U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

\+ + + + +

SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES

\+ + + + +

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

\+ + + + +

INTRODUCTORY MEETING

\+ + + + +

TUESDAY,

JUNE 13, 2006

\+ + + + +

The Advisory Committee met in the Columbia 1 Room of the Holiday Inn
Capitol, 550 C Street Southwest, Washington, D.C., at 8:30 a.m., David
Long, Chairman, presiding.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

DAVID LONG, Riverside County Public Schools

FREDERICK E. ELLIS, Fairfax County Public Schools

RUSSELL T. JONES, Virginia Tech University

TOMMY LEDBETTER, Buckborn High School

MONTEAN JACKSON, Fairbanks North Star Borough School District

SHEPPARD KELLAM, M.D.American Institutes of Research

SETH NORMAN, Davidson County Drug Court

HOPE TAFT, Office of the First Lady

MICHAEL PIMENTEL, San Antonio ISD Police

EX OFFICIO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

DEBORAH A. PRICE, U.S. Department of Education

BELINDA E. SIMS, Ph.D.National Institutes of Health

ACTING DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL:

WILLIAM MODZELESKI, U.S. Department of Education

ALSO PRESENT:

VICTOR MEDRANO (Representing Howell Wechsler, CDC)

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Call to Order 4

David Long

Overview of Day II 10, 56

Discussion of Purpose of Advisory

Committee, Expectations of the Committee,

and Committee\'s Charge

Period for Public Comment 50

Introduction of Advisory Committee Members 53

for the Sake of the Audience Members

Concluding Remarks 128

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

8:30 a.m.

CHAIRMAN LONG: It is 8:30, so we will call this meeting to order.

First of all, I would like to call your attention to just a few
housekeeping things, quite a few housekeeping things.

First of all, welcome to everyone again, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed
this morning, all ready to go.

I would like to call your attention to the agenda that was published.
This is our first meeting. So this is an indicator of where we will be
going and the things that we will be talking about.

As we get into our second meeting and our third meeting, we will be
quite prescriptive and we will know exactly what the parameters are.
Today we are going to have some rough parameters and go in that
direction. But I want to let all of us know that, depending on what the
discussion is, we might move a little to the left or a little to the
right. Can I say that in Washington? I just thought about that.

(Laughter.)

A few things also that I want to point out and I want to hand out. First
of all, this is a written answer to a question that was asked concerning
lobbying by members if they are here for a two-day meeting and the
meeting ends in a half-day, which is today. Someone asked the question
if you could then go to visit with a Member of Congress or a Senator,
and would it be okay to discuss business from your district or from your
police force, or wherever you happen to be from?

This is the written answer to that. The answer is, \"Since we end today,
and if you happen to have one of those meetings, then, yes, it is
permissible as long as you are conducting your business and it\'s not
the business of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Committee.\" So we wanted
you to have that in writing.

Some of the things that we will be talking about today will be this:
We\'re going to be talking about really what the purpose of the
Committee is, what our charge is, the expectations of this Committee. We
are going to talk about ‑‑ and you will be giving the answers ‑‑ the
issues at hand and then the process to get at those issues.

We are also going to be spending some time on a calendar, because
another important element of this will be that of communication. I
always worry that whenever we come together with groups like this that
then, when we leave, that we want to make sure that we have ways to
share that information and we have some very specific dates so that we
can get back together to communicate and continue with that process.

I would like, as we start, to just mention a few things from yesterday.
When we were going through the housecleaning and were hearing from the
different parts of the Division as to what goes on in the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools Division, and some of the questions that were asked
and some of the things that you came up with, I just scripted some
things. I think it is too many years as a principal and being in a
classroom, but I wanted to just play a few of those things back to you
because I think it is very important.

I think yesterday was important to reflect the level of expertise that
sits around this table, the depth of the expertise that sits around this
table. I heard words like \"children\" over and over, as we hoped that
we would, and a word that in 15 minutes I heard seven times
\"relationships,\" because it\'s important to all of us.

Michael and I had a chance to visit this morning. We talked a lot about
relationships. I think many of the things that we are going to discuss
and some of the issues, and the processes to get there, will use that
term over and over.

Another term that was used four or five times that it is critically
important is no surprise, but I want to play this back for you this
morning as we start, and that\'s \"passion.\" I think everyone who sits
around this table today is filled with passion for those children, and
that\'s why you\'re here. That\'s why Montean came from Alaska to be at
this meeting.

I would like to also, just as an observation, a couple of things ‑‑
well, more than a couple ‑‑ some things that were just observations
yesterday: Montean, you get the award for flight longer than meeting.

(Laughter.)

Didn\'t you say it\'s 12.5 hours from Alaska? Okay.

I\'ve been in thousands of meetings, as I\'m sure you have. I\'ve never
been in a meeting where a Seth and a Shep sat next to each other.

(Laughter.)

The other thing that I want to mention, I think it\'s important,
whenever we have committees like this, it does represent various parts
of the country. I heard from Alabama and Tennessee and Texas and other
parts of the country, but for many of us other parts of the country are
quite bland. I happen to be from California. I was originally from the
Midwest, so my speech is rather bland, but I love to hear those of you
from Alabama, Texas, and Tennessee talk. I just have to tell you that.
It\'s great, especially you, Judge. You\'ve got a wonderful bravado.

We say that we have expertise and depth of expertise, and I think
sometimes we just say that and we don\'t pay any attention to it. So
this is going to take about a minute and a half, but it\'s going to
illustrate a very important point. I am going to ask ‑‑ and we\'re going
to start with Fred ‑‑ just to illustrate for those of us that are
visual, the Committee members, and if you would say the number of years
that you have been in the field, whatever your field is. For some of
you, it\'s police work; some of you, it\'s education. But I think rather
than just say expertise and years of experience, let\'s illustrate that.
So I am going to ask the Committee members, and we\'ll start with you,
Fred, number of years.

(Whereupon, the Advisory Committee members stated how many years of
experience they each have.)

CHAIRMAN LONG: Three hundred and seventy-seven. The reason, as I said,
that I think it\'s important to do that occasionally is, when we say the
expertise and the years of experience, when you think of it that way and
add them up, it truly gives us some breadth and depth of experience. Of
course, that leads to expertise.

Another way, Seth, to look at that, with the 377, is 3.77 centuries.

Let\'s do this: By the way, I\'m going to stick to the schedule, one
part of it that will be set, because this was a published agenda and an
open meeting. So at 9:30 we are going to have a period for public
comment. So wherever we are at about that time, I will pay attention to
it; we will then move to public comment.

The first thing that I had talked about was the purpose, charge, and
expectations of this Committee, and then moving into some agreement on
the issues. So putting all that together, I want to give you a second
handout that will help us with that.

We will wait for that to come around. As that\'s coming around, I\'ll
make this announcement: Would you please, as you speak, if you would
make sure that you turn the microphone on so that the transcriber can
pick it up. All of this is being recorded and we want to make sure that
everything is picked up. That\'s the little button on your left there
that will click on for the red.

Everybody have the handouts, \"Safe and Drug-Free Schools\" and
\"Communities Advisory Committee\"? It\'s about a three-pager. Everyone
should have that now.

As indicated, I would ask, first of all, agreement on the issues.
Yesterday, also when the information was being given to us and there
were questions and some discussion, some ideas popped out. So what we
are going to be talking about today, and need some input from you
because you, as the Committee, will be deciding this, we want to find
out what those issues are.

As we get to that, I would like to have you take a look right at this
first paragraph because that really will codify what we are talking
about with the purpose, charge, and expectations of this Committee.

The first paragraph, first page, where the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001, NCLB, contains the provisions for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Act, including the State Grants Program, the Secretary
asks that you address questions related to three topics within Title IV
of NCLB regarding ‑‑ and this also popped out in some of the questions
and some of the comments. So I\'m going to just take a look at those
three ‑‑ it\'s coming from the Secretary ‑‑ and then we will start
talking about the issues.

The State Grants Program; the second one was the Unsafe School Choice
Option, and the third, requirements for data. As I said, this came out
in your questions and it came out in comments.

So the first part of what this Committee, as we start out of the box, I
would like to hear from you what the issues are. These are the three
coming from the Secretary.

We also heard from Deputy Secretary Simon some of the same comments in
his welcome to us yesterday. So I would like to hear from you from the
standpoint of these three, and then if there are any additional points
or issues that need to be added as we go forward, because first we have
to identify those issues.

Also, as we have that discussion, I would like to have you think about,
when I talked about breadth and depth of experience, we want to talk
about and think about the number of issues that we want to wrestle with.
I think we would all agree that with the geographics involved and the
time that is involved, that we do not have time for six, seven, eight
issues. So we want to keep the list small, but it is important that we
identify them.

So, with that, if we take those three, I want to ask the question,
first, are there problems or any discussion on those three to the point
of, should these be the issues we tackle? Not answering the question,
because as you can see, there are questions attached, and we will come
up with questions as we have meetings throughout the year. Right now we
are just talking about the issues, the big umbrellas. So the question
is, anything on these three, include and start from there, and add.

DR. KELLAM: Say a little more about your question to us.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I\'m sorry?

DR. KELLAM: Say a little more about your question to us.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Okay. We\'re looking at, we are trying to get the number
of issues. So my first question ‑‑ and keep the list short or small ‑‑
so the first question relative to that, are there any problems ‑‑ do we
just stay with these ‑‑ not just ‑‑ do we stay with these three and
build on it? That\'s question No. 1. Question No. 2, if that is yes,
then what do we add?

So my first question would be, are we okay with the three as issues, not
the internal workings of them, just the issues? Is that a yes? Okay.

The reason I\'m saying that is because this is being recorded, and I see
the head nods, but they didn\'t. So that\'s why I was asking the
question.

Shep?

DR. KELLAM: The question that I\'m trying to wrestle with is an issue
which probably transcends all three. It has to do with, how do we make
better partnerships between research and practitioners, school
districts, for example? It has to do with a fundamental missing bridge
between the research programs that people carry out and the practice
issues that school districts deal with.

So, for example, many prevention programs compete with curriculum and
instruction around reading for time in the classroom. That\'s an issue
that comes out of the fact that the prevention research is not
necessarily or even usually developed from within the context of the
school district\'s mission. So that many prevention programs, for
example, will look at violence outcomes but never include achievement,
reading achievement, as part of the outcome measures, even as a
mediating or causal issue. Kids who learn behave better is a general
scientific inference we have drawn.

So where does the question of partnerships fit in?

CHAIRMAN LONG: Let me throw this out and see if this works for us: that
we have the three that were mentioned and that popped out yesterday, and
that we now look at ‑‑ and I think you\'ve gotten us off to a good start
‑‑ look at other potentials for that fourth, or if there\'s a tie or
another big one, we go fifth, because you will decide that.

So we now have those three, and if we could start with what Shep just
said, an idea, and then after we throw all those ideas out for trying to
arrive at that number four or that number five, you will decide that
through a process of just discussion.

So the first one, Shep, can I just say, \"partnerships\"? We need some
kind of a bullet.

MS. TAFT: Or is it research to practice?

DR. KELLAM: It\'s both. The requirement for research to practice is a
partnership that gets the research developed and inside of the mission
of the institution.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Okay. Would it be better ‑- and I thank you for that,
Hope ‑‑ research to practice?

As long as the specific issue is not overly abstract. I mean I think
that there are elements ‑‑ for example, we don\'t train researchers how
to do research inside school districts.

MS. TAFT: And there\'s some thought that if prevention was embedded in
all of the classwork material, we would get more prevention and more
academics at the same time.

DR. KELLAM: Right, exactly right.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Let me just make a comment. I agree with Shep\'s concern,
and he made a comment that I think kind of hits the nail on the head in
terms of this specific topic may be a little bit abstract for a
separate, specific issue for the Committee to look at. My own personal
opinion is that these three are pretty ambitious in and of themselves,
and, in fact, embedded, particularly in the first one, the State Grants
Program, there are some specific questions already in here about trying
to determine the efficacy of programming in terms of making a difference
in the school.

I think we will get to your points which I think are very valid points,
but I\'m not sure at this point that we really need to make a separate
topic. I mean I think these three are going to give us plenty to do, and
we will get to your very important one, I think, in the process.

