CONTENTS Hearing held in Washington, DC, March 31, 1993.. Chelimsky, Ms. Eleanor, Assistant Controller General, Program Evalua- tion and Methodology, General Accounting Office; Dr. Lloyd Johnston, the Program Director of Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; Dr. Ronald D. Stephens, the Execu- tive Director, National School Safety Center, West Lake Village, CA; Mr. Henry M. Wood, Chairman, National Drug Free Schools and Com- munities Steering Committee, Wilmington, DE; Dr. Stephen Danish, Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department, Director of Life Skills Center, Virginia Commonwealth University; and Dr. William M. London, Associate Professor of Health Education, Kent State Universi- Kunin, Hon. Madeline, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera: Chelimsky, Ms. Eleanor, Assistant Controller General, Program Evalua- tion and Methodology, General Accounting Office, prepared statement Danish, Dr. Stephen, Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department, Director of Life Skills Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, pre- Page 6 Stephens, Dr. Ronald D., the Executive Director, National School Safety Wood, Mr. Henry M., Chairman, National Drug Free Schools and Com- (III) HEARING ON THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE DRUG FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES ACT WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1993 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., Room 2261, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Major R. Owens, Chairman, presiding. Members present: Representatives Owens, Scott, Sawyer, Payne, Ballenger, Barrett, and Fawell. Staff present: Maria Cuprill; Wanser Green; Sylvia Hacaj; Laurence Peters; and Kathleen Gillespie. Chairman OWENS. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights is now in session. This is the first in a series of hearings regarding the reauthorization of the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986. During this hearing we will examine the progress made toward achieving the sixth of the national education goals which states, "By the year 2000 every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning." As we will hear from Dr. Lloyd Johnston, who heads the University of Michigan national study of youth illicit drug abuse trends, the Nation continues to make general progress in its war against drugs. However, there is no reason to celebrate. We have a higher rate of illicit drug use than any other industrialized nation. Some 15 percent of eighth graders have tried marijuana, while 5 percent have tried crack; more than half of the 1989 seniors reported illicit drug use at some time during their lives. Far too many of our youth have turned to drugs and the drug trade as a way of life. Three-fourths of all robberies and half of all felony assaults are committed by young people involved in drugs. The violence on the streets has seeped into our schools. Every schoolday thousands of students skip classes because they fear physical harm and hundreds of teachers are physically attacked. Nationwide, between September 1986 and June 1990 at least 75 people were killed by guns brought into the schools and over 200 were severely wounded. In communities where the culture of drugs and violence has taken hold, schools can not rely solely on metal (1) detectors and security guards to protect their students and teach ers. In order for these communities to move forward, there must be a change in attitude, one that makes the school part of a comprehensive effort to insure that community values triumph over those of the drug dealer. We must involve everyone in this effort: parents, teachers, law enforcement, business, as well as youth organizations. In its September 1990 report, Toward a Drug Free Generation: A Nation's Responsibility, one of the most important recommendations made by the National Commission on Drug Free Schools was the need to keep school buildings open beyond regular school hours for use by students, families, and the community. Although many imaginative programs exist, the national willingness to develop a comprehensive approach to evaluate and replicate exemplary programs is lacking. The Drug Free Schools program can be a vital catalyst in this effort, serving both as a focus for new ideas and as an opportunity to go beyond the rhetoric of school reform in providing long needed assistance for some of our worst affected schools. [The prepared statement of Hon. Major R. Owens follows:] STATEMENT OF HON. MAJOR R. Owens, a Representative in Congress from the STATE OF NEW YORK This is the first in a series of hearings regarding the reauthorization of the "Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986." During this hearing, we will examine the progress made toward achieving the sixth of the national education goals which states: “By the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning." As we will hear from Dr. Lloyd Johnston who heads the University of Michigan national study of youth illicit drug abuse trends, the Nation continues to make general progress in its war against drugs. However, there is no reason to celebrate. We have a higher rate of illicit drug use than any other