, ``I believe it is
being an individual, but at the same time it is working with
others to reach a common goal''--which is, I think, what we are
doing here today. ``I showed my fellow students that I had
excellent citizenship when they elected me as their Just Say No
vice president. They knew I would do a good job, and that is
why I ran. I believe that is why they voted for me.''
It is my testimony that drug prevention programs in the
schools and communities do make a difference. I believe I speak
today for many parents. There is one thing that parents are
passionate about, and that is their children. We cannot put a
price tag on the youth of our Nation who choose to stay drug
and alcohol-free.
Do I give sole credit to these programs for the successes
of my children? No. Do I take credit for their successes as a
parent teaching them within the laws of my own home? No. But I
think all of those things coupled together with their good
decisionmaking makes a great difference in the lives of our
youth. I can't even imagine that this funding was considered
being cut, and when I heard that it was, I am happy to be a
voice today.
I am grateful for these programs, and my children's voices
have been heard and continue to be heard in their arenas. I
hear their voice; their teachers hear their voices; their
friends and peers hear their voices; their coaches; their
associates in the workplace. I believe what these programs give
our children is the ability to step inside an arena, whether it
be a puppet show, presentation, or an assembly in the Patriot
Center. It gives them an arena to step into knowing that
standing next to them are other students and friends who have
the same values that they do and that they know that it is not
just about mom and dad wanting them to be making these choices,
but they can make the choices that they want to knowing it is
the right thing.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
Our closing witness today, our cleanup hitter is Ms. Ashley
Izadpanah, student at Fairfax County Robinson High School.
Thank you for coming today.
STATEMENT OF ASHLEY IZADPANAH
Ms. Izadpanah. Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Ashley
Izadpanah, and I am a junior at Robinson Secondary School.
When I was in the 7th grade, I joined the Safe and Drug-
Free Youth Council as a representative for the Robinson
Community Coalition. I wanted the chance to make a difference
in the way my community responded to issue surrounding teens:
drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Along with the Robinson Community
Coalition, Robinson also offers a program called Power Team, a
group of students who aim to lead drug-free lives and spread
anti-drug messages.
During my involvement with the Safe and Drug-Free Youth
Council, I have done just that. I have joined together with
other concerned students locally, across the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and across the Nation to gain knowledge, offering
opinions and speaking out in an effort to spread the message of
health and safety to youth and their families.
When young people talk, young people listen. Oftentimes,
when young people talk, parents listen. One of the projects I
am very proud to have participated in was the development of a
series of Public Service Announcements on drug abuse that air
on Cox Communications television stations. The clips are geared
toward informing parents about issues their children might be
having in their schools and communities. People who don't know
me have stopped to ask me if that was me they saw on the PSA.
Hopefully, their parents were watching too. The fact that I
have had random people from school and even the grocery store
talk to me about the PSA makes me feel that the anti-drug
message is spreading effectively in my community.
Another project I have participated in as a member of the
Safe and Drug-Free Youth Council is the production of anti-drug
posters. These will be all over the walls in northern Virginia
schools and will serve as a constant reminder of the importance
of drug awareness.
Youth Against Drug Abuse and Prevention Project [YADAPP],
is a week-long, student-run leadership conference that includes
students from all over Virginia who talk about problems they
see in their school and community regarding drug and alcohol
abuse. During the camp, a primary focus is enforcing leadership
qualities within each participant, so we return home with the
confidence and knowledge to be leaders within our communities.
I am so excited to have the opportunity to attend YADAPP
because it has impacted my life in so many ways. As a student,
I have seen when other students are placed in a positive drug-
free environment, it strengthens our desire to remain drug-free
and enforces our decision to spread that message. Last summer I
attended YADAPP as a participant and have been chosen to attend
YADAPP again this summer as a Youth Leader. This would not have
been possible if programs like the Safe and Drug-Free Youth
Council did not exist.
The Safe and Drug-Free Youth Council adult sponsors provide
us with the opportunity to be heard on issues that matter to
the youth today. They guide us and help us to make a difference
in the way our community makes decisions on not only today's,
but also tomorrow's uncertain world.
I have two younger brothers, ages 5 and 12, who will
benefit from my involvement in the Safe and Drug-Free Youth
Council. I take the experiences, leadership skills, and the
confidence I find at council meetings and practice them on my
family, neighbors, and peers at school. This program has not
only helped me stay safe and drug-free, but has also impacted
the lives of countless youth across the United States.
However, as we are all aware, the budget for the anti-drug
efforts has been dramatically reduced. When I first heard of
this cut, I could not get over the fact that the Government is
willing to take money away from an effort that aims toward the
well-being of today's youth, my generation. Today's youth make
up tomorrow's America, and without anti-drug programs to help
teens to choose correct paths, I fear for the future's outcome.
To take money away from those whose actions are easily
influenced by the media and peers is to me just asking for
further drug abuse by today's youth.
The self-respect, self-esteem, confidence, and knowledge
gained through the experiences provided by programs like the
Safe and Drug-Free Youth Council help young people and their
families make wise decisions that can impact them for a
lifetime.
In closing, I would like to say that even though the
Government is willing to reduce its investment in its anti-drug
efforts, it is safe to assume that drug dealers will not cut
back on their efforts and will continue to invest in their
corrupting activities.
I urge you to rethink reducing the budget for the well-
being of today's youth and to continue to support programs like
the Safe and Drug-Free Youth Council.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Izadpanah follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.113
Mr. Souder. I thank you all for your testimony.
There are so many different ways to go in the questioning.
Let me start with General Dean and Mr. Jones. I want to zero in
on, in particular, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools for a minute.
This isn't the first time we have been through this.
My assumption is if we make some strong statements here, we
will not have to go through it on an annual basis. It makes it
very difficult to plan, very difficult to--so many resources
get spent trying to maintain something that has never been
eliminated. The closest we came that I recall I think was in
2001, when--excuse me, in 1995, when the Republicans first took
over Congress, and the speaker and Chairman Porter and the
subcommittee and the full Appropriations chairman were all
committed to eliminating it, along with the Clinton
administration, and it was a big fight to try to preserve the
program.
But, bottom line, the same thing was true then as is true
now, which is that everybody talks about prevention, but they
don't really have an alternative if we don't do this program.
And we had a GAO study then, a Rand study, where people take
shots at the program, but nobody really has come up with
something else as to how to exactly do this. This is not easy.