DR. KELLAM: Yes, I just want to endorse that because I think what we are
going to end up with is not just a laundry list, but some kind of three-
or four-dimensional model that we can make.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I think both of you make a good point. It might be that,
as we continue on this discussion, it might be that instead of adding a
fourth or fifth, we might be talking about inherit qualities of the
three. I think that was the point that both of you were getting to, and
I think that is a very valid point.

So even given that, we want to make sure that we have the opportunity to
keep talking about that. If there are other points to add or if they
become more of these inherent qualities for the three, then you will
make that decision.

Any other either points or qualities?

JUDGE NORMAN: It would appear to me that if we address the three major
points that the Secretary asked us to address to begin with, after we
have cleaned that up or we have come up with whatever we decide on that,
then these other issues that Shep brings up are going to come up and we
will know how to address them at that point in time. Right now we don\'t
know whether they are going to fold into one of these three matters or
not. So if we address these three matters first, then later on we will
have a cleanup session to pick up anything we haven\'t covered. If
Shep\'s idea doesn\'t fall into one of these three ‑‑ and I personally
think it will ‑‑ then we will clean it up later on.

DR. JONES: Well, I think that we are going to end up doing these things
simultaneously. I think the research is part and parcel of each of these
questions. I don\'t think these questions can be addressed without
looking at them from a scientific perspective and bringing to fore what
we know about that process and how that process impacts on intervention
strategies, outcomes, evaluation of those outcomes, et cetera.

So I think we are going to hit each of these, and the research will kind
of underpin and, hopefully ‑‑ hopefully ‑‑ guide all, if not much, of
what we do.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Are there other comments?

(No response.)

What I am hearing is that we stick with the three and flesh them out,
and when we say, \"flesh them out,\" then we get back to the two points
that were made by Fred and Seth. That is that those qualities will pop
out or some of those overarching questions that would be inherent to all
three of those focus areas would be apparent. Are we okay with that?

Okay, then the three areas, the focus areas, that the Committee will
delve into will be the State Grants Program, the Unsafe School Choice
Option, and requirements for data.

This might be one of the toughest meetings we have because we are trying
to figure out where we are going. So this is a tough one. Once we know
what is out there on the table, I have a feeling that this group is
going to jump right on it and we won\'t have any problems. But it is
finding the way today. So that is good and that is appreciated.

We now have the three focus areas. Something else that I asked about,
and another thing that we have to determine today then, what is the
process, what process are we going to use to find out and to jump on
these three focus areas? There\'s all kinds of processes that we could
use.

When we start to talk about this, we are going to have to involve the
calendar because I had mentioned communication earlier, but at the same
time, depending on what the process is, it is going to tie into the
calendar because depending on what the process is will dictate the time
allotment that is going to be necessary to delve into these three focus
areas.

Do you want me to give you some suggestions? Let me just start with one.
I know that, as I indicated, there are all kinds of ways to get at this.

But one that is a proven way to do it, and it can take many shapes and
forms, that is with focus groups, meaning having three or four experts
that you would identify as a Committee we would then invite in. They
would talk about these subject data or the State Grants Program. We will
just take one of the three. You would identify as a Committee some
experts that would come in, and three or four is usually the proper
amount so that we don\'t take too much time with too many on one panel
or one focus group.

Let\'s hear from the experts that you identified and then give you an
opportunity ‑‑ we have an hour and a half, two hours, for each one of
them. You determine that. Then it gives you an opportunity to ask
questions and enter into a dialog with the experts that you have
identified.

Tommy?

MR. LEDBETTER: What are our other choices? I mean that sounds fine, but
are there other choices?

MS. PRICE: Just an offering, some suggestions for some things that I
know have been done at other advisory committees or commissions at the
Department, most have had focus groups, a couple of focus groups, where
they invited panels, three or so panels with three or four people on a
panel to hear from in a really condensed day, so to speak. So to hear
from them, get a lot of input, as well as receiving information from
experts in the field that send the information in and then all that
information is given to all the commission members.

Because even when you invite people in for focus groups, I mean you can
identify two or three people in the field that are experts, but,
clearly, there are multiple people and multiple perspectives on issues
and you do want to be able to hear as much as possible. One person at a
previous committee said that he felt like he heard all there was to
hear, but he hadn\'t heard it from everybody, and he needed to hear it
from everybody.

Then one tool that can be used is the tool of a conference call where,
after the Advisory Committee has received information or thought through
and kind of chewed up issues, to come together in a conference call and
then to talk about that, to get some focus on that and get some
directions, raise more questions so that you know what additionally you
need to answer.

That\'s a way that budgetwise is efficient but also for your calendars
and travel schedules can be really efficient, is to just plan conference
calls.

Of course, with the briefing we had yesterday on the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, those would be open, and so that number would be
published and people could listen to the conference call. But it has
proven to be a good tool for some other commissions that have been here.

MR. ELLIS: Just a comment: I like the focus group idea. I like being
able to bring in the experts and ask them specific questions.

I think one thing that would be very helpful, though, in terms of
process is that prior, well prior to that meeting, that we get
read-ahead material, both from the Department of Ed\'s side in terms of,
for instance, the State Grants Program, kind of a refresher about that
program, what it is, the parameters of it, everything you guys would
like us to know about it, and if we could also get, for instance ‑‑
there\'s obviously been questions about it. There\'s been criticism
about it. If we could get that ahead of time to allow us to kind of
understand the issues better prior to having the experts in.

Then I don\'t know; we may want to do it like a conference call or
something prior to the appearance of the expert witnesses, so we can
meet just telephonically as a group, identify what we see are the key
issues. So that when the folks come in here, we are not wasting their
way and they are not wasting ours, and we can get to the meat of the
matter and then follow it up however we think.

MR. MEDRANO: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN LONG: I got a note and I misread the note.

MR. MEDRANO: May I add to what Fred was mentioning? Because I, too,
agree that looking at focus groups is probably beneficial. But, as I sat
here listening to your questions, and because I am a very, I guess,
direct individual in terms of laying things out, it would seem to me
that yesterday we heard certainly the breadth and the scope of the
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and specifically their state
program, which was extremely beneficial.

But I think what is important for us as we address this particular
question is, where is it that the Office wants to be either two years
from now, five years down the road, or ten years down the road? I
certainly would like to hear from the Office as to that aspect of it.

Then, secondly, I would like to hear ‑‑ and this may be from the focus
groups ‑‑ what are the successes and some of the implementations of the
programs that exist in that Office and what\'s out there? What guidance
is being provided to the state education agencies and local education
agencies around these initiatives or activities? Is there a consistency
across the board? I don\'t have a handle on it, and that\'s what Fred
was getting at, is having more information along those lines.

Then, thirdly, looking at some of the gaps that exist, identifying where
we can strengthen the state program.

Then, finally, I think from here we can certainly move forward with
addressing maybe some of our recommendations to the Office in terms of
strengthening the state program.

CHAIRMAN LONG: My response to that would be ‑‑ and then I will have
Debbie Price, since she represents the Department ‑‑ but just as an
outsider out in the field, I am looking forward to listening to the
experts. Fred, thank you for that idea, which is a good one, to have the
read-ahead and the information well ahead so we can formulate questions,
so that we can at least simulate some of the information so we know what
to ask.

But as we bring those experts in, I would think, from my perspective, it
would be helpful so that I can get some of those questions, I can get
some of those answers, so that we can then put that in the report to the
Secretary to offer up some direction from all the expertise around this
table, so that she can then synthesize that information and either
accept or reject it.

So I would need to hear some of this ‑‑ I think I know quite a bit about
some of these, but that is why we have the experts.

Debbie, would you like to comment?

MS. PRICE: Regarding the perspective of the Department and where the
Department wants to go, basically, I would say our desire ‑‑ besides
this being our task to do, the functions of the Office, we have a very
heart-felt concern and desire for the programs for dealing with issues
of drug/alcohol abuse and prevention, violence prevention, making the
classroom an atmosphere that is really conducive to learning, that kids
come to school with respect and an eagerness to learn, so that truly, as
our legislation is named, no child is left behind.

Our focus is to present programs that maximize those issues, those
perspectives, so that if we have a program ‑‑ I\'ll pick on the
mentoring program. If we have a mentoring program, that it really is ‑‑
obviously, at times we are constrained by parameters of legislation, but
working within the parameters of the legislation, making sure that that
program is to the best of our ability designed in such a way so that it
is effective; it is the federal dollars ‑‑ there\'s respect for the
federal dollars and how they are used, and that children\'s lives are
being enhanced because these programs are there. They are learning. They
are coming out of school with better academic achievement.

I think in the broad spectrum, having programs that are effective in
children\'s lives that are not duplicates of other programs, that tackle
issues that are in front of children and parents and teachers, I think
that is where we want to be. That does change some.

I think when you were given the briefings about the programs of the
Office yesterday, you could see that there\'s been some evolution of
things happening and different issues arise. We are always looking at
new issues. So there\'s a life to it. So we don\'t want our program to
be stagnant, either, but we want it to be able to move and address those
needs of the education community as they develop.

If I could say where we want to be, that\'s in a very broad sense where
we would want to be.

DR. JONES: Well, a couple of things. One, I think what would be very
helpful is, if possible, to have these three questions more objectively
defined. I mean they are very broad and, boy, it\'s just kind of
difficult to kind of get your arms around those.

I\'m sure that is what is expected for the Committee to do, but just a
bit more clarity in terms of ‑‑ so, for example, the data, are we
talking about the way data are collected? Are we talking about how long
data are collected? Are we talking about how data are analyzed, how data
are written up, interpreted, et cetera? I mean there are just a number
of different aspects that I think go with that question as well as the
others.

I\'m sure that is part of the work that this Committee should do, but,
again, just objectively defining the nuances of each of those questions.

Then, related to that, and I know this is something that we did at the
CDC for a number of years, is trying to get a critical kind of an
analysis of what has been done, the extent to which it has been done,
going back, I think, Victor, to what you are saying, how well it has
been done, what works, what doesn\'t work. So we kind of have a
baseline.

I was very impressed with what was presented yesterday, just the
enormity of projects, the depth and the breadth, scope of projects. But
to be able to look at those projects critically and to be able to
determine the extent to which the projects have internal and external
validity, I mean just some very basic ‑‑ you know, I\'m kind of putting
on my scientist hat, but just some very basic questions in terms of the
rigor in which the various programs are being carried out and the extent
to which that rigor is being reflected and the outcomes.

It is certainly understandable that you are working within certain
parameters. Again, we face that time after time at the CDC and other
groups. But even within those constraints, if you will, there are
varying degrees of rigor that can be engaged to enhance the likelihood
of desired outcomes.

I guess I am saying a number of different things, but one thing that
would be very helpful for me, if I had kind of where we are and what is
working and moving on from there.

MR. MODZELESKI: Russell has some good points. I think that we can
streamline these. From our perspective, if you take the data one, for
example, I think, simply put, the data one I would say is, where do you
want to be? At the end of the game, where do you want to be? Is the
current system of collecting data getting you there?

In other words, here are the requirements. We could outline the
requirements, and there\'s multiple requirements in the legislation for
collecting data. As I mentioned yesterday, it is collecting data,
everything from the school level, not the individual level, as Shep was
talking about, but from the school level up to the SEA level we\'re
collecting data. Then beyond that, at the national aggregate level for,
say, studies, whether it is something like monitoring the future or the
large-scale CDC YRBSS. So there\'s a lot of data.

Is that getting you what you want, yes or no? That is a relatively
simple question. If it is not getting you what you want, then,
basically, I think that leads you to a next level: What should we be
doing?

In saying that, it gets a little bit more complicated because then you
raise issues of dollars, because for every data piece that you collect,
it is going to cost some money. It gets into authority. Do we as the
federal government have the authority to collect certain pieces of
information? Because you just can\'t say, because it is nice, we want
it; we like it; let\'s have it. There has to be a legal basis for
collecting data.

Then I think the third question is that, once you have it, what are you
going to do with it and how are you going to use it? Because collecting
data for data\'s sake or just for collection purposes isn\'t really good
public policy. There has to be some uses or some basis for collecting
it.