industrialized nation. Some 15 percent of eighth graders have tried marijuana, while 5 percent have tried crack; more than half of the 1989 seniors reported illicit drug use at some time during their lives. Far too many of our youth have turned to drugs and the drug trade as a way of life. Three-fourths of all robberies and half of all felony assaults are committed by young people involved in drugs. The violence of the streets has seeped into our schools. Every schoolday, thousands of students skip classes because they fear physical harm, and hundreds of teachers are physically attacked. Nationwide, between September 1986 and June 1990, at least 75 people were killed by guns brought into the schools and over 200 were severely wounded. In communities where the culture of drugs and violence has taken hold, schools cannot rely solely on metal detectors and security guards to protect their students and teachers In order for these communities to move forward, there must be a change in attitude, one that makes the school part of a comprehensive effort to ensure that community values triumph over those of the drug dealer. We must involve everyone in this effort: parents, teachers, law enforcement, businesses, as well as youth organizations. In its September 1990 report, Towards a Drug Free Generation: A Nation's Responsibility, one of the most important recommendations made by the National Commission on Drug Free Schools was the need to keep school buildings open beyond regular school hours for use by students, families, and the community Although many imaginative programs exist, the national willingness to develop a comprehensive approach to evaluate and replicate exemplary programs is lacking The Drug Free Schools program can be a vital catalyst in this effort, serving both as a focus for new ideas and as an opportunity to go beyond the rhetoric of school reform in providing long needed assistance for some of our worst affected schools Chairman OWENS. I yield for opening statements. Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly welcome our witnesses this morning to this subcommittee. Unlike the atmos phere and testimony yesterday of your counterpart at the Department of Labor, Secretary Reich, this represents the subcommittee will probably or hopefully be a little less partisan. We all have a common goal here today. The subject matter should not be a political football and I don't think it will be because we should all be united in our approach to ending the scourge of drugs in our schools and in our communities. Mr. Chairman, I think this committee does have a very important task in taking a very careful look at the Drug Free Schools Act to see if our investment of concern and money is working, and to see if we can make it work better. I don't think we should force ourselves into thinking that by merely increasing funding for this Act that we will automatically lower drug and alcohol abuse. After all, we have been making some very significant investments, but some of the studies of late show that the drug use is on the rise again. I have no doubt that without the Drug Free Schools programs we would probably see an escalation of drug and alcohol abuse and drug-related violence as well. So what we are left with is looking at what we are doing with these programs. If there is some way of helping the local leaders address these problems better-after all, it is going to be the local drug prevention advocates that will really make the difference in curbing drug abuse and use-and not Congress. Many of the school officials and community leaders in my district have told me of their frustration in dealing with the complex paperwork requirements of the Act, and because of these barriers, they have not undertaken efforts in curbing drug abuse. And for other schools that I am in contact with, this has forced them into a consortia so that they can pool their resources. For example, Chadron, Nebraska, public schools has six schools in its consortia, one school receiving just $126. Another consortia exists in Valentine, Nebraska, where an educational service unit has a membership of 56 schools, 41 of them receiving less than $100. Our governor's office has helped train 345 local educator teams called the Drug Free Nebraska School Community Team Training Project that are helping small rural schools create and implement an effective drug prevention program. Mr. Chairman, I hope that at some future date we will have an opportunity to look at what some of the other rural schools out in the Nebraska, Wyoming, South Dakota, area are doing to address some of these devastating problems. You and I have talked about the possibility of a field hearing and I greatly appreciate you and your staff's openness in considering that request. So I think the evidence is out there that local advocates, be they urban or rural, are more than capable of developing and implementing quality drug and alcohol prevention programs and I look forward to reviewing the administration's ideas for improving the Drug Free Schools Act. After all, keeping our kids from using drugs and alcohol is too important for us to get into some partisan or political football game that ends up helping no one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. |