Yet it is clear that given the budget tightness, unless we
make some changes in the program it is going to be very
difficult, long-term, to sustain the funding. In other words,
if they come at this with a 10 to 20 percent reduction, this
would be a different battle than going after the whole thing.
So as a practical matter we need to look at this.
And one of my questions is--let me mention one other thing.
I mentioned I was on Education the last time this bill went
through. I believe I counted it up at the end. I believe I had
32, but it was over 30 personal changes in the bill as we
worked through to try to do this and keep the funds separated
under President Bush. It must have been 2001, I think, when we
did reauthorization, because we have to be coming up close to
it again.
I went directly to President Bush and the White House,
because they were going to block grant this as part of a
broader block grant without any Safe and Drug-Free Schools
targeted money, and said, point blank, that they didn't have an
alternative. And I know John Boehner was chairman of the
committee, so it had to be somewhere in that timeframe. In the
question, and one of my frustrations was this started as an
anti-drug program in the schools. Then we made it Safe and
Drug-Free Schools.
Then at one point in the Education Committee I got so
exasperated because there were three different, I believe, or
25 different allowable uses, because everybody would propose
something--mental health, health, after-school programs,
basketball, whatever--as an allowable use for Safe and Drug-
Free Schools, the argument being all these activities reduce
drug abuse. At one point in my frustration I offered education,
because, in fact, education dollars theoretically reduce drug
abuse if you do well in school, so why not have an after-school
reading program? Then what is the point of a drug program? At
some point why don't we just put it in the education budget? We
negated our own argument by having this long list of other
types of things.
So if we are realistically going to address this long-term,
do you think it is time to separate the anti-violence from the
anti-drug, or what other suggestions would you have to try to
get this. If we are going to argue it as a drug prevention
program, it needs to be a drug prevention program, and that is
part of our problem here. I would be interested, General Dean,
in your comments and Mr. Jones.
General Dean. As I have traveled the country and talked to
people like Dr. Hedrick and others, and Clarence, it is clear
that, one, the program needs, in my opinion and their opinion,
national leadership, which means that the Uniform Management
Information Reporting System needs to be implemented so that
guidance is clearly given and States are not working based on
their own guidance, No. 1.
No. 2, there is concern that there has been too much
emphasis--and it goes back to Columbine and other incidents
that happened in schools that have been violence incidents--
that there has been a shift in the emphasis in the program and
a great deal of the dollars have been spent on the violence
side, to the point that it may be out of balance, and it has
become a little bit more violence prevention than it is drug
prevention.
So I would agree with your comment that we need to look
carefully at the program and ensure that it is in fact doing
what it was originally intended to do, and that we have not
made it a program that has taken on new responsibilities for
which it was not designed to do. So I sum up by saying we are
concerned lack of leadership; two, yes, we believe what you
said is correct, that it has become too broad of a program.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Jones, maybe--and I meant to have Dr.
Hedrick, too, kind of go through what is happening Ohio, but
could you describe at Fairfax, at the school level, do you make
sure these are all anti-drug, or do you have a proliferation of
different things? How does it tie together thematically?
Mr. Jones. Actually, we combine them both. We do programs
for parents that will talk about drugs and violence. We do
programs in the schools that do the same. To give you an
example, at the middle school level, the school system provides
funding for an after-school program at all our middle schools.
Using Safe and Drug-Free moneys and working with our
coalitions, we provide those same middle schools, which are 25
of them, a science-based program for after-school programs such
as Get Real About Violence or on the Drug Side of the House
over here we look at life skills and for parents Guiding Good
Choices.
So we have found a way to bring those programs together to
work. And by doing that right there, we are getting a lot of
positive results both from the violence side of the House and
also on the drug side of the House.
But I do agree with General Dean. We need to take a real
good look at that because there is a push to use more of that
funding to take a look on the violence side, because of the
gang situation. And I think I am the only one right now
standing in the way of not letting it being pushed that way
because I believe that we need to take a very hard look even
more at the drug side because drug use leads to everything that
is going to be on the right side. So we have found a way to
mesh those programs, and right now they are working pretty
successful.
Mr. Souder. Let me have Dr. Hedrick, then I will come back.
Ms. Hedrick. In Ohio we have used the research of Dr. David
Hawkins and Joseph Catalano that was published in the
Psychological Bulletin of 1993, first published, that outlined
a series of risks and protective factors. Mr. Curie spoke of
that earlier as part of the National Prevention Framework. So
we use risk and protective factors helping a community or a
school look at specific risk factors for either violence or
drugs, and then placing more emphasis on programs or solutions
that build the protective factors.
There are certain risk factors that are very specific to
alcohol and drugs, for example accessibility of alcohol in the
neighborhood, that have to be focused on, and this is where the
marriage between Drug-Free Communities and Safe and Drug-Free
Schools becomes real clear, because when a community is working
on those environmental risk factors, and the school is working
at the drug education and building a connection and the
relationships and having the leadership programs that Ashley
talked about, that is the best case scenario.
The other thing that we have used is the National
Longitudinal Study that was produced by the National Institutes
of Health, and that is one of the best bodies of research that
is out there to tell us really what makes a difference in the
lives of kids, and that is connections. And when kids feel
connected, they feel less alienated from home, from school,
from community, they are less likely, and it is proven in the
research, to be violent, to be a bully, or to use alcohol and
other drugs; and there are some other antisocial behaviors that
they are less likely to do too.
A lot of our programming in Ohio is focused on those
strength-based approaches. Taking young people like the Danas I
mentioned earlier, or Ashley, and saying look at these valuable
resources we have before us. Now, what can we do to embrace
them, to build that potential to the very best that it can
possibly be? And we try to build the capacity of schools and
school leadership to facilitate those mentoring relationships,
those positive relationships for kids.
Mr. Souder. Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I represent Los Angeles, CA, certain area of Los Angeles,
and what I have observed over the years being a member of the
school board and so on, we have a subculture going, and in that
subculture that emanates from the lack of a functional home
environment, therefore, a dysfunctional neighborhood and
community, that there is a culture that requires you to use
drugs, alcohol, and leading to the violence that we see every
single day. We see the drive-bys killing youngsters coming to
and from school. If we had the intact family like Ms. McKoy
describes and like the young student over there, that kind of
setting, then I can understand. But we are dealing with
hardcore deviants that are dealing with the way of life that
causes them to survive. The Just Say No program was a laugh, it
did not work.