That is sort of putting that in as simplistic as I can, but I think you
have to start basically saying, where do we want to be in regard to
collecting data?

DR. JONES: One other thing to maybe throw on the table is the extent to
which the breadth of activity ‑‑ I\'ve always had a little saying that I
would rather do a few things well than a lot of things not so well. I
know there are many things that are mandated by Congress that we\'ve got
to do. But I am just wondering the extent to which we might consider ‑‑
maybe this is a way to look at it: It\'s prioritizing. Maybe that is the
word I am looking for.

Are there some programs that are more in need? Are there some programs
that we need to get to first, and then there are others that maybe can
wait? So prioritizing. I don\'t think I can put it a better way.

DR. KELLAM: I\'m trying to build on what you guys have been talking
about. Yesterday I think we all agree was a huge amount of material,
descriptions of projects that I hadn\'t any idea existed. So that the
scope of what we are about all of a sudden became not only more clear,
but more wondrous.

This looks like a huge core area of executive function in the government
for pulling together everything from mental health, public health, you
know, criminology, around a core of education, which makes incredible
sense. In fact, people argued about doing that for the last 100 years.
It is sort at the essence of the mental hygiene movement and the early
literature on delinquency, and so on.

So it is a huge picture we are talking about. It reminds me of when
ADAMHA came into existence and even HEW in Eisenhower\'s time. The whole
idea was to pull the government together into some kind of integrated,
reasonably integrated piece.

That raises the question about ‑‑ I remember when ADAMHA was invented,
before SAMHSA, Gerry Klerman, who was a contemporary of mine, found ‑‑
he was the first head of ADAMHA ‑‑ that there were 14 different
agencies, without even hardly counting, that were in the prevention
business. They didn\'t talk to each other, had no real understanding of
the programs across the agencies.

So one of the questions is, how many people are doing mentoring research
or carrying out mentoring programs? So one of the things that I think we
have to do is to pay attention to the functions that are spread out that
are somewhat disconnected and how to bring them into some common focus
and function. That means talking to people; for example, the guy or
person who runs the assessment systems, the current statewide obligated
management information systems that tell you which schools are failing
or not.

Because somehow we have to know how that data fits with where we need to
go and who else is collecting data, and what are the guiding logical
principles that guide the collection and the use of the data. So we need
to explore the government agencies and find out, in fact, how much
piecemeal function is going on that we could handily bring together or
at least advise to bring together.

MS. TAFT: I think we also need to keep in mind that this whole piece of
legislation will begin to go under review in 2008 ‑‑ 2007?

MS. PRICE: 2007 is when ‑‑

MS. TAFT: It is supposed to start?

MS. PRICE: If they start on time ‑‑

MS. TAFT: Right, right.

MS. PRICE: \-- it would be 2007.

MS. TAFT: But whatever we do, I think we ought to have our
recommendations in the pipeline early enough to affect that
reauthorization. So I don\'t want us to get too broad in scope that we
never come around to some recommendations.

MS. PRICE: Just to complement what you said, Hope, we have the
reauthorization coming around in 2007. There may be some recommendations
that we want to do. But, at the same time, I think it is really
significant to look at, are there changes that could happen or issues to
address that can be addressed in manners other than trying to actually
change the legislative language? Is there guidance? Is there regulation,
just general implementation?

Because, quite honestly, there may be some things that are much more
straightforward to address rather than legislation because legislation,
as you know, gets tricky because there is over 500 of them up there who
dink around with what you think is good.

MS. TAFT: I agree. I think that the sooner we can get some
recommendations, the more helpful we will be to the Department to make
the program viable and an asset to not on the Federal Department of
Education, but also to the local LEAs. That could help in a multitude of
ways.

MS. PRICE: Right. It is very subtle in the wording of the first
paragraph, but I see that the Secretary has requested us to look at
these issues and to give her a report that includes findings as well as
recommendations. Findings, you know, statements of fact about programs,
can actually be as strong sometimes as recommendations because they tell
you ‑‑ you know, if you just have recommendations, you sort of miss your
perspective on it. So I am pleased that the findings aspect is there so
you can state those pieces about what you believe about something as
well as your recommendations.

MS. JACKSON: I\'m back to one point that was made a little earlier: What
are the gaps and the existing problems with regard to the program and
needing to have that baseline data and information, so that we have
somewhere to start and we kind of can move forward.

Because, again, for some of us, there may be regional issues; there may
be the financial monetary issues that played a role in why certain
programs are doing some of the things that they are doing. So we may
identify, because of the lack of funding and availability of funding,
why certain areas are doing less than what some of the other areas might
be doing. They don\'t have the infrastructure in place. They don\'t have
adequate staffing, or whatever.

So I am really definitely interested in looking at the original report
that was talked about a little bit yesterday, the PART report, so that
we are able to identify some of those core areas. So that as we look at
these three areas that we are tasked with making recommendations and
looking at some findings, we have a baseline to start with.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Good point. Good point.

Other comments?

DR. JONES: Yes, just real quick. The idea of the recommendations I think
is very good, but I am hoping that we can put that in our agenda so that
that\'s gotten to. So once that date comes ‑‑ I mean this is 2006,
isn\'t it? So that that can be done. I\'ll stop there.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Other comments?

(No response.)

If not, we would like to start to put some of this together in how we do
communicate. To do that, we are going to have to look at a calendar and
work through some of the things.

We have talked about focus groups, three of them. We have talked about
the experts. We will put that together in just a little bit. But right
now I think we need to talk about the calendar.

This is a draft, and that is why it is written that way. So this can be
changed, but we needed some kind of a backbone to start from. So I will
hand this out to you now.

Everybody get one?

Now this sometimes can be a tough one because we come from all over the
country. Some people fly 12.5 hours, Montean, and others drive ‑‑ Fred,
what is it, an hour or less?

MR. ELLIS: It seems a lot longer some days, yes.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN LONG: So we have folks from all over the country. Keeping that
in mind, let\'s take a look at this draft, bearing in mind the
discussion we have had for the past hour relative to the three focus
groups.

If you will start right there at the top, the meeting that we have had
today, then suggested ‑‑ but then we need to start, as I said, to put
some meat on the bones here.

A Committee conference call in July, that would be a conference call
wherever you happen to live, which will cut down on some of the things
that we talked about with travel. But that will be an important one. It
is important that as many as possible, like with all the meetings, would
be either on the line or physically at these meetings, because we will
have to start to put the focus groups together. Not just put them
together, it\'s going to have to come to closure at that one because
people have to be notified. Before we leave today, we are going to want
some suggestions from you, so that we can get started, because people
have to be contacted.

Hope?

MS. TAFT: It is hard for me to tell you dates or general ideas without
my master calendar and to give you suggestions of names without my brain
being at a place where I have all my data collection.

But one of the questions I want to know is, how long do you think these
conference calls usually will last?

CHAIRMAN LONG: I would guess ‑‑

MS. TAFT: Because I find ‑‑

CHAIRMAN LONG: It is going to range, as we start out the box, we should
be able to conduct that business in one hour to an hour and a half at
the most, but probably one hour.

MS. TAFT: Because I find that it is very hard to keep my focused
attention on long conference calls. Is that a nice way to put it?

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN LONG: Or 45 minutes. How\'s that? And that is a good point,
because when we don\'t have the face-to-face contact, it is just like
earlier I asked, just for the sake of the audio, is that a \"yes,\"
because we can quickly in five, ten seconds, when a question is asked,
people do this (indicating); on a conference call we can\'t do that. So
sometimes that expands it. But I would think no more than an hour.

Yes, Belinda.

DR. SIMS: Just looking at the calendar and reflecting on the comments
that have already been made, would it be helpful before we zone in on ‑‑
well, we have the draft calendar here, but figure out, what will we be
tackling as our first issue in July? I\'m assuming we can\'t cover all
three of these within the context of one conference call or one focus
group meeting.

Should we work with Russell\'s suggestion around prioritizing what we
are going to do first?

CHAIRMAN LONG: That is a good point. A suggestion would be that in that
first conference call that we are zeroing-in on the August focus group
meeting. So that in the Advisory Committee conference call in July,
whatever date we select, that we are putting that all together.

We are then talking about who are the three or four experts that are
going to be sitting there, what is the time slot. We will start to
zero-in on some of the questions, get specificity and clarity. So I
think at that conference call we can do that as we head and set up for
the August focus group meeting, if that makes sense.

MR. MEDRANO: Could I add to your piece a little? I agree with you; one
area for me, too, is in order to be able to provide you some information
on experts, I would like more clarity, I guess, in terms of what we are
looking for in terms of who we want to try to recruit. Because experts
is a broad area. To me, an expert is certainly Dr. Jones over there
sitting as an expert in his field, but also looking at I would consider
a coordinator out in the school system who actually does the work and
lives it every day being an expert as well.

So some clarity, I think, along those lines, as well as the extent of
what we are trying to accomplish during that focus group. I mean each
one of those needs to have its own specific intent of what we are trying
to get at.

MS. PRICE: Not to pass the buck, but I do think that with the expertise
that we have on the Advisory Committee, and as we look, from our
conversation today, and as we look at some of the questions under the
three topics that need to be addressed, that people come to mind that we
think ‑‑ you know, it might be a state coordinator; it might be someone
in the research field.

But we know, boy, if we talked about this, this person would be great.
So I do think offering a suggestion not just of a name, but of what that
person could address, because I think that David is at a disadvantage to
specifically right now articulate we need these, these, and these.

You can see those areas of expertise and those subject matters that you
all know and look at that and see, what are we missing; what direction
do we want to go? You know, to ask.

I\'m not saying that what you ask isn\'t workable, but I think it is
more of a process than just a straightforward question at this time.

MS. JACKSON: And I don\'t know if this is appropriate, but then could I
make a suggestion that, at least for the August focus groups, that we
focus in on one of the three issues; for example, the State Grants
Program, since the re-PART will be occurring, I guess, in this fiscal
year?

Maybe our focus group experts and community member experts, research
experts, would be focused around this issue. So that when we talk in
July, we can come to that phone call with specific suggestions
pertaining to that issue.

I think as we deal with that issue, we will probably be touching on the
third point, the data collection, and the second as well.

DR. JONES: Yes, I like that idea of determining which of these we are
going to focus on first.

You know, in terms of experts, we are the experts. We are the experts.
Certainly, we need outside input and that kind of thing, but we are the
experts in many ways.

I think it is important before we bring the experts in that we know what
we want the experts to do and to be just as precise about that as
possible.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Shep?

DR. KELLAM: Yes, I think you\'ve got to start and aim somewhere. That is
as good a place as any. I mean one, two, three makes sense.

The problem we\'ve got, if we do that, and let\'s assume we are going to
do that because all the other options have equal evil aspects, we are in
danger of losing the cross-cutting aspects. The way my head works, if
you get a little more of a geometric model, a multi-dimensional model,
we can then see how these things cross-cut.

So, for example, if we are looking at the state programs, that that is
the topic, the basis and effectiveness of these state programs
necessarily involves data. It drives the need, in fact, for a kind of
data which is piecemeal across the country; namely, data on individual
kids over time that are aggregatable at multiple levels. So you can
measure effectiveness if you follow Charlie over time, but you can\'t
measure effectiveness for subgroups or for girls versus boys.

If you\'ve got aggregate data, average data for a school building, it
doesn\'t tell you whether, in fact, there\'s a progression toward better
or worse for individual kids. So you\'ve got management information
system data, which is what we\'ve got a lot of, is not sufficient.

So I think that we have to understand that we can focus on each one of
these separately and at the same time realize we are building a
multi-dimensional kind of information system.

CHAIRMAN LONG: And that\'s where those inherent qualities we were
talking about probably pop out also.

DR. KELLAM: Yes, right.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Tommy?

MR. LEDBETTER: Looking at the calendar, you\'ve got two meetings for
focus groups. Would it be possible for us to address in the first
meeting the school grants and in the second meeting the unsafe school
option, and include the data on both of those with those two meetings,
where at the first meeting we are looking at state grants and the data
for that or against that, and looking at the unsafe school choice
option, the second meeting, with the data along with that? That way, we
would be covering all three of them just in the two meetings. Is that an
option?

CHAIRMAN LONG: I think that would be up to you, and I think it is a good
option. If I could take that good option and put it in a parking lot for
about five minutes, because it is now 9:32 and we have a posted agenda
that says there is a time at 9:30 for public comment.

So I want to respect the posted calendar for the open meeting and at
this time ask if there is any public comment. If there is, would that
person please step to the podium? You will have five minutes.

Is there anyone wishing to address the group in public comment?

(No response.)

If not, your idea comes back out of the parking lot.

MS. TAFT: Is it out of order to ask the people who are here for the
public comment section to identify themselves, just so that I would know
who is interested in this topic?

CHAIRMAN LONG: If they wish to, and I\'m saying that because some might
not wish to. You are asking, as a Committee member, if the people in the
audience would identify ‑‑

MS. TAFT: Yes. When I serve on other advisory committee meetings and
they have the session like this, everyone goes around the table and
introduces themselves and then everybody in the room also introduces
themselves. So it gives everybody a feel of who is here.

So I just wondered if we were going to do that.

MS. GAYL: I\'m happy to introduce myself. I\'m Chrisanne Gayl. I\'m the
Director of Federal Programs at the National School Boards Association
here in Washington.

CHAIRMAN LONG: And if anyone else wishes to ‑‑

MR. SPICER: Good morning. I\'m Malcolm Spicer. I\'m with the Community
Development Publications. I write about funding for substance abuse and
mental health services, and, coincidentally, First Lady Taft, I have
written about your under-age drinking prevention program. Now that I
have your address, I will make sure to send you a copy of that piece.

I would like to take this chance to ask for, if I could receive copies
of the additional material that you have passed around, Dr. Long ‑‑

CHAIRMAN LONG: Absolutely.

MR. SPICER: \-- to help edify my coverage. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Absolutely. Thank you for asking.

MS. ABATE: Hi. I\'m Candice Abate. I\'m the Executive Director of the
Hepatitis Foundation International. I\'m here today because I wanted to
make you all aware of our programs which focus on healthy lifestyle
behaviors, not only hepatitis prevention, but also substance abuse
prevention.

The liver is a part of the body that very little is publicly known
about, and we are trying to change all that, raising the status of the
liver. More and more data is coming out showing that information about
liver wellness is having a great impact on healthy lifestyle behaviors.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you.

If there is anyone else that wishes to identify, please step up.

I appreciate your comment also for those in the audience, Hope; we will
go around the table to introduce. So thank you for that suggestion.

Anyone else in the audience?

(No response.)

If not, Fred, if we could start with you, if you would introduce, for
the sake of the folks in the audience, who you are and what you do.

MR. ELLIS: Sure. My name is Fred Ellis. I am the Director of the Office
of Safety and Security for the Fairfax Public County Schools in Fairfax,
Virginia.

MS. JACKSON: Good morning. My name is Montean Jackson, and I am the
Coordinator of Safe and Drug-Free Schools for the Fairbanks North Star
Borough School District, K through 12.

DR. SIMS: Good morning. I\'m Belinda Sims from the National Institute on
Drug Abuse. I\'m a Health Scientist Administrator in the Division of
Epidemiology Services and Prevention Research.

MR. PIMENTEL: Howdy. I\'m Michael Pimentel, and I\'m the Police Chief
for the San Antonio Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas.

MR. MEDRANO: Good morning, everyone. My name is Victor Medrano. I\'m
with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention out of Atlanta,
Georgia in the Division of Adolescent and School Health. I am a Program
Consultant in that Division.

CHAIRMAN LONG: My name is Dave Long, and I\'m the Riverside County
Superintendent of Schools from Riverside, California.

MS. PRICE: I\'m Deborah Price, and I\'m the Assistant Deputy Secretary
for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

MR. MODZELESKI: I\'m Bill Modzeleski from the Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools.

DR. JONES: I\'m Russell Jones, Professor of Psychiatry at Virginia Tech
University and Director of the REACT Program, Recovery Efforts After
Child Trauma.

JUDGE NORMAN: I\'m Seth Norman. I\'m a Criminal Court Judge out of
Nashville, Tennessee.

MR. LEDBETTER: I\'m Tommy Ledbetter. I\'m a Principal of Buckhorn High
School in New Market, Alabama.

MS. TAFT: My name is Hope Taft. I\'m First Lady of Ohio.

DR. KELLAM: I\'m Shep Kellam, Public Health Psychiatrist/Prevention
Researcher, Director of the Center for Integrating Education and
Prevention Research in Schools at the American Institutes for Research.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Thank you all for the introduction. Each time we do that,
it reminds me, with the opener, of the breadth and depth of the
expertise sitting around this table. It\'s exciting.

I\'m going to suggest this: It\'s 9:37. Let\'s take a break until 9:50.
Could we do that?

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the record at 9:37 a.m. and
went back on the record at 9:53 a.m.)

CHAIRMAN LONG: While we\'re waiting, I want to go right back to that
same point so that we could continue that discussion, because it is
extremely important as to how we put the calendar together.

We are going to go back to your point relative to the point and the
focus group and how the focus groups go together. Your point, I do
believe, was have it in two focus groups, a special time for the State
Grants Programs. We calendar in two dates. I think that is what you were
saying.

DR. KELLAM: It is the integration of a state program, how it might be
usefully integrated with the information system, the management
information system, giving you a sampling frame. It would help guide
which project should go where at the level of the Department.

For example, one criteria would be we need to get representation of
certain kinds of populations to test Program A. So this management
information system tells us where to go to find populations that we want
to represent.

When you then attach that to the question of, okay, but is the program
working and for whom, you follow kids over time in the same sampling
frame, so that we know and can specify exactly what\'s working where and
where it isn\'t working.

So there is a fundamental integration that we need to get in our heads
about how these pieces fit together. Of course, underlying all that is
the question of partnerships, the question of, how do you get in there
and do these programs and work out the trust issues and the like?

But I think that is what we need to begin to think like as we are
thinking about, what is about the state programs, projects, that kind of
structure for disseminating programs, how would you make it bigger? How
would you make it better? Or how would you find out that it is working?
It is by integrating these pieces.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Let me see if I\'ve captured what you just said. That is,
I\'m trying to bring it back to the numbers and the focus groups and the
calendar. Then I\'m also trying to integrate what Hope just brought up
as well as Tommy.

So if we have on the first focus group in the morning, for example ‑‑
I\'m just going to pick some broad ‑‑ the morning of the first date that
we have State Grants; afternoon, data; the next focus group,
persistently dangerous. I\'m trying to put that in the middle, if that
would make sense.

So I am just trying to bring some of those ideas together to see if that
is what you are saying or if that is okay.

DR. KELLAM: I think we need a little bit in the beginning of that day
and a half, or whatever it is, to get some idea about the parameters we
need to think about as we think about state programs, just to get a
little map of what are the issues and how do they relate to data; how do
they relate to issues of effectiveness, and so on.

So then if we have an hour or so of that ‑‑ I don\'t know, how long
would it take us to come to shared vision here around some kind of
understanding of how measurement and assessment could fit into where you
put programs or are the programs working?

You can\'t really talk about, are the programs working or what do you
make out of the Rand Report, or somebody else\'s report, without looking
at some of the issues about effectiveness.

CHAIRMAN LONG: You made me think about a potential Plan D. That is, what
if we started with data for an hour, because that permeates the others
that we are talking about; then had the focus group, the morning focus
group, on state programs; then had the afternoon focus group on data, or
would that make sense?

If it is going to permeate, maybe we should start with that.

DR. KELLAM: Okay.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I mean that is a thought.

DR. JONES: I don\'t know what I missed, but I think that assessment
should be like No. 1, because we can\'t evaluate anything if we don\'t
know what we are measuring. So looking at the assessment.

DR. KELLAM: Okay, but I think that if we ‑‑ in other words, we don\'t
have to pick up, Russell, maybe we don\'t need assessment at the most
abstract level. I mean I think we could say, okay, a real understanding,
a real mission today, let\'s say, is to understand the state programs.

Let\'s start with assessment because that\'s going to give us some tools
to think about effectiveness and distribution, dissemination, and so on.
How would you fix it? Where would you like to be in five years with the
state programs, including cutting them out or doing it right, or what
does the next stage look like most preferably?

DR. JONES: Yes, I like that. Yes, assessment in context.

DR. KELLAM: Right.

DR. JONES: Yes.

MS. PRICE: Let me just chime in just a little bit. I realize that the
State Grants Program is a broad, extensive program that touches
communities in every spectrum you can imagine, from large urban
communities to the smallest rural community of one school for the middle
school and high school. So that program in itself is really asked to
address that huge spectrum.

I do think that we have to be careful first to understand the strengths
of the program, how it is working in those communities where, as
significant as research and showing that the programs are effective, but
the tools aren\'t there, but they somehow put a small amount of money
together, and they are doing something that really makes a difference in
kids\' lives.

Would it be duplicated and would it work in another community? Maybe
not. Maybe so; maybe not. But in that community they did something that
really affects the community.

We need to be able to look at the State Grants Program and appreciate
the vast differences of it, but yet look at it and say ‑‑ I mean we are
really asked to kind of almost be a rubberband and stretch to the
maximum and see that, and then bring it back to the very nutshell of the
program.

So as we are looking at the data and the research and all of these
aspects, I do want us to still get the appreciation of the overall
program, the breadth of the program, if that makes sense.

MR. MODZELESKI: Debbie, if I could just pick up on that, because I do
think that we are losing sight of the questions that are on this page
here. So if you go back and take a moment here, I want to bring you back
to the questions being asked.

I think Debbie\'s right that some of the questions get back to the very
basic things. This program is now asked not only to do alcohol and
drugs, but I would say it is a program about sex, drugs, and rock and
roll, and everything in between. School are engaged in everything in
between.

The question is, and it is a very appropriate question, is that the
right direction to go? We are not saying, yes, this is great and this is
wonderful. I mean this is an Advisory Board question about whether or
not this program has been diluted to such a point that it is doing all
things to all people, and then, in essence, is doing nothing for nobody.
That is essentially it.

So there\'s very basic questions which I think we need to get down to
and we are asking for input on. As I mentioned yesterday, this started
off in 1987 as an Alcohol, Drugs, and Tobacco ‑‑ that\'s a word that we
don\'t use at all anymore, but Tobacco Prevention Program, and now we
are into all of those issues. Few schools are dealing with tobacco
except with Legacy dollars. Violence prevention; preparedness-related
issues; suicide prevention; after-school programs; mentoring programs;
truancy programs.

I mean I could go on and on and on, and that\'s both the blessing and
the curse of the program. The blessing is that it has a lot of
flexibility; the curse is it has a lot of flexibility.

So I think that part of what we are saying to the advisory group here,
and it is one of the questions here ‑‑ and by the way, I would also say
Debbie and I know this full well, that all of those issues that are on
the table today, what we know about tomorrow is that there will be new
issues on the table.

Fred and I come from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, and we just had
a question the other day from the State Education Agency about
utilization of Title IV dollars for pandemic flu planning. So, here
again, we go down and are asking for the funds to be diluted even more
to get engaged in doing other things.

So I want to bring us back to the essence of here ‑‑ and everything that
Shep and Russell have been talking about are things we need to get to,
but we also need to get to some of the basic things about the program,
the design of the program, the purpose of the program, and whether or
not, if you take ‑‑ you know, I think it\'s \$310 million is what the
House appropriated, at least in the Subcommittee markup. Think about
taking those dollars and dividing it 15,000 ways based upon population,
and you come to about three or four dollars per child per school year.

Then the question becomes even more difficult: As you begin to get into
data-related issues, that\'s money. You know, it costs money to collect
data. So do you want to take ‑‑ I mean this is a question; it is not an
answer. The question is, do you want to take precious dollars away from
programs and then put it into data?

It is a balancing act: the assessment part that Russell talks about, the
research part that Seth talks about, very important, but those are also
dollars that have to come with somebody.

So there are some basic questions that, again the Deputy Secretary laid
out here, I think, that we are trying to get to and that we really need
your feedback on.