Anyone on the panel, can you tell me the kinds of programs
that have been funded in the past that you feel are effective
in this kind of environment? Because we are losing the battle,
and we possibly can lose the war. We send our youngsters to
California Youth Authority and they come out as hardened
criminals. And there is more drugs supplied inside than outside
on the streets. There is no rehabilitation going on, and they
leave there and they become really hardened criminals.
And I am a big supporter of mental health services because
I think we have to deal on an even keel with mental health if
we are going to talk about the physical and biological health
of these youngsters.
So can somebody help me understand how we are going to get
to that hardcore culturally involved young person on the
streets of some of the areas that I represent?
General Dean. I will start first. We believe that the
Community Anti-Drug Coalition addresses your concern, and I say
that in all due respect because the Coalition is designed to be
owned by the community, to be empowered so that the community
will make its own recommended solutions, and it does that with
guidance and help from organizations like mine and others. But
what is most important is that all of the sectors in the
community come together to work the problem holistically.
When you can bring all of the sectors together, the school
officials, parents, youth groups, law enforcement, civic
leaders, business leaders, all of the important sectors of the
community, we believe that them working holistically will get
at the issues associated with the kinds of youth that you are
talking about, as well as the other issues.
We believe that it takes time, it takes effort, it takes
commitment and ownership, but it is the best strategy with help
from the other national programs that we talked about, the
Media Campaign, Safe and Drug-Free Schools program and others
that we can get at it and begin to have some impact. And we
have seen outcomes in other places and we are working
diligently in your city and your State as well.
Ms. Watson. A couple of things. Do we have the resources, I
mean the dollars, that are flowing into California, flowing
into L.A. Unified, which is our largest school district in the
State? Their funding has been cut through the State budget, but
are these programmatic funds coming into California to match
the need? That is No. 1. And can you give me the program and
the contacts you have made in L.A. Unified?
Because we have a serious, serious problem and I would like
to know, because I can join with them and we can help, and I
hope we can make policy here. And if we can increase the
funding, I believe that is why the Chair has called this
hearing, to look at and see if we have adequate resources,
because we have a real serious problem, and I don't see us
making a dent in it. So if you can provide me with the names
and the contacts within the district or within the police
department or mental health, or whatever administration you are
working with, I would be happy to contact them, because I have
initiated a program that deals with youth and violence.
Then our Black Caucus has had now 14 different forums
around the country dealing with the status of the Black male,
zeroing in on violence, and we had a very successful turnout.
But we did that on our own and we don't see the funds that are
coming from the administration into California into programs
like this. So if you can provide me with that information, I
would be very, very happy to followup.
Mr. Jones. I just want to add to what General Dean said
about those coalitions right there. I also want to add this
here too: I understand where you are coming from in California,
but here in Fairfax, VA, we are one of the wealthiest in the
United States. People think all that money and all this, there
are no drug problems. Every school system in America has a drug
problem. Every school system in America and every community has
an underground culture just like what you are talking about.
Using the coalitions like what General Dean was talking
about, we have been able to go into the community, the heart
and soul, and find out what is going on, and work with the
people there who can make a difference and empower those
people. We educate them, we train them, and then they can start
working in their communities, and we help provide funds for
them. And having as many different languages as we have in
northern Virginia, it is amazing how many things we have to get
translated for the people there.
But I can say what we are finding out is going into those
communities, using our coalition connections, we are seeing a
difference, and we are seeing people come out and say, hey, you
know. And one of the things, just a few weeks ago I was talking
with a group of Hispanic youth, and they said, you know, all we
knew before was chop-chop or shoot or something like that. He
said, hey, I like this, it gives us something else to do. So
that is where we are going.
Ms. Watson. Well, let me just respond by saying that we can
be a conduit for you, and if you tell us how this network gets
put together, we would be happy to supply you the venue and do
the communication and so on. I just don't see the results of
all that wonderful--you know, it sounds like a dream, something
we are reaching for. I would like to see it in reality, be able
to touch it, feel it, and see the results of it, and have the
appropriate resources to put it together.
Mr. Jones. Actually, you know, we all dream and, believe
me, we are trying to make those dreams come true. I will give
you a name, Bruner Summers, in L.A. Unified school system. By
the way, we are coming out to your school system in September
to talk with them about the gang situation out there because it
has moved over into our area. So there we are once again making
that network to make it happen.
Ms. Watson. OK. And I would like to give you another name,
Marguerite Lamott, who represents a certain area, you know we
used to call it South Central area. She is the school board
member representing that area. We work together. We would be
happy to assist you. Get in touch with us when you come.
Mr. Jones. I will see you in September.
Ms. Watson. OK.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I have to leave now.
Ms. Hedrick. Could I, just before you leave? There is a
teacher in Long Beach, CA, who was in Long Beach, CA, Erin
Gruell, who made such a difference in the lives of 30 or 40
kids that she had in her classroom. They have since written a
book called the Freedom Writers' Diary. Every student in her
class went on to college and are doing well, and all the
donations from the proceeds of their book goes to fund their
college.
She used some very nontraditional instructional techniques,
but the one thing that she did more than anything else was she
approached them where they were. She knew the struggle they
were in, she heard their story, she helped them relate it to
things that had happened in history like the Holocaust and
other horrible events, and she turned those kids around. And I
think that you are talking about the same kind of culture. Erin
Gruell, she is a teacher in Long Beach, CA.
Ms. Watson. That is a long way from the area that I am
talking about.
Ms. Hedrick. I don't know.
Ms. Watson. Yes, it is. I am talking about L.A. Unified,
and here is Long Beach way down here. OK, thank you.
Mr. Souder. Ms. McKoy, how did you get hooked in with the
Safe and Drug-Free School programs? I know you talked about
your kids, but I was curious what the initial links were.
Ms. McKoy. I have spent most of my adult life as a
volunteer in the schools.
Mr. Souder. But how did that start? So you were
volunteering with the schools before?
Ms. McKoy. I was just a volunteer mom in an elementary
school, and that was many years ago, probably 15, when Mr.
Jones was a counselor at that school. He was the faculty
sponsor for the club that my oldest daughter was the president
of. And together with faculty members and other students, we
started there and it just grew.
Mr. Souder. Is that pretty typical in your system how it
starts? You were at her school.
Mr. Jones. That started back then. I was a counselor back
then. Since that time, things have really changed and our Safe
and Drug-Free Office really initiates a lot. We put it into the
hands of the community members and they are the ones that look
right in their communities to make the difference.