MR. ELLIS: Just a couple of comments. I agree with Bill; I think we need
to kind of stay focused. I think it will be very easy to get wrapped
around the data question and the research. That is just my sense, that
we will get wrapped around that axle very quickly if we digress real
deep into that before we deal with our main charge.

I think it would have been helpful to have had these questions yesterday
while we met and were provided the overall topics, the three topics. The
questions and the issues associated with them are really the gist of it,
and I think they are the simple ‑‑ not simple in many ways, but the
overriding charge is to answer some of these basic questions about these
programs. I think that is a useful effort.

Again, I would resubmit to us to kind of focus on, before we meet with,
before we identify these experts, we need to get the pros and cons of
each topic. We need to get the pros and cons of the State Grants
Program. What is the criticism of that? Why did OMB, or whoever it was,
provide those decisions in terms of effectiveness? Let\'s get down to
those.

Again, let\'s hear the success stories. Then we can come together as a
group and say, \"Who do we want to come?\" We want to hear from some
folks who have taken this money and done some great things in their
community. Maybe we need to hear from some folks who maybe applied for
and didn\'t get a grant, or ones that never put in for it: \"Why don\'t
you put in for it?\" What are the issues associated with that? So we can
answer some of these questions about those topics.

I think the data thing is the thread that runs through all of this. It
seems to me there\'s two pieces to the data. One is the specific
questions of whether or not the requirements for data under No Child
Left Behind are appropriate. That is kind of a broad data question.

The other ones, I think a lot of them are Shep\'s issues in terms of,
are they doing the research appropriately? Are we measuring what we are
supposed to measure when we do a program?

To me, as the layperson and the non-scientist among a group of
scientists ‑‑

DR. JONES: You sound pretty scientific to me.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELLIS: I don\'t know about that. But, to me, there are two different
issues. One is, are we collecting the right stuff for No Child Left
Behind? Then the other things are, are we evaluating programs that the
grants pay for appropriately? Are they giving us the answers we are
searching for?

So, anyway, that\'s my point. Let\'s kind of stay focused, get the
read-ahead material, identify some questions and experts early before we
get them in here, so we will know exactly what it is are the pros and
cons of this issue. So we can get at it when we meet with them.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Yes, Shep.

DR. KELLAM: Dave, I feel like I\'m an obstacle to moving ahead, but I
sympathize with what Fred is saying. I didn\'t say, \"empathize.\" The
reason I am saying that is that I am looking at the first question. It
says, \"Currently, as implemented, what are the strengths of the State
Grants Program?\" Well, who the hell knows?

I don\'t have any way of assessing the strengths of the state program
because I don\'t know who receives it. I don\'t even know what the
\"it\" is. I know that it is many things.

So, in my untutored ‑‑ I take that back; that is just sarcasm ‑‑ but in
my tutored brain, I think that what we need is some kind of way of
ordering what the state programs are all about, somehow of categorizing
the kinds of programs, understanding who, as you are saying, Fred, who
gets them, who doesn\'t.

The only way to know that ‑‑ and I\'ve got another problem, too, and
that is that the current massive data collection is a political balloon
that\'s going to be torpedoed by the next political fights. I mean it is
sitting out there. All it is doing is blaming schools for failing.

When this happened with registries in public health, whether it was
venereal disease or with mental disorder registries, and so on, the
absence of linking the data system we currently have, which is very
expensive, to real services did them in eventually. People don\'t want
to just keep on collecting data like we\'re collecting without somehow
connecting it to improving services.

So the obvious connection is to take the same data we are collecting ‑‑
we are already paying for it, though. In fact, every school district,
many school districts have information systems about each kid that you
can tie into.

So there is a lot of data being collected. I\'m just arguing that we
need to use the data in conjunction with the grants for these local
programs so that they inform each other.

Five years from now I would like to see these programs mapped in a data
field that tells us who is getting what and is it really working. Are
there really good things happening?

So, as I see it, these need to come together early, not in big
abstractions, but in very concrete ways.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I think what I was hearing, some of that, it is going to
be critically important. What you are bringing up, Fred, about the
upfront information on the material, so that you get that ahead of time,
and some of those things that ‑‑ and I saw you shaking your head over
here, Debbie.

Lastly, Shep, like it or no, I picked up just a tinge of empathy.

(Laughter.)

MR. LEDBETTER: If I can go back to my original question, I think my
original question was, could we tie those things together in the
meetings? I guess dealing with some of these things, I look at them and
when I look ‑‑ I guess what I am trying to do is explain what I was
asking.

If we could take the State Grants Program, and when I look at the
questions here or the bullets that are outlined here for the State
Grants Program, the things that jump out at me are, what are the
strengths and the weaknesses of those programs? Now weaknesses is not in
there, but, obviously, if you are going to look at the strengths, you
have to look at the weaknesses of those programs.

What are the difficulties in determining the effectiveness of the
programs? Therein lies your research and your data, and so forth. All
right.

Are there emerging issues? There\'s always emerging issues. It\'s what
are those emerging issues that may need to be tied into those things
Again, all of that ties back to the data.

I\'m a little bit like Fred. I guess it goes back to my graduate school.
One of the first things I learned in graduate school is you can take
numbers and make them say anything. It just depends on your perspective.

But my questions about data are: Is the data that we are using
consistent? Is it the same data from state to state? Those kinds of
questions are the questions that I have about data.

To coin an old Southern phrase about comparing apples to oranges, you
know, it is very difficult to do that. If we are looking at the exact
same data, it is very simple for us to make decisions about what are
weaknesses and what are strengths of programs, and so forth.

If it is possible, I still believe that ‑‑ Fred made the statement that
we can get wrapped around the axle with data, or something to that
extent. I think that we could take every one of these meetings and not
discuss anything but data and occupy all that time, but we still
haven\'t answered these basic questions.

The questions to me are whether or not these programs are working. If
the State Grants Programs, if they are working or if they are not
working, then the question there, when you turn to the second page, is:
\"Could state and local flexibility be balanced with additional core
requirements that would encourage LEAs to address specific issues?\"
What would we need to do to make them work? That\'s what that means to
me. What do we need to do to make them work?

If we can\'t make them work, well, then maybe we need to eliminate them.
But they are either working or they\'re not working. If it\'s broken,
let\'s fix it or make some recommendations to fix it.

MR. MODZELESKI: I think Tommy has a good point here. One of the things
that I would put on the table for discussion of the whole issue is, how
do you define what\'s working? I mean I know that Mrs. Taft had some
information that she sent forward on programs that were working in Ohio.
Five people could take a look at that and have different opinions about
whether or not they were effective or not. And that\'s neither to say
it\'s right or wrong.

All I\'m saying is that, if we need to or if we are going to basically
make some decisions about whether programs are working or not, then we
may need to take a step back and come to some decision about how do we
define effectiveness. Effectiveness probably is more than an effects
test and an evaluation.

That is where Russell and Shep may go, but that is not where Fred and a
lot of other people are going. It gets back to the basic question about,
if you are sitting before a PTA and you want to bring a program and a
PTA member is asking, \"Is this working? How is it effective,\" I think
that we are going to be able to articulate that in plain English very
much as a State Grants Program.

OMB wants one level of effectiveness. I think citizenry wants another
level of effectiveness, and practitioners want yet something else.

I think that as an Advisory Board we want input back from you also
about, what is effectiveness? How do we measure effectiveness? I mean,
how do we know that something is working besides going through a random
assignment evaluation? We are not going to do that for every program. It
is just impossible to do.

We want some practical information about trying to determine about how
we could sell this program as being effective.

MS. TAFT: Couldn\'t you go back to the core dataset that is outlined in
the legislation? Because when drug use goes down, it is a good sign of
effectiveness, no matter what you are doing.

We know from research that when perception of harm goes up and
perception of social disapproval goes up, then drug use will go down.
So, to me, those are some of the basics, that if we can get the numbers
to move, we\'ve done something right.

MR. MODZELESKI: Well, and herein lies the problem. Because the numbers
go up, we can\'t assume it is because of what we did. Because the
numbers go down, we can\'t assume that we did it.

It means that somebody is doing something right, but it is probably not
just this program. It is parents. It is community groups and
organizations. It is schools. It is churches, faith-based organizations.
So it is a whole series of people that are doing things right.

I think that is sort of one of the issues that we face within the first
part, trying to ferret out or trying to tease out exactly who is doing
what to cause numbers to go up and down. We face the same problem today.
To a certain degree, it is trying to figure out ‑‑ YRBSS just was
released ‑‑ Thursday of last week, Victor, I guess? ‑‑ Thursday of last
week. There was mixed news. Some of the news was good; some of the news
was not so good.

I would love to say where those trendlines went down, or started to go
down, that was because of our program, but I can\'t say that. Because we
can\'t basically tie what we are doing to demonstrate ‑‑ we think we
have a part of it, but we are not certain exactly what part of it.

So what that gets back to is that, aside from science ‑‑ and, again,
that\'s the science part, but aside from science, are there other
measures or other ways that we could basically begin to determine or
begin other measures of effectiveness?

I think, again, this first question about what are we doing right, and
it gets back to effectiveness, that is a very basic question I think
that needs to be answered.

DR. JONES: Yes, so is that third variable, right, the infamous third
variable? But I am wondering, there aren\'t ‑‑ I guess there are data
that do exist presently that give us some sense of what we see as
effective versus non-effective. I guess those data would be in the hands
of those that determine that the grant program would no longer be
funded, is that correct?

Now I am wondering, what criteria were used in that determination, and
then to what extent that may give us inroads into what some of the
evaluative factors are in determining effectiveness, et cetera?

MS. PRICE: Not to specifically answer the question you just asked, but
to answer around that question ‑‑

DR. JONES: I must have a specific answer.

(Laughter.)

MS. PRICE: No, but in the hopes of getting to the specific answer, I
heard a variety of people mention a variety of points, all sort of
gelling-in on needing more specific information. We had the briefings
yesterday about each individual program that were very broad and gave
you a general understanding, but there are specific elements of each.
I\'ll pick on the state data. I mean the State Grants Program.

There\'s specific legislative language that established that, and there
are specific aspects of that grant and how it works, as well as the
Unsafe School Choice Option. We have guidance at the Department on the
implementation of that, and just a variety of, what were the questions
asked in the first PART review of the State Grants Program by OMB? What
are they going to be looking at for the new PART review? ‑‑ and have a
good understanding of that.

So just in listening today, I am starting to make a list of pieces of
information that you all need to have to be able to review to think of
directions to go and answer some questions, and to raise more questions
to work off of.

If you as you on the way home come to think, \"I\'d really like to know
more about \`X,\'\" if you all would just send it to me, send those
questions to me, and we will try to get that information.

But we will put together what we believe is really a broad packet of
information for all of you, to get out to you, so that you can see and
review that.

If you all have something that addresses this specifically that you
would like all the Advisory Committee members to have, send it to me;
I\'ll make sure it gets out, and where it is possible, will either
identify that or will put that up on our website, once we get our
website established.

DR. JONES: Good answer. May I just follow up?

MR. MODZELESKI: Could I try to give you an answer to your question
first?

DR. JONES: Oh, yes. Sure. Sure.

MR. MODZELESKI: Absent a measure for trying to look at how this money is
spread out and saying that it was these dollars that had an impact and
this is why it is effective, a measure for proving effectiveness that
has been agreed upon by the Department of Education and OMB is to look
at what we have research on and what we know works. So we have selected
a group of programs from ‑‑ actually, we are working with a contractor
called Westat. So we know that there\'s a group of programs that have
evaluations.

This is more than one evaluation showing positive results over time,
showing reductions in alcohol and drug use or violent behavior ‑‑ the
going back into schools, doing a survey of schools to basically
determine how many schools are implementing science-based programs.
That\'s level one.

Level two, going back and then looking at the same schools, the same
programs, to look at fidelity of implementation. So it is not only that
we are looking at the programs, but we are looking at the fidelity of
the programs.

What is that going to give us? If we go to the conclusion ‑‑ and I think
it is a good conclusion ‑‑ of saying that we already have from research,
we know from evaluations that if you implement Program X, this is the
result you\'re going to get, and if 50 percent of the schools in the
United States are implementing Program X, and to a degree of fidelity
which is going to lead to that conclusion, I think then we will say that
we are in pretty good shape.

On the other hand, if we have this whole listing of schools which we
have agreed upon are effective and we go back and we do a survey of
schools throughout the United States, and we find out that only 10
percent of the schools are engaged in these programs, then we are going
to say we are in a problem.

So it is going to give us a picture, not a perfect picture but at least
some picture of the number and the percentage of schools in this country
that are implementing programs that have been determined thus far to be
effective, and \"effective\" won\'t be an elusive term, but basically it
has more of a scientific ‑‑ getting into effect sizes.

MS. TAFT: How long is that list, and does it include the ones from NIDA
and NIAAA and SAMHSA?

MR. MODZELESKI: I\'m sorry, I was afraid you were going to ask that
question.

(Laughter.)

It is interesting because the list is currently being discussed.
Information is being collected on, say, 50 programs, but at the end of
the day it may be that we only agree 35 are going to be ones that are
measured.

So where do the programs come from? They came from a combination. They
came from the Department of Education. They came from NIDA. They came
from CSEP. They came from CDC, and it came from the HAY listing. So
those are the listings that we took the programs off.

We are trying to ‑‑

MS. TAFT: And not Justice?

MR. MODZELESKI: And Justice, yes. I\'m sorry.

We are trying to resolve some differences that exist, as you know,
between the lists. So that is where we are right now.

There is a group of programs that clearly fall into the category we want
to measure. There is a group of programs that clearly fall into the
group that we don\'t want to measure, and then there\'s this gray area
that is in the middle. That is what we are trying to figure out right
now, where these programs go.

MS. TAFT: I assume that you know that SAMHSA is redoing their list?

MR. MODZELESKI: Yes. Yes.

MS. TAFT: When that list gets identified, can it be shared?

MR. MODZELESKI: Sure.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I am going to try to bring focus back to the calendar, so
that we can start to put some of this together.

We\'ve identified the three focus areas. So the question is, so that we
can get the first two steps on this calendar, when we will have the
first conference call and then when we have the first focus group, the
next meeting here in Washington. Here\'s what will drive it. It gets
back to the parking lot.

With the three focus groups, if we say the August focus group, that
meeting, do you wish to have all three ‑‑ remember, it will be a day and
a half. So there\'s a potential for having a focus group in the a.m.,
one in the p.m., and one the next a.m., like this morning, for three
focus groups.

Or is that too much and we should have two in that one day-and-a-half
meeting and move the last focus group, whatever that happens to be, to
the October focus group meeting? That is really the question at hand now
because that will drive the calendar.

MS. TAFT: To keep my brain from on overload, I would like to suggest
that we have one of the issues in the afternoon of the first day and one
of the issues in the morning of the second day, and then the afternoon
of the second day is a time to discuss what we have learned and put some
parameters on it or do some discussion of it.

CHAIRMAN LONG: That put a different dimension on the meeting, because
for those that come from a long distance, one of the reasons that we go
a day and a half and stop somewhere around 11:00 or 12:00 is so they can
get to the airports to head home. If it was in the afternoon, that would
change the dynamic, but it could be done if that\'s what the group
wishes.

MS. TAFT: Well, from those of us who don\'t quite live as far away as
Alaska, and I appreciate your long trip, I think the Department could
save some money and we could save some time if the first meeting started
late enough in the day, say ten or eleven o\'clock, so that we could fly
in the day of the meeting and save at least one overnight expense for
the Department, was my only thought.

MS. JACKSON: Just so you know, with it being a 12-to-13 hours\' flight,
oh, definitely not the day of the meeting. I wouldn\'t get here. I
started at 12:00 a.m. Alaska time, which is four hours ahead of you, and
I didn\'t get here until almost 5:00 p.m.

MS. TAFT: Yes. Well, I understand that there\'s some of you like you and
California who live so far away that you would probably come in the
night before, but there\'s others of us from Ohio and Tennessee and
Texas who could get here by taking an early-morning flight in. I\'m just
thinking of economics, basically.

DR. JONES: With all due respect, that really doesn\'t work. I\'ve tried
that many times, and, boy, with flights, some folks would get here at
10:00; some would get here at noon; some might get here at 3:00. I mean
I like to save the Department\'s money, but I really think we ought to
come in the night before. I hate doing it because I can get a lot of
work done at home, but coming in the night before and starting early in
the morning has worked best in many instances.

MS. PRICE: But, speaking to a point that Mrs. Taft made, obviously, not
specific to the day schedule, but the concept of taking half of a day to
focus on one, half a day on the other, and the other for giving the
Advisory Committee face-to-face time to discuss what they previously had
heard seems like a workable tool to me because it gives you an
opportunity for input and then to kind of digest some of it amongst
yourselves as a whole before you go off. So that it seems like an
appropriate use of time, however you put that on the calendar day.

CHAIRMAN LONG: For the sake of recapturing, we will stay at the day and
a half, keeping the first day all day; the second day a half day. Then
the slots become important. So we have a half, a half ‑‑ I mean we have
three slots rather: half day, half day, half day.

Would you rather have a focus group first like, I\'m just going to say,
state grants, then a slot of discussion time, and then the third slot
the next morning, like today, that we have the other focus group, or
would you rather have focus group, focus group, the second day, like
today, discussion?

DR. JONES: Just a very basic question: What\'s the focus group doing to
do? Let\'s say we have a focus group on grants. What would they do?

CHAIRMAN LONG: The focus group will be made up of experts.

DR. JONES: Yes.

CHAIRMAN LONG: They will give information. We will then, as an advisory
group, ask questions and enter into discussion with them, and between
and among ourselves and the panel.

DR. JONES: Okay. So what kind of information would they give us? I\'m
just trying to wrap my arms around it.

CHAIRMAN LONG: And that\'s why we are having the focus group. That is,
they are the experts. They are going to be giving us information on the
three focus areas.

DR. JONES: Okay.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I mean I can\'t answer the question ‑‑

DR. JONES: Okay. So I\'m wondering, they would probably need to know
what those topics were prior to coming, right?

CHAIRMAN LONG: Sure. Sure.

DR. JONES: So I am wondering the extent to which we ‑‑ and maybe that\'s
in one of the conference calls. I guess we are going to have a
conference call to say what those specific questions are.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Right.

DR. JONES: I see.

MS. PRICE: And I think that is what we talked about a little this
morning, to get input from you all on, as you see this, issues to be
addressed and identifying people that you think would be articulate on
that issue, and then to work that up so that you have your focus group.
That focus group could come ‑‑ you know, I have seen it on a variety of
commissions where they come and they present, say, 15 minutes, whatever,
20 minutes each, a panel of three or four people.

At the end of the panel, the Committee has an opportunity to ask
questions and get answers, and move onto the next panel, but that each
panel member provides more than an outline, but not necessarily
word-for-word verbatim, but their materials on what they are going to
present, so that you, as advisory members, have an opportunity to look
at it and review it, think about some questions ahead of time. Because
in some cases 15 minutes will be plenty of time for them to say
everything they need to say; in other cases it is the nutshell. So for
you to be able to have their materials.

So it is hearing from the advisory members, also getting that
information ahead of time so you can give it some thought, hearing it,
and then being able to ask additional questions.

MR. MODZELESKI: Debbie, if I could give some examples, I think that, for
example, Chief Pimentel and Fred belong to a group that we sponsor 40
police chiefs. One of the things that I hear from the chiefs over and
over and over again, and this goes on for the last 10 years, is that,
\"It is nice to have Title IV and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act,
but, you know, we don\'t get a penny from that.\"

So it may be that they want to recommend to the Chair one or two chiefs
who are articulate and outspoken and willing to talk about their
perception of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Act.

Mrs. Taft and Montean belong to an organization that is made up of the
state education agency representatives, the coordinators. They both may
want to contact them and ask for two or three people, put those names
up, and they would come forward and talk about their views and
perspectives of what they like.

You and Shep are part of a coalition of researchers around the country,
many who have worked directly on these programs, some have worked
indirectly, and some who have been the recipient of funds from these
programs. I would say get some researchers in here to talk about what
works and what doesn\'t work.

Tommy is a principal. Although yesterday he talked only about, he said
that there wasn\'t a relationship, I think that part of the principals\'
association, I mean we could tap into them. We could get principals at
the table and talk about whether this program has worked or hasn\'t
worked, what\'s the good parts of it, and so forth and so on.

So each of you is bringing an expertise. What I would say is to reach
out to your colleagues and your constituents around the country and say,
\"Here, we are looking at this thing. Can you help us? Can you identify
anybody that could really help us?\"

We, I mean as far as Debbie and I are concerned, we would be more than
happy (a) to identify the research out there. For example, when we get
to the persistently dangerous or unsafe school choice, we have done a
lot of work with the VERA Institute of Justice in New York and they have
done studies, and do you want to speak to the VERA Institute of New
York? We could link you up with them.

On this particular issue, we have the Rand study that was done six,
eight years ago ‑‑ I forget exactly when it was ‑‑ that, actually, we
were part of. I\'m very familiar with the Rand study. We could hook you
up with the Rand study.

What I would suggest is use those resources that are had, whether they
are school police chiefs, whether they are state SEA Safe and Drug-Free
Schools coordinators, whether they are LEA Safe and Drug-Free Schools
coordinators, whether they are principals or superintendents. Those are
the people who use this program every day, and more from a research
perspective, give you a very practical perspective and practical
understanding of what are the good points and what are the negative
points of this particular program. I would use that.

MR. MEDRANO: David, and I appreciate Bill\'s comments; I think they\'re
right on target. But I would like to go back to something that Tommy
mentioned earlier, which is it seems now that we are incorporating into
the first focus group the three focus areas. I agree with Tommy in terms
of the fact that data is interwoven into the two, because the third one
is specifically around data.

It seems to me ‑‑ and I throw this out only as a recommendation to the
entire group ‑‑ that we look at that first focus group to be on the
state programs. My fear is that it is extremely broad in its focus, and
we specifically talk about drug use, the prevention of drug use, as well
as violence. But even within each one of those, it\'s magnified into
many different areas.

I think Bill mentioned the magnitude of what they go into and the things
that they work on. I think coupling both Safe Schools as well as
incorporating it with the State Grants Program is a bit much. I say that
as well because, as we talked about earlier, when you first asked us to
consider other areas, other focus areas, my sense is that other focus
areas are going to surface when we delve into just one area.

So from my perspective, I think that we would be much better off looking
at the state program, having our focus group folks at the table. We
listen to them in the morning. We talk about data in the next half, and
then that third, or that next morning is that the Committee works on
looking at the gaps, looking at some recommendations, looking at all
those pieces, and settling itself into that one particular focus area,
and then the second focus group following the same format.

I\'m just worried that we are trying to lump everything together too
soon.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Could we build on that and just say, then, for this first
focus group, which is scheduled in August ‑‑ and we will set the date,
and I hope that is going to give you some objective. So we\'ll try to
work on it.

On the first day, that first chunk in the morning, if the focus group
could be on the State Grants; then in the afternoon, data; then the next
morning, putting those all together and discussing and the questions
that pop out, the new information. Then we head to the next focus group,
which is scheduled sometime in October, per your determination. That
first chunk will be persistently dangerous, followed by more data,
because that will weave in and out.

It might be that we revisit, if we find that that isn\'t enough chunk
for the State Grants, we go back. There\'s nothing wrong with that. We
want to make sure that we cover these, and I am hearing that from all of
you, that we cover these well and that we ask the right questions and
get the right answers.

Does that sound logical?

DR. KELLAM: Yes, it sounds logical. The problem I\'ve got is that it
skips over a process part. That has to do with where this group is in
understanding a common language, a common vision for things like
strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness, and so on.

I think that we should not be naive. As we become a group, that we
understand, have a common language for things like, what\'s research;
what\'s effective, as a word; where are we going in the long run.

My concern is that what the science tells us, to me anyway, is this is a
very typical group that has to come to understand that when you talk
about effectiveness, you are talking about data and program and
community acceptance and partnership and a whole variety of issues that
have to do with human development in the context of communities at
different levels: federal/national, you know, state, and so on.