I can say this. I think it was 5\1/2\, 6 years ago when I
became the coordinator. The second thing I did, I picked up the
phone and I called somebody by the name of General Arthur Dean,
at someplace called CADCA. When I called there, we went and met
with him, and from that point on, building those coalitions,
getting those parents involved--because me sitting at a place
with our superintendent and trying to make those decisions
would not work; we had to go to the grassroots level. And that
has made all the difference in the world.
Mr. Souder. Ashley, you said in 7th grade you joined the
Safe and Drug-Free School Youth Council. Did you read about it
or did somebody talk to you about it, or how did that happen?
Ms. Izadpanah. Since I was already a member of the Robinson
Community Coalition, they offered us the opportunity to attend
a big meeting, and at the end of the meeting they said if you
want to be part of the Safe and Drug-Free Youth Council, let us
know.
Mr. Souder. Do you know who put the meeting together that
you went to?
Ms. Izadpanah. Mr. Jones, probably.
Mr. Jones. Everything will come back sooner or later.
Because I am the coordinator, it is my responsibility to
oversee those programs. So we got the committee started up, and
those young men and women in that Council have done an
outstanding job. If you live in northern Virginia, you may have
seen them on Cox TV, three PSAs that will be running for the
next 3 years. Ashley is in them and so are a lot of our
community people. But the Youth Council she is talking about
represents the whole school system. Each one of the coalitions
has their own little youth group, but we represent the whole
school system because we need to get the message out, and we
needed people like Ashley.
Mr. Souder. I want to come back to this in just a second,
but I want to digress because it reminded me of a question I
had earlier.
Ashley, at Robinson do you have an in-house TV and radio
studio that does announcements or occasional programming?
Ms. Izadpanah. Yes. In the mornings we watch the morning
announcements and we have anchors, TV anchors.
Mr. Souder. Is that pretty typical for most of the schools
in Fairfax?
Mr. Jones. All of our schools have them.
Mr. Souder. Is there any kind of Drug-Free Schools program
that you work there with the kids in each school, in addition
to like Cox?
Mr. Jones. Yes. Different schools do their coalitions.
Coalitions work very closely with the schools. We have to have
that connection. I don't believe in one--so different schools
will put announcements on in the morning, especially during Red
Ribbon Week or during the prom, graduation, the holiday period.
Those announcements and programs increase big time.
Mr. Souder. I have never understood why the National
Department of Education doesn't collect like best ideas and
share them with the different schools. We have a whole network
of TV and radio stations right inside the schools, and even
down in rural Indiana, and I have never understood why we are
out there trying to figure out how to get on national TV, but
we aren't utilizing in-house. Has Partnership ever looked at
the in-house?
Mr. Pasierb. Yes. We supply our messages to a lot of school
systems around the country through our local affiliates,
because those schools want to do exactly what you are
describing.
Mr. Souder. Have you ever looked at how to tap into the
homegrown kind of a sub-theme? In other words, it is one thing
if it is coming in and it is something that reinforces the
outside, but something that is bottom-up?
Mr. Pasierb. There is a lot of passion and talent in those
schools, and if we could rally them all together to be doing
the same things in Indiana and Virginia and everywhere else, we
could have a significant force.
Mr. Souder. I want to come back to what I was trying to
piece together here. Bottom line is if you hadn't had the
program that drew the parent volunteers in, that set up the
meeting that Ashley went to, how would it get started?
Mr. Jones. Actually, we didn't. Actually, the coalition now
is 11 years old. They were just using Safe and Drug-Free
moneys, putting them in what we call school teams. I came on
board 11 years ago in the Safe and Drug-Free Office, and one of
the questions I asked along with the coordinator at that time
was is this making a difference, and the bottom line was no. So
let us turn this. How can we make a difference? Let us get a
bang for our buck, we would say. Let us see that we get results
out of this. And I think I brought that--and they kid me a
lot--from the military.
Mr. Souder. Again, I missed the start of what you said. If
I understand what you said, it is that there was no system-wide
thing like what you describe.
Mr. Jones. Not like we have now.
Mr. Souder. But you were using your local schools' money to
do that. Is that what you said?
Mr. Jones. Oh, no, no. They used Safe and Drug-Free moneys
way back then, 10, 11, 12 years ago.
Mr. Souder. At the school where you were a counselor?
Mr. Jones. When I first came to Fairfax County, I was a
counselor at Dogwood Elementary School.
Mr. Souder. And did you get Mrs. McKoy involved?
Mr. Jones. As soon as I got there and they wanted to do a
drug program, I said I am going to get me some parents, because
I can't do this. So I started grabbing parents and bringing
them in. At my first meeting I had 30-some parents and said,
this is great. And one of the things that we did, and probably
the biggest project, and Mrs. McKoy will probably never forgive
me for this, but we even called Just Say No International and
they sent a person out.
We have the largest Just Say No quilt in the world because
we got a group of parents together one evening, gave over 280
kids an 8 x 8 piece of cloth they could put a design on that
cloth. We brought all these parents in and they sewed all night
long to put this quilt together. So that was just one of the
many things we did. And we started getting a lot of attention
about this program and Just Say No, and how to do anti-drug
programs there.
And then from there, once I moved over to the Safe and
Drug-Free Office, that is when we started getting in touch with
General Dean and said, hey, let us expand this even more. Then
he started talking about coalitions, you know, we have
something small here, let us find out what it is all about. And
they educated us. They trained us. We hold trainings several
days, actually 3 weeks with 2 days at Ft. Belvoir, where he
brought in through CADCA trainers to train our people, not just
school people, we are talking about community people and some
school people mixed in with them, on how to build unity, how to
do the grass roots work that the young lady was talking about.
We brought those people in.
And from that right now, I can give you probably the best
example. Three months after one of our coalitions, because a
coalition, they had a house bill on the floor in the general
assembly in Richmond to increase the age at which students can
sell alcoholic beverages. Now, that is how fast some of those
coalitions are going. And right now we are pushing those same
coalitions into becoming 501(c)(3) just in case something like
this happens and we have none. Right now we have four of our
coalitions--and we have 19 of them--501(c)(3)'s, but we want to
keep growing, because that is what it is all about, getting
people involved and community members. And by doing that you do
make a difference. When you walk up and down the streets, you
see on TV and go into our schools, you see anti-drug posters
and stuff. That is what it is all about.