We are just becoming aware of that in education research. We have this
big fight in education research, randomized field trials versus every
kid is different and we should observe every kid and how they learn, and
they are all separate and are all different. How do you put those
together?

The reason I am talking about this is we are going to focus groups, and
frankly, I don\'t know who the three people would be that I would trust
to talk about an integrating concept that we are, hopefully, building. I
think if you talk to people like Jon Cohen at AIR, who is in charge of
assessment as a big division of AIR ‑‑ in fact, they are working in the
Ohio assessment system. If I asked Jon, how would that apply to telling
us whether effectiveness of the state programs is working, he would look
at me like I was nuts. There is no bridge between the two at the moment.

So, in some sense, we are making recommendations to build the five-year
developmental program, to make the thing in five years more effective
than it is now, whether it is state programs or local programs, or
whatever it may be, and to integrate the NIHes into all of this, and to
get the OJJDP into it, you know, to make all these a better kind of
functioning, integrated kind of system of human development and support
thereof.

So I am worried that we are skipping over us coming together as we are
going into focus groups, and I look at a June deadline. We are supposed
to make recommendations by June. It sounds like some kind of a Broadway
production. I mean it is a big-time thing we are doing. I don\'t think
we should do it naively.

When I say, \"effectiveness,\" yes, I mean data, but I\'ve got in mind
we shouldn\'t be thrown out by a police department in a school district.
That\'s a criterion. The first rule in public health at Hopkins was:
Don\'t get tossed out of the community. I mean that is a measure of
effectiveness, to stay in there.

So I just think we should keep in mind what we are building. It ain\'t
going to be simple for this group to function any more than it is
broadly simple for the nation to discover that it really can apply Food
and Drug Administration criteria to does it work when you\'re talking
about kids and teaching them to read and teaching them to behave as
students.

CHAIRMAN LONG: No, I think that what you say has merit, and I want you
to know I sympathize with what you say. But ‑‑

DR. KELLAM: Okay, I accept that.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN LONG: And you said it best: We are given the charge with a very
definitive timeline. We all know that. So we will operate as best we can
in that timeline. To do that, I think we will rely on folks like Shep to
bring those things forward as we go through the one, two, threes on the
focus areas. So those things, hopefully, will all pop out, and there
will be things thrown on the table for discussion, but I think we have
to get at those one, two, threes of those focus areas.

We have defined what they are that first day, State Grants. Then we said
that we would have data in the afternoon, and then the next day
discussion to bridge the two, and things like that can pop out. That
will be our first focus group. Then we will head toward the second one.

Yes, Victor.

MR. MEDRANO: David, and I agree with Seth, 80 percent of it; I think
that 20 percent lies in the fact that we\'re always going to have
differences, even if they are researchers or program people, where we
are going to differ.

But I would propose, then, that we have two Advisory Committee
conference calls prior to that first focus group, so that some of those
issues can be brought to the table. The challenge with that, though, I
mean we can discuss this all afternoon face to face and never come up
with answers. It is even worse when you have it on a conference call
when folks are trying to interject. So that is a real challenge.

But in order to be able to try to do that, then I would recommend that
we move the September Advisory conference call to August and switch
those around, the same way with the ‑‑ have two conference calls
potentially prior to the third ‑‑ or the second focus group.

MS. PRICE: I just have one question. Does the Advisory Committee want an
opportunity to have a conference call following the focus group to help
them congeal their thoughts and see what directions they want to go for
the next focus group? I think having that Advisory Committee conference
call between the two focus groups is a useful hunk of time for them to
actually be able to communicate. Otherwise, I think we are set with the
scenario of designing both focus groups before we hear from anybody. I
don\'t know that that gives us our best result.

MS. TAFT: Maybe we just need to add another Advisory Committee call and
have two in July instead of one, and have two before the August meeting
and then keep a conference call between the focus groups. I don\'t know.
It\'s just another suggestion.

MR. ELLIS: My comment would be, it really to me depends on at what point
in this timeline do we get the read-ahead material and do we have time
to digest the issues? I think we could stay with this calendar, and if
in our July conference call we haven\'t had time to read ahead or
there\'s a lot of questions that remain to be asked, or we still need
more time to identify experts that we want to bring in, or whatnot, we
could always schedule a quick conference call in there. I think most of
us have schedules flexible enough that we could spare 30 minutes for a
quick call just to touch base.

So I think that is the important piece, is getting the information ahead
of time, giving us enough time to digest it and to identify the issues
we want to talk about.

MS. PRICE: Let me just, from an administrative standpoint, bring back
one of the briefings we had yesterday on the Federal Advisory Committee
Act. Because our meetings must be open to the public and we have to
print a Federal Register notice notifying of the meeting, which includes
our Committee-wide conference calls, a spontaneous Committee-wide
conference call, although you can do it and you could get some waivers
on timing for Federal Register notices, but it is always the best to
keep it in the structure so that you don\'t have to do waivers.

But we mentioned yesterday that the quorum for this Advisory Committee
is ten. The members of the Committee can meet in small groups as long as
they are not a quorum or from the standpoint of perception or just like
very close to the quorum. But if three or four people want to discuss an
issue in a separate conference call, they are certainly able. The
specific is that you can\'t come up with ‑‑ you can\'t make a decision
and say, \"We are going to do this.\"

But to gel and to process the information, Committee members can
communicate and talk, you know, that phrase from Saturday Night Live,
\"talk amongst yourselves,\" talk amongst yourselves as long as you\'re
not pushing that edge of a quorum and as long as you are not making
decisions and setting directions for the Advisory Committee.

But as you are coming up with thoughts and questions, analyzing the
information ‑- so if we have our conference call setups, say, in July
and you all feel the need to discuss more, you can certainly talk
amongst yourselves. You just should not ‑‑ you know, you have to make
sure that you don\'t set it up so that you always are just under the
quorum so you never have to have a public meeting, so to be wise about
that in an appropriate way.

Is that helpful?

MR. ELLIS: Deborah, thank you. Yes, it is. I forgot about that. I
appreciate your reminding me.

Would it be helpful, then, to just go ahead and schedule two calls and
then we can always cancel the second, or is that something we can do?

MS. PRICE: I think it\'s your call. Obviously, we realize that there
will be times when you can\'t make it to a meeting. But if your schedule
allows for that, I think it is really ‑‑ at the same time when the
Secretary asked you all to be a part of this, they realized you have
very full-time jobs and very full-time responsibilities, and we want you
to invest time in this, but we also want to be respectful of your actual
commitment and what puts dollars in your pockets.

So it is the choice of the Committee. If you want to establish that, put
a second one in there, you certainly can. There\'s no reason you can\'t.

MR. LEDBETTER: What is the reason that we need two conference calls in
July? I fail to see a reason for two conference calls in July. Now after
we have our meeting in August, we\'ve got one conference call down
between it and the October meeting.

Now if the conference call in July is to help prepare us for the August
meeting ‑‑ and I\'m just making an assumption here ‑‑ one should be
sufficient. Now after that meeting, we are going to have a discussion
the second morning of everything that has happened. Do you really feel
like we need another conference call to discuss all of it again before
the October meeting? September, the conference call, I\'m assuming again
that that is to prepare us for the October meeting.

MR. ELLIS: Yes, I agree with Tommy. I\'m comfortable with this, but what
I was hearing was there was some interest on some folks\' part to have a
second call before the meeting, and I\'m okay with that. But I agree
with you; I think we shouldn\'t do it unless we need it, but there are
some parameters there about notification to the public ahead of time. So
I\'m comfortable with this, quite frankly.

MS. PRICE: And that notification, I believe, is 30 days prior to the
meeting we have to post it in The Federal Register. So it isn\'t a
quickie.

But, you know, quite honestly, it is helpful to put down as close to the
dates that we are going to be meeting, so that we can work schedules,
but there may be a time when we all say, \"Look, we scheduled this for
then and we really need to back it up two weeks ahead of time.\" You
know, you can add down the road as you see fit. You can subtract down
the road as you see fit.

Some of it is experience. As we experience meetings, we will see more of
what we need to get the calendar to really reflect and provide the
information that we want. Right now I think to set kind of a good-faith
effort as to what the calendar will require timewise of all of you is an
important thing to kind of get established fairly soon, so that you have
a good idea.

But once The Federal Register notice is out, it is pretty much written
in stone. But until then, we can be flexible, and if we have to move
things, move things. If we have to add things, add things.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Michael, Shep, Russell?

MR. PIMENTEL: I know I have been relatively silent this morning. Please
in the future know that I will voice my views.

I have sat here this morning just observing the dynamics of this group
forming. Back home I was recently asked how many children I have, and I
responded by saying 63,000 children. Yesterday I took an oath, and
yesterday that oath extended to more than a million children in our
country, and I intend to be a part of this Committee and represent
myself for them.

We are not even agreeing on a schedule. We have a lot of work ahead of
us. As we progress, all of these issues we are discussing are certainly
going to be looked at, and I see a lot of passion and a lot of anxiety.
We are not going to walk out of here today solving anything.

It is going to be our future visits and working together that is going
to get us through this. Everybody is bringing valid points forward and
they all need to be addressed. That is our duty. That is our charge.

I, for one, just want you to know I\'m ready to meet whatever the
schedule is. The schedule doesn\'t have to meet me.

DR. KELLAM: That was a pretty important comment. I think we all need to
endorse that.

What I was going to comment on was three steps lower in virtue and
importance, I guess. But, anyway, getting back to the focus groups, the
question that we haven\'t really addressed too much is, how do we really
choose the people who are going to come as experts? The examples, I\'m
not sure we are on the same page, but maybe we need to think about that
together for a little bit.

Because I was thinking experts in I don\'t know what, demography or
effectiveness in demography, and not getting thrown out of the
community, and being useful to really assessing effectiveness, and so
forth, and how you do that.

But it makes a big difference whether we are getting people to talk
about existing school information systems and how we can tie onto them,
or we are talking about the data, for example, in the afternoon, the
second session, what are their problems and issues?

I can imagine people in Baltimore, for example, who are really very good
at data but have major problems in how you measure effectiveness of kids
across schools, you know, in different tracks, and so on. That\'s one
kind of expert.

Another kind of expert is somebody like me who does developmental
epidemiology and evaluation of preventive trials, and blah, blah, and
you go to the Society for Prevention Research and pick three guys, one
of whom necessarily is a woman or maybe two.

I mean I\'m being facetious, but I think that it makes a big difference
how we think about the focus groups, who we invite, and how that is
going to generate our conversation. I\'m not clear that I know what,
Dave, you and Debbie, whom I\'ve learned to like a lot in the last 36
hours, and I feel very warm about the group in general, but what\'s your
vision about who these folks are?

CHAIRMAN LONG: That would be in the back seat, quite frankly, right now,
and I\'ll get to that.

Russell, you were going to say something. Then I\'ll answer.

DR. JONES: Yes. I\'m really having a problem with process. I can
understand and appreciate the focus groups, but, again, I\'m not clear
as the why\'s and the who\'s of that focus group. To me, it is kind of
an epistemological question: How do we measure effectiveness and how do
we define effectiveness? How does that relate to this context?

I\'m not sure. I\'m a clinician animal researcher, and one of the things
that I\'ve come to appreciate is the case study method. I was thinking,
would it be helpful to maybe do a case study amongst ourselves in terms
of what this next meeting, what these focus groups would do, what a
focus group would do? If we know what the goal of that focus group is,
then we could better prepare the kind of questions that would enable
this focus group to do what it is we are expecting it to do.

So, to me, again, I\'m just trying to hang my hat on something a bit
more specific, a bit more concrete to move me forward.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I appreciate that. I\'m over here with Michael. It is
interesting, whenever we bring a group of people together, we also, on
the other hand, have a group of practitioners that might have 4,000 high
school youngsters that are on a campus, and somebody issues a bomb
threat, and we don\'t have time sometimes to think about it. I\'m not
saying this counter to what you are talking about. I\'m just saying
there\'s all different facets. We move very quickly and we make snap
decisions, and somehow, by the grace of God, we make good decisions and
all those youngsters are safe.