Mr. Souder. Dr. Hedrick, during Mr. Curie's testimony he
talked about these prevention networks, the Strategic
Prevention Framework. Are you familiar with that?
Ms. Hedrick. Yes, I am.
Mr. Souder. Do they work with your State trying to
coordinate, or how does it interact with this program?
Ms. Hedrick. Well, it specifically applies to the
Governor's portion. They require their grantees to use an
outcome framework, but also to use the national prevention
framework for going through the process of identifying needs,
building capacity and building in the evaluation. There is a
lot of emphasis in that structure on building the capacity from
within, whether that is a school or a community. It still is
the same thing; it enables people to carry on and sustain
beyond a funding period.
Mr. Souder. Has that been helpful?
Ms. Hedrick. And it has been very helpful, yes.
Mr. Souder. General Dean, do the CADCA programs interact
with the Strategic Prevention Framework?
General Dean. Yes, they do. We have created a National
Coalition Academy, where we are training community groups, and
we are working with the National Guard to do that and we are
using the Strategic Prevention Framework, which is really just
that, it is a framework, a five-step framework as the basis for
providing the training to these communities. So you are
teaching them how to do an assessment, how to strategically
write a plan, how to implement that plan, and how to evaluate
it. I forget the fifth step. So the bottom line is we are
teaching this prevention framework to community groups across
America so that all of us are working from the same basis.
Mr. Souder. Do you know is anybody looking, and I presume
each State drug coordinator is, but who looks at a zone and
says there is a CADCA program here and here is where the Safe
and Drug-Free Schools programs are? I am still kind of confused
as to where the $600 million from Mr. Curie's administration
goes into prevention programs. But are all those prevention
programs coming in an area rhymed or coordinated?
General Dean. Mr. Curie's dollars go to States, to include
his Strategic Prevention Framework money goes to States. So
those are grants that go to States.
Mr. Souder. They bid for those grants?
General Dean. And then States that have a plan take those
dollars and improve the communities within the State. So the
State is sorting out how to distribute and utilize the dollars
that come in through the treatment block grant, as well as the
prevention block grant, as well as the Strategic Prevention
Framework dollars, and how they have access to recovery dollars
coming in as well. So the State prevention effort is
determining how best to use those dollars in the State.
Now, at the community level, the coalition is doing what
you just said, because the Safe and Drug-Free Community people
are a part of the coalition. Therefore, they are working
holistically and strategically and complimentary to each other,
and not getting in the way of each other. And that is why in my
testimony I was so concerned that if you pull away the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools dollars that provides the infrastructure in
the schools, how then do you implement student testing? And
then who the coalition people have to work with in the schools
to have a holistic approach in the community?
Mr. Souder. Is Ohio divided into regions? I know Indiana
is.
Ms. Hedrick. Well, every system has different regions.
Mr. Souder. Does the Governor have a subset in his program
that he is doing?
Ms. Hedrick. No. In Ohio, those two programs, however, have
really set an example of working collaboratively together. In
fact, the education coordinator goes to many of the SAMHSA, and
there is a part of SAMHSA called Central Cap. They attend those
functions together so that they present a more unified picture
of Safe and Drug-Free Schools programming.
What we don't have as much within our State, and I think a
lot of States are like us, is a sort of clearinghouse of all of
those different programs where there is coordination and
synergy created. I think that is probably an ideal world, and
certainly the Drug-Free Communities Coalitions would be a
vehicle for doing that.
Mr. Souder. General Dean, do you know if in most States
there are subregions? In other words, partly what I was trying
to get at is I believe that every State has political dynamics
that are impossible to deal with if we move off of the school
funding formula. Our State versus Detroit versus Chicago and
Indianapolis thinks they are the only thing there, and the rest
of us have to fight for every little crumb we get. There is
this constant big city/small city/mid-size city battle. Even in
a county like Noble County, IN, the west side and the central
side and the east side fight with each other as to who is going
to be dominant even in a rural county.
But what often this means is the units of dollars that go
down to the schools are often not necessarily functionable. In
other words, they can't hire a full-time staffer. If we pulled
it back larger so you kind of clustered, whether it is similar
counties together, I don't know how big that is, do you know
how many people pool their resources? Is it banned from pooling
resources now? How many do that? Is there a way to try to
encourage that more, give incentives that you get some bonus
out of State money if you pool resources?
A system like Fairfax is the 12th largest. You pool
resources because you already do that. A lot of my high school
districts only have one high school in them, and one middle
school and two elementary schools. Yet, they will get a certain
amount of funding in, and that is how we get these horror
stories that come through on pencils or a school that didn't
get the supplement, particularly if they don't have outside
resources. If it is a reasonably wealthy or activist community,
they pool the outside resources to leverage it.
But what do you do in a community where you maybe have Back
to School Nights? When I was a staffer, I lived in Little Rocky
Run. The first time I went to a Back to School Night at Little
Rocky Run out in West Fairfax, there were, I believe--they had
to split it into two nights--there were 900 students and 1,600
parents at Back to School Night. When you go into an urban
center, often there will be 900 students, and if you have 20
students at Back to School Night in some areas in rural, it is
a different ball game with resources and how you can leverage.
So what can we do and what would be some creative ways to
look at this to push some of that kind of cooperation or
standards? Because the truth is that we are at the edges of a
problem, but the administration didn't propose a solution to
the problem, they just proposed wiping out the dollars.
General Dean. I guess obviously we believe, and we have had
some professional discussions with Department of Education and
others, that the community, the local education agency is the
place where the money needs to be. Fairfax County is an example
of the end of the pipe chain, whereas States are important, but
I would agree that they have a difficult time ensuring that
every entity in the State is afforded the appropriate treatment
and appropriate dollars.
So we are of the opinion that when you can send dollars
directly to LEAs or directly to communities, that is the best
way to do that, and that is why we are concerned if too many of
the dollar start having to go through States to get down to
communities.
Mr. Souder. How much do you get per student in an LEA?
General Dean. It varies I guess depending on the LEA.
And you probably can answer that question better than I
can.
Mr. Souder. Is there a minimum?
Ms. Hedrick. No, I can't answer that question.
Mr. Jones. In Virginia, if I am correct, something like
$4.75 prevention per student, something like that.
Mr. Souder. Four?
Mr. Jones. It is $4.75 per student.
Mr. Souder. So around $5 per student.
Mr. Jones. Yes. I can say this: one of the things that we
have done, actually because of our collaboration with a lot of
different programs, when we have trainings for violence
prevention, definitely drug prevention, we open it up to other
counties around us to make sure this is what you are getting
at, make sure they can come in and take part in that also.
Each year we have our peer mediation conference, which over
2,000 people attend. We actually invite counties as far away as
the other side of Virginia, way out in the southwest corner, to
come up to be a part of that, and they love it. So I think the
more individual school systems can do that, it really brings a
bond between those systems right there.
But you are right, that money getting down to LEAs, there
is a lot that is cutoff before it gets there.
Ms. Hedrick. In the handout I prepared for you, on page 8,
it is called the Spotlight of Safe and Drug-Free School
Consortia in Toledo Diocese and Franklin Counties. In Ohio we
have 10 collaborative or consortia that operate. What they do
in a particular county is they will pool their Safe and Drug-
Free School funds, because many of them are $2,000 or $600 or
whatever, so they get more out of the money by pooling it
together. And they have been quite effective, and some of the
examples are there for you on page 8.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
I want to finish with a few questions on the National Ad
Campaign. There are a lot of different ways I can go. One
thing, by the way, in your testimony, I believe you showed in
your one chart that meth use declined. Have ads been run on
meth?
Mr. Pasierb. We have been doing those on our own as a
public service through the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.
But the overall national teen trend on methamphetamine is
continuing downward. The damage that methamphetamine is doing
to communities in perhaps older teens and young twenties folks
is very significant. So what you are seeing in Indiana in terms
of methamphetamine impact may not always surface in the high
school in the other studies, so we, through the Partnership for
a Drug-Free America, have been doing meth campaigns and
actually doing more year in and year out.
Mr. Souder. Why do you believe methamphetamine is declining
at a faster rate than all the others?
Mr. Pasierb. Well, I don't think it is declining at a
faster rate, but what we are seeing is that----
Mr. Souder. Thirty-eight percent less likely have tried
methamphetamine, 31 percent less likely tried crack, 29
ecstasy, 14 percent marijuana, 8 percent others.
Mr. Pasierb. Well, among teenagers, certainly, the risk
profile of methamphetamine is very high. We did a program in
Arizona and in Missouri, which really helped the parents
understand how much further their kids were out in front of
them. Kids know that methamphetamine is a very dangerous, very
addictive drug, so it has a very high risk profile, versus
things like ecstasy did originally, like right now prescription
and over-the-counter drugs don't have among teens. So it is
that driving the perception of risk which is one of the keys.
And it is happening not only through the Media Campaign, but
also through the news media. Teens are seeing the damage meth
is doing to their communities.
Mr. Souder. Driving up the risk and communicating it is
probably what you are saying. The more clear-cut it is, the
easier it is to have a major reduction.
Mr. Pasierb. Absolutely.
Mr. Souder. And that marijuana is the hardest sell?
Mr. Pasierb. Yes, because kids know that use won't addict
them, first use won't kill them; whereas, with methamphetamine,
you can talk about the incredible damage it does and it is very
obvious. And they also see. Again, teenagers see what the
clandestine labs, what the things are doing to the community
they live in; it is a noisy drug, which, for those of us in
prevention, does tend to help a little bit.
Mr. Souder. I am having an extremely difficult time. We are
starting to see some flat-lining in Indiana on meth, but every
time we have a drug task force meeting, every time any group of
members get together, I mean, clearly 75 percent of the
discussion is on meth. And out of our opinion, leaders in the
administration and others, there is minimal discussion on meth,
and what we hear is that it is flat at 8 percent. Now, I think
part of it is that people make the risk assessment, that area
starts to go flat, and it hits another area.
Have you thought about an Ad Campaign? When you look at
this geographically, it is not too hard to see where it is
headed. How come we don't do the risk attention on the meth the
second it appears in a community, before it devastates a
community? In other words, can't we look at any kind of
regional strategies here? It is moving through Kentucky, it is
heading to Tennessee, it is starting to show its head in North
Carolina. There are a few edges of some suburbs. If this hits
the cities like crack----
Mr. Pasierb. Exactly.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. We may fix it, but we are going to
spend so many millions and billions fixing it. If it is an
easier sell, why can't we get ahead of this curve?
Mr. Pasierb. That is one of the things I think people are
fooled by. They look at the small number and they say it is not
that big of a problem. But it could go from being a fringe
behavior to being a mainstream teen behavior, like crack did,
like ecstasy did. You can all of a sudden go from this much to
a huge amount.
We did a piece of research in Phoenix and St. Louis, where
we launched a program called the Meth and Ecstasy Health
Education Campaign, where we went into the community, mobilized
the community much in the way that we are talking about here,
but very importantly got law enforcement together with the
medical community, media trained pediatricians who the American
Academy of Pediatrics, so that when this hit, just as you said,
when you saw this coming, we could go in, get the media
together, help them understand the health risks, the reason why
mom and dad might engage, might say we live in a good
neighborhood, that is not going to happen here; understand the
risk to their own kids and very quickly implement that with the
health message, the health messenger being the doctor, with the
support of law enforcement kind of standing behind them saying
we can't arrest our way out of this.
We have taken the Phoenix and St. Louis program now this
year to four State-wide initiatives and eight major city
initiatives. So we are trying, through the budgets and the
efforts of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America on our own
to do exactly what you said, because you are seeing that in
Indiana and we need to be in Indiana doing that as well.
That is the way to do it. When this hits a community, help
the community understand what is going on. And even absent of
the usage numbers, the damage this does to families, to
communities, to the kids that are in where these clandestine
labs are, to spousal abuse, to violence in the communities.
Methamphetamine does damage well beyond the absolute numbers in
the usage study.
Mr. Souder. I would like you to address--and we will finish
with this--for the record two big things as we are working on
the authorizing legislation for ONDCP. If we actually named you
in the authorizing legislation, one of the historic things--and
this is kind of a two-part--is how we evolved into having
Ogilvy and Mather privately contracted. Part of the thought was
to have competition.
Could you address that question? If in fact, because
partnerships have been there before we had the Ad Campaign. I
am not saying we are going to quit the Ad Campaign, but it will
probably be there after we don't have an ad campaign someday.
Could you, as we are wrestling with this fundamental question,
what assurances would we have if we, in effect, sole-source
this? That indeed there would be competition, that we get the
best rates, that there is a double-check. If you could address
that.