That\'s some of the things that we will be doing here. There\'s a lot of
faith involved with what we do sometimes. I\'ve come to understand the
last few hours that there\'s going to be a lot of faith as we go forward
with this Committee.

So, to that end, as a practitioner, let me suggest July 10th as the
first conference call. Did that cut to it?

MS. TAFT: And then can I suggest August 21st and 22nd as our meeting
dates?

DR. KELLAM: I\'m sure it doesn\'t matter to anybody, but July 10th is my
wedding anniversary.

(Laughter.)

CHAIRMAN LONG: Bring your wife.

MS. PRICE: Bring your wife. It\'s a conference call. It\'s a conference
call.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Yes, that\'s the first one, a conference call.

MS. PRICE: And let me throw just a thought out. Rather than right now
trying to be very specific about the who and the questions that they are
answering for the focus groups, let me just ask if each of you
individually thought through, okay, we\'re going to have a focus group
on Safe and Drug-Free Schools. What do I think I want to hear? Who do I
think could help address that question?

Because we are going to have a very analytical, very scientific approach
to it, and we are going to have the average Joe Blow approach to it. I
do think that both are important to hear from.

But if you all think, as I would approach this, I would go this way, and
I think that we need to ‑‑ I\'m happy to be a hub of a wheel, but get it
to Dave; get it to me or Phyllis. Get that information, compile that,
put those thoughts together. Get those thoughts out to you all. Get your
input back on it. From there, that focus group will gel.

I think it is impossible to answer that question in the definite right
now, but an approach to answering it, I think that is a good approach
because you all have your area that you know of people that can help
address this question in one way or another.

DR. JONES: Okay, but ‑‑ yes, but, sure, I have an area. I have several
areas. I can give you questions that I think are very relevant. But just
because those questions are relevant ‑‑ they are relevant in a context.
They are relevant in the area of children and fire. They are relevant in
the context of children and trauma.

I think what we are trying to do here as a group is come together with a
kind of a group think and ‑‑

MS. PRICE: But I think what you do is, after you get the input from
everybody, give that information out and then you get the group think
of, okay, this is who we want to hear from. But I don\'t think you can
do that until you get the input of everybody.

DR. JONES: Well, I don\'t agree. I think you can get the input from
everyone, but I think getting that input in a particular context related
to a particular project or a particular theme in a project, et cetera,
may be a better use of your time.

MS. PRICE: Well, we do have the questions under each topic.

MS. TAFT: If we can answer these questions, we will make a good start.

MS. PRICE: If we can answer these questions on this paper, then that
gives us clear, some good direction and approaches to it.

MS. JACKSON: And that is what I was going to go back to once again.
Until we get that background information from the re-PART, that whole
evaluation piece that OMB actually used as a criteria for program
planning, and all the rest, to look at, does the data even match for
some of the programs that have been implemented across the states? Has
the data that we have been collecting over time, ever since the
inception of Drug-Free Schools that changed and moved into Safe and
Drug-Free Schools, are we collecting the right information?

So until we kind of look at those four measures that they actually took
a look at from strategic planning and all the rest, and then talk at the
July Advisory conference call, after we have looked at the information,
after we have taken a look at our states\' programs and how it has been
implemented, I agree I don\'t think we can get to who might be the best
individuals or who we might even throw out on the table as possibilities
to come before us as a Committee as we start to look at the information.

So I really think, I know for me, I need to take a look at those
measures. Again, once we look at that re-PART report, might we also
notice that there is some uniqueness and we can never be the same, or
have we been implementing programs that are effective for the different
regions, parts of the state, communities, based on, again, resources and
other things that might need to be taken into consideration, or are
there some commonalities and some common ground on the data that we
could possibly collect across the nation, as we implement whatever
programs we are implementing?

DR. JONES: So is that brought into focus with these questions? Which of
these focus ‑‑

MS. JACKSON: I believe they are. I believe after this meeting ‑‑ again,
I am needing the background information as we take a look at currently
what are the strengths of the programs that are currently being
implemented. I will not be able ‑- I can pull out my own information
about my State, but, again, does that match the criteria of OMB and what
they are looking for?

Again, I would like to see the report that was produced and take a look
so that I could effectively evaluate and come to the table at the
teleconference and say my State did very well at meeting those
objectives, looking at some of the other areas and regions, and again
what were some of the problems.

DR. JONES: Okay. So then how will we ‑‑ I mean I like that. How will we
determine the strength of the ‑‑ I mean, will the information that you
guys give us enable us to determine that?

MS. PRICE: No. No. That\'s what we need. No.

DR. JONES: That\'s the purpose ‑‑

MS. PRICE: We need input from people. The PART initially in 2002
reviewed the program in a very definitive way. The PART report is not
particularly extensive.

DR. JONES: Okay.

MS. PRICE: We can give that information and that is a tool we have, but
hearing ‑‑

DR. JONES: So then maybe a focus group would consist of folks who have
developed this PART and ‑‑

MS. PRICE: No.

DR. JONES: No? No? Help me.

MS. PRICE: One of the things, seeing the PART review will help you
understand its function and how it is done. It\'s not a report ‑‑ well,
it\'s a report, yes.

DR. JONES: Okay.

MS. PRICE: As I said, some of the tools that will be helpful to you, we
will really work very quickly at compiling those and getting those to
you, so you have an understanding of what that is. When they PART a
program, it asks, it addresses it, it looks for effectiveness, but it is
very specific. So it will be helpful to understand what that specificity
was, what they looked at. But we will get all that to you.

DR. JONES: Okay.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I\'m going to start to wrap up here. I just want to give
you fair warning there.

You mentioned for our first conference call Monday, July 10th. Because
of the disparity of time zones that we represent, what is the best time?
If I said 10:00 a.m., how would that resonate? No?

DR. JONES: Eastern Standard? Are we talking about Eastern Standard or?

MS. PRICE: If you go from East Coast to West Coast ‑‑

CHAIRMAN LONG: If we say 10:00 a.m. ‑‑

MS. PRICE: Pick a West Coast time and we\'ll adjust it to East Coast.

MS. JACKSON: There\'s a four-hour time difference. I\'m typically at
work about 6:00 a.m., but no earlier than 6:00 a.m. Yes, earlier than
10:00.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Okay, what if we said 10:30?

MS. JACKSON: That would work just fine.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Okay.

MS. PRICE: Now are you talking Eastern time?

CHAIRMAN LONG: I\'m talking Washington, D.C., 10:30 a.m., and then you
adjust to your particular time zone.

DR. JONES: It sounds good.

MS. PRICE: Out of consideration of six o\'clock in the morning, quite
honestly, you know, we can\'t think at six o\'clock in the morning. What
if we said two o\'clock in the afternoon, and then that would make it
ten o\'clock in the morning for you, and somebody is going to be talking
during lunchtime?

MS. JACKSON: I\'m very flexible.

MS. PRICE: And you know what, we can change the time for the next one
after we see how it works. But I just feel badly that someone is going
to get up at six o\'clock in the morning.

MS. JACKSON: Again, that\'s just fine. That\'s why I wanted to make it
clear; I don\'t get up at 6:00; I\'m up at 4:00 a.m. every morning, but
I\'m very flexible. So whatever time you guys select, I\'m fine.

MS. PRICE: Okay. Well, I\'m the lazy one. You guys pick.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Okay, Group, what time did we agree upon?

JUDGE NORMAN: I suggest 2:00 p.m. Washington time.

DR. KELLAM: Thank you, Your Honor.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Then the second thing that we want to nail down, the
focus group meeting time, meaning the date. Is Monday, August 28th and
half a day on the 29th, which is a Tuesday, okay? I\'m sorry, I put down
the 28th and 29th because that was my first choice and I read it here.
I\'m sorry, the 21st and 22nd. The 21st, all day Monday; the 22nd, half
day.

MR. ELLIS: I\'ve got a problem. I sit on a federal grand jury in the
City of Alexandria, and I\'ll be doing that that week.

MS. PRICE: That whole week?

MR. ELLIS: Yes, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th.

MS. TAFT: See, now if you do it in the afternoon and then the full day,
I\'d already be in Washington the 16th and the 17th, I could join you in
the afternoon, and to give you the whole day, the 18th, but that\'s my
other window of opportunity.

CHAIRMAN LONG: I\'ve got a Board meeting the next day, so I\'ve got to
get back to California on Wednesday. So it\'s going to be Tuesday night.

MS. PRICE: Fred, but you would be available on the 21st all day to hear
the input? It\'s just the half-day, the discussion, that you would miss?

MR. ELLIS: That is correct. You can meet without me. That\'s fine, but I
won\'t be here on the 22nd.

MS. PRICE: But we will have a transcript for you to read.

MR. ELLIS: That\'s fine.

CHAIRMAN LONG: But you would be all day the 21st, you would be with us?

MR. ELLIS: Yes, I\'d be available on the 21st, but the 22nd I can\'t.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Then can we say all day the 21st, half-day on the 22nd?
Okay.

I\'m exhausted.

We\'ve established the first meeting time for the conference call, July
10th, which is 2:00 p.m. Washington time, and the first focus group
meeting on the 21st and 22nd of August here in Washington. Okay.

MR. ELLIS: At the conference call do you want us to propose names of
persons who would appear ‑‑

CHAIRMAN LONG: And before. There will be two parts. The emphasis is on
before, to get them in to Phyllis. Debbie, is that appropriate?

MS. PRICE: Get it in to Phyllis, whose email is here if you don\'t have
it. You can get it in to Phyllis, who is the DFO, the Designated Federal
Official, or you can get them in to me, either one.

JUDGE NORMAN: Can we have a copy of that list before the first
conference call?

MS. PRICE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Then the second part of that answer is, Judge, we will
then pick up in the conference call on that base list, yes.

MS. TAFT: To follow up on the suggestion that we go out to our different
groups that we are affiliated with to generate names that might be good
for that panel, could we have this document in email form, electronic
form, so that we can send it out and say, \"This is what we want to
discuss. Who are good people to help us discuss this?\"

MS. PRICE: Sure.

MR. LEDBETTER: Are we going to look at September and October dates now
also or not?

CHAIRMAN LONG: Would you prefer to do that or would you rather do that
on the first conference call? I have had two or three people at break
who said, \"Please don\'t go too far into the dates because I don\'t
have my calendar.\" That was the reason, but that is a good question,
Tommy.

So if we could entertain that also on the July 10th conference call? So
have your calendars with you so we can coordinate for the rest of the
year.

Any other questions or comments as we bring this to a close?

DR. KELLAM: These dates are typically Monday and Tuesday? The dates are
typically Monday and Tuesday? No?

CHAIRMAN LONG: As we started, we just wanted to get out of the box, but
as we go through that on the July 10th conference call, we will
entertain any combinations. Another good question.

MS. PRICE: Just a general question, because I know in a previous
commission that I was on, we had a lot of athletic directors, and they
flat out of the box said, \"Don\'t ever pick a Friday. We never can be
there.\"

Is there a specific day of the week that is particularly bad for any one
of you? Then it would be easier to kind of work off that.

MR. LEDBETTER: Fridays are always bad for me.

MS. PRICE: That\'s really helpful.

MR. MEDRANO: I would suggest staying away from Mondays. Most people have
to travel on Sunday in order to get here for a Monday morning meeting,
which takes away time from family.

CHAIRMAN LONG: And that will be food for conversation on that July 10th.
So keep all those things in mind and we\'ll go through them as we set
the next dates.

MR. ELLIS: And for me, that grand jury obligation lasts through
December, and it\'s always the fourth week of the month, Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday. So if that is helpful ‑‑ again, don\'t cancel a
meeting for me.

CHAIRMAN LONG: Any other comments or questions as we close?

(No response.)

If not, Debbie, thanks to you. Bill, thanks to you.

Thanks to all of you. I have gotten to know some of you very quickly. I
look forward to meeting and having the chance to speak with the rest of
you individually. This is going to be exciting. We have some great folks
sitting around this table. So thank you so much for getting out of the
box. Thank you.

MR. PIMENTEL: Thanks to the members of the community for being here
also.

(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the meeting of the Advisory Committee was
adjourned.)