And the second part of it is I have some empathy, and we
have had lots of discussions about this in public and private
and all types of things over the last few years as we tried to
get over some bumps that existed a number of years ago. How
can, when the drug czar or the office of ONDCP, the Director,
wants to set a direction, how can he be assured if he, in
effect, sole-sourced, that the ad content would reflect what he
has been charged with by the President and by Congress to
reduce that, when you wouldn't necessarily? You have goals, but
everybody has differences of opinion, but aren't necessarily
now in a position where the contract could be moved around or
don't feel the same pressures?
Mr. Pasierb. Well, I think, if I understand the first one
right, our involvement in the Media Campaign, the original idea
behind the Media Campaign was to invest the public dollars to
give maximum exposure to our Campaign. And we work on the
Campaign for free. We receive none of the dollars from the
Campaign.
We really exist to get advertising agencies, production
firms, the talent union, SAG and AFTA, to volunteer their time.
So from a competitive standpoint, you can't get better than
free. And we exist to do this. This is our only purpose in life
as an organization. We were created to bring the talent and the
energies of the communications industry to bear on this issue.
So we exist to do exactly what needs to be done on this.
And if we are named in it, I think what it may do from the
most standpoint is create some clarity around this of what our
roles are, what the expectations are, quite frankly, of the
Federal Government for the things that we provide. I think
codifying that and a lot of the things that have been discussed
with ONDCP, talking about codifying our role, makes great
sense, and it helps a lot of the folks who we have to go out
and ask for free to do that.
The contractor issues, the people that ONDCP has hired to
work for them, I think John Walters has done a masterful job of
cleaning their house and getting that to a point where his
contractors, the people who meet his needs for media planning
and some of the public relations and things that he wants to
have around the campaign be on the advertising that we provide,
he has done a good job of sorting that out with Foote, Cone,
and Belding and the people he has now. He has good folks.
But our role, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, is
to work for free and to harness volunteerism in support of the
campaign. That is why in my testimony I mentioned that by our
accounts we have actually contributed $125 million to the
campaign. So we see ourselves as a stakeholder.
To your second question, we are all, for the most part--
obviously people want to focus on different things--guided by
the research. We can't do what we would like to do, we have to
do what the data tells us--the National Household Survey, the
Partnership Attitude Tracking Study. While we, over the past
few years, have felt through our good offices we should focus
on things like methamphetamine and ecstasy, John Walters had
pursued the President's strategy of the 10 percent and 25
percent reduction. The only way to achieve those numbers is to
go after marijuana.
So we view ourselves as actually right now being in very
good synch with ONDCP, because they are tackling the major,
most difficult issue, driving down the marijuana numbers, while
we are working at the community level on ecstasy,
methamphetamine, more and more on prescription and over-the-
counter drug abuse things like cough medicine. So we are always
going to be in sync with ONDCP.
I think where we fell out of synch, particularly in the gap
between Director McCaffrey leaving and Director Walters coming
in is when ONDCP hired a group of theorists to come up with
something that made no sense, and a program which was more
testing theory for the purpose of writing journal articles than
doing what the campaign was created to do, serve the public. So
as long as there is a leader at ONDCP with focus on reducing
drug abuse, by the very nature of that, ONDCP and the
Partnership are going to be in perfect synch.
Mr. Souder. But isn't part of that because, in fact, on the
marijuana campaign, to take that example, that he had the
ability to go to another ad agency and say I want marijuana ads
that do this; whereas, if we said----
Mr. Pasierb. We did them all. We did all the marijuana ads,
Partnership for a Drug-Free America did. No other advertising
agency did them. I mean, we came together on strategy under the
gap between Director McCaffrey and Director Walters----
Mr. Souder. I thought you just said that you did the meth.
Mr. Pasierb. No, we run our media. We get over $150 million
a year of contributions.
Mr. Souder. Because Ogilvy was doing placement.
Mr. Pasierb. Exactly. We did all of the creative, all of
the marijuana creative. When Director Walters came in and he
said he wanted to hit hard on negative consequences, and he
really wanted to go after marijuana, that was exactly what we
had put in our letter to General McCaffrey.
Mr. Souder. If you did all the placement----
Mr. Pasierb. If we did.
Mr. Souder. If you did under a new bill, would that affect
the director's ability to use leverage to get his campaign done
the way he wanted it?
Mr. Pasierb. Absolutely not. We have to look at this as
whoever is in that office as being a client, and he works for
the President and he works for you, and he has to do what you
all want and we have to do what he wants. And, again, that is
where I come back to we support fully what he is doing on
marijuana because we know that is the overall suppressant, and
we deal very tactically in Kentucky and Indiana and places on
things like methamphetamine, which are really kind of
inefficient for the Media Campaign to do, go in and buy the
same television program in a bunch of different cities.
So I think you can structure something that would
definitely lead to a degree of sync and support and
understanding of what people's roles and responsibilities are.
Mr. Souder. This is a question we are trying to work
through, and it is a very difficult question because depending
on what your creative department was thinking, which is what we
tried to work it through, because guys aren't going to devote
their time if they don't think their ads are going to be run.
Bottom line, they are not going to donate their time. Second,
the question is if you can get the placement for free, why
would you pay for it, which has been another question.
But also this feared question of management. I think it is
fairly safe to say, as somebody who has followed politics just
kind of as an observer and a staffer, and now as a Member, is
that it isn't always true that the person who is in the
director's position can dominate groups that are there before
and after them. And we had some of that tussling, and we had a
very frank discussion with your board, who believed that there
had built up some resistance, because there can be ideological
differences about whether you go hard line or soft line in drug
abuse, and what do you do when you have a sudden administration
change and an ideological change? And we need to make sure that
we have a system here that is flexible enough to reflect that.
On the other hand, as you know, I have been a strong
advocate of the Partnership, and I believe that if you are
going to get the most skilled people who donate it, it doesn't
necessarily make sense to pay for what you can get people to do
for free, particularly if we are fighting for every dollar to
try to get air time, because the bottom line here is we want to
make sure we have research, we want to make sure we have
creativity. But bottom line, if nobody sees it, so what if you
have great ads? Or a more correct marketing way to say it is if
you don't meet the threshold where it is remembered, it is not
that we are not putting it up there, if it doesn't meet the
threshold that it is remembered, then you have wasted all the
other money.
And at some point here we are going to reach, if we don't
keep this at a threshold with the leverage, the return
declines, and then the whole program tanks. In other words, at
$100 million you might be wasting money. I don't know what the
number is. Obviously you can cluster it in regions and do it in
waves and that kind of stuff, but your returns become such a
decline that you have wasted the whole batch; whereas, another
$10 million makes it so that you get the reach with which to
accomplish the goals.
And that is what we are teetering on the edge of, and you
need to continue to push and speak out if you think we are
getting to that, because I think we are nearly there, because
with rates in advertising going up, with consolidation in the
industry, not to mention the changes with the Internet and
satellite and everything else, I don't know how you get reach
and frequency anymore.
Mr. Pasierb. You covered a lot of territory, and let me say
I agree with everything you just said. And you are right, I
mentioned in my testimony that $195 million, the original
number that you and a lot of others put together a number of
years ago, was the right number, and over the last 8 years
there has been between 8 and 12 percent per year media
inflation.
So the threshold of this campaign at $120 million is right
about there. We couldn't suffer another cut and continue the
level of effectiveness, the level of good reads we are getting
out of the research, seeing Monitoring the Future mention the
Media Campaign specifically as driving the marijuana trends at
any lower than we are now, and we have been fighting and
advocating very hard over the last several months to try to
restore that last $25 million cut, because, to your point, the
beautiful model of this campaign is that $25 million leverages
another $25 million. We are able to get the best and brightest
advertising agencies around the country to volunteer hundreds
and millions of dollars worth of talent to make sure the very
best message gets in that time. And we agree with Director
Walters to make sure that every one of those messages, before
it runs, is tested so that we actually make sure we put the
best possible message in that time.
And doing all these things, as you identified, is
absolutely essential to making sure the campaign works this
year, next year, and years in the future, regardless of who is
the ONDCP director, doing what is right for the issue, doing
what is right for the consumer.
Mr. Souder. You made a great point earlier too when you
said that basically if McDonald's has a great--you didn't say
it exactly this way, but that is what you said--if McDonald's
has a great ad campaign, they don't say, well, we don't need as
much advertising for the next 3 to 6 months. Obviously, if you
are pushing it, tomorrow is another day, and you maybe get a
little bit of residual brand name, but the second you back off
it is gone, and in advertising there is no principle ``we had a
great ad, now we can tank it.'' That is not what you see
anywhere.
Mr. Pasierb. In advertising you invest in success and you
don't invest in failure, and right now we have success at a
time when we are decreasing our investment, and it doesn't make
any sense. And particularly in my written testimony I mentioned
I came from the community coalition field. I worked for
Governor Schaeffer in Maryland and did a lot of different
things like that. One of the benefits of ONDCP's Media Campaign
in particular is it gives all of us working in this field the
national umbrella, the air cover when we are either working in
a community on methamphetamine. The fact that ONDCP ran a
parenting message on TV that night helps us with the efforts we
are trying to do on methamphetamine specifically in a
community. So it really becomes a 1 + 1 = 5 in this case, and
it is important to keep it going.
Mr. Souder. And we want to make sure that the record shows
that the Partnership said that it was mixed, it was good news
for the Ad Campaign, but not necessarily good news for America,
so it doesn't come across as Partnership praises TV now more
important influence than parents. That is absolutely not. In
fact, it was a very troubling statistic, but it shows how the
country is changing. And the fact that No. 1, as I understood
your testimony, the No. 1 way that kids said they were getting
their information now was through, in effect, this National Ad
Campaign, the Partnership, and television.
Mr. Pasierb. And even Ashley's message running on Cox in
Virginia. Media, television is the way. And, unfortunately,
what we have learned through our own parents' research is in
the last 3 years the number of parents who have never talked to
their kids about drugs has doubled from 6 percent to 12
percent. So at a time when we have the most drug experienced
generation in the history of parents, they are talking less.
The ones who are very overconfident in the discussion that they
are having, because we know that about 85 percent of parents
say they are talking, but only about 30 percent of kids say the
message is coming through.
And parents don't understand the evolution of the drug
issue. If you were a high school student in 1979, the drug
issue looked like marijuana and cocaine. To a high school
student today, depending on where you live, it looks like
methamphetamine, it looks like ecstasy, it looks like
prescription drugs, it looks like over-the-counter drugs, it
looks like alcohol, it looks like inhalants, and it looks like,
looks like, looks like. It is much more complicated, and we
need now parents engaged. I want to see parents beat the pants
off television commercials.
Mr. Souder. I am sure there are studies that compare the
informal movie TV shows, the Jay Leno and joking about
marijuana and somebody on crack and the movies, that type of
thing with the official messages and how the kids are viewing
the two messages separate from each other and how they
reconcile it in the cognitive dissidence?
Mr. Pasierb. Right now we are at a point where the negative
social impact of a lot of the joking around about marijuana and
things like that is a low point. So it is not having a negative
impact against us. But what we need and what we know really
helps is when a show like ER does a story line that talks about
teens and drugs and the impact it can have. That has such a
power even beyond our messages for all of us that popular
culture, popular media could be our biggest ally, but it can
also be our biggest problem. Right now they are essentially
neutral.
Mr. Souder. I saw some pro-drug group whining away about
the Law and Order type shows, that they always show the drug
people as kind of whacked out and violent, as opposed to having
normal lives. A lot of this is just kind of fortunate and
cultural, because we have all this CSI and Law and Order and
all this kind of stuff, and they need criminals, and since 85
percent of all crime is somehow related to drug and alcohol
abuse, they are going to find their examples from that.
Mr. Pasierb. I don't know many regular meth users who look
normal. Or many regular a lot of different drugs. I mean, there
are a lot of folks out there, particularly on the marijuana
front, who want to make it sound like that is as socially
acceptable as having a bottle of Evian, but clearly we need the
CSIs, and actually it is a good point in time when reality TV
and a lot of the crime shows to show the potential downside of
drug use.
Mr. Souder. Well, I thank you all very much for your
testimony, for coming today. If there is anything else you want
to put into the record, any other documents, articles,
different things, we get a hearing book when we are done that
will be one of the resources on prevention that we can then use
in debates and different groups can use as well.
Mr. Pasierb. Mr. Chairman, if you have any written
questions for us regarding our role, the questions you asked
me, we would be happy to answer those in writing as well.
Mr. Souder. OK. We may do some followup on that.
Mr. Pasierb. Anything you want from us you have.
General Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pasierb. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:59 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3687.155
<all>