"" 
YOUTH DRUG

NATIONAL 
EDUCATION PROGRAM

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
INSPECfONS 
OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND 
APRIL 1988  , "  ..", \ '
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ote the effciency, effec-
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is to pro 
Deparment of Health and
tiveness and integrity of programs in the United States 
by developing methods to detect and prevent fraud, 
Human Servces (HHS). It does this 
waste and abuse. Created by statute in 1976, the Inpector General keeps both the 
inormed about program or management
Secretary and the Congress fully and currently 
The OIG perform its mission by conduct
problems and recommends corrective action. 
200 staff strategically lo
ing audits, investigations and inspections with approximately 1 
cated around the country. 
OFFICE OF ANAL VSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
and Inspections (OAl), one of the three 
This report is produced by the Offce of Analysis 
Office of In
The other two are the Offce of Audit and the 
major offices within the OIG. 
which are tyically short-term studies designed to 
vestigations. OAl conducts inspections 
, efficiency and vulnerabilty to fraud and abuse. 
determine program effectiveness
THIS REPORT 
" It was conducted to 
National Yourth Drug Education Programs.
This report is entitled 
describe the local level implementation of three national youth drug education programs 
, participating parents and children, and inde

as perceived by program administrators
pendent professionals.

, Office of Analysis and In
The study was prepared by the Regional Inpector General
people: 
spections, Region II. Participating in the project were the following 
Support Regions

Region II * 
Barry C. McCy (I)

Renee C. Schlesinger(Leadr) 
Essie Lewis (III)

Jack Molnar 
Josiah Townel (IV

Tracey Kennedy 
Thomas R. Komaniecki (V) 
Carolyn Neuwirth (V)

(Vl)

Headquarte  Uaison  Richard J. Meyer 
Deborah Harvey (IX)

Suzanne M. Murrin 
Stephen A Moses (IX) 

$ All Region II staff participated in the telephone survey.  DRUG

NATIONAL YOUTH. 
EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
APRIL 1988 
OAI-02-88-00080  ...................................  
..... ......................... ..............................  ............... 
.......... ........................... ......... ...... 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

Background ......................... 

Methodology.... .....  ...... 5

FINDINGS

Environmental and Crosscutng Observations 
.......... 7

Boys Clubs of America Observations........................ 12

Just Say No Observations ...................................

National Federation of Parents Observations .............

RESPONDENT SUGGESTIONS 

RECOMM ENDA TIONS . 

APP END IX A................................................................. 24

APPE NDIX B. ....................... ........... .......... 
.................... 26

APPE ND IX C................................................................. 27

APPENDIX D......... ........... ......... 
..................... ............... 28

APPE NDIX E........................ ......... ................... ............. 29
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
The Administrator of the Alcohol, Mental Health and Drug Abuse Administration re
quested that the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services 
gather information about youth drug education activities. Specifically, this inspection 
sought to describe the local level implementation of three national youth drug education 
programs as perceived by program administrators, participating parents and children and 
independent professionals. 
BACKGROUND 
The events of the last few years have brought youth drug use to the forefront of the na
tional consciousness. The media have highlighted the prolieration of drug use among 
the nation s youth and the addictions and drug-related deaths of athletes and entertainers. 
Congress has, over the last 17 years, proposed several solutions to the drug problem. 
Responding to the recent focus on the problems of drug abuse, Congress passed the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which provides $244.5 millon annually, starting with Fiscal Year 
1987, for drug education and prevention activities at the Departments of Education 
(ED), Health and Human Services (HHS) and ACTON. These funds support programs 
at the Federal, State and local levels with HHS providing leadership to Federal drug 
abuse prevention efforts with an emphasis on programs directed to high-risk youth. 
Both President and Mrs. Reagan have addressed the problem of drug abuse. In March 
1987, the President issued Executive Order 12590 creating the Cabinet-level National 
Drug Policy Board to coordinate Federal drug enforcement and prevention activities. 
Mrs. Reagan has supported community drug programs. 
In recent testimony before Congress, the Deputy Administrator of the Alcohol, Drug
Abuse and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) stated his concern about the lack 
of evaluation of drug education and prevention prograIl funded under the Anti-Drug
Abuse Act of 1986. To obtain more information about drug education activities, the Ad
ministrator of ADAMH requested that the Inspector General examne drug education 
programs based on the perceptions of both participants and independent professionals. 
A literature review and intervews with ADAMHA officials and other drug education 
professionals identified three prominent national programs. 
Boys Clubs of America project Smart Moves has been 
demonstrated in 10 clubs and is ex
panding to 200 clubs. Youths participate in an intensive 12-session training program in
basic coping skils designed to help children gain control of their lives and avoid drug 
use.  Just Say No (JSN), based on a social infuence approach, attempts to make children 
aware of social pressures to use drugs, to teach specifc refual skils and to correct false 
views of social norms. 
The National Federation of Parents (NFP) for Drug Free Youth, started by a group of 
parents concerned about the use of drugs and alcohol among their children, advocates 
greater parental involvement in determining the values and environment of their 
children. 
METHODOLOGY 
This inspection was conducted in two phases: During PHASE ONE a 10 percent sample 
of the combined JSN and NFP membership lists (215 members) were intervewed by 
telephone to gather information to project demographics and other statistics. During 
PHASE TWO visits were made to 49 local programs where intervews were conducted 
with 49 program leaders, 234 youth participants and 126 parents of 
paricipants in 12 
metropolitan areas. Intervews were also held with 43 individuals knowledgeable about 
drug education but not directly involved with the program in the study. 
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS 
Gateway drugs" (alcohol, tobacco, marjuana), are the primary concern 
of respondents with alcohol the greatest concern 
Respondents agreed that those youth most at risk have low self-esteem 
drug use in the famly and/or problems at home.

Respondents felt that drug education must be comprehensive, include

parents and start early. 
Most respondents support the use of national personalities speakig ou 
against drug use but only if they are drug-free and not former drg users. 
Leaders, youth participants and parents were al enthusiastic about their 
programs. 
Respondent perceptions did not vary by demographics. 
Independent professionals and leaders are seeking an assessment of 
what works.

Most of the youth programs are in schools, supported with local funds 
have a substantial amount of minority participation, but have minimal 
parental involvement.  SPECIFIC PROGRAM OBSERVATIONS 
Boys Clubs 
demand is high. 
Participation is completely voluntar, and the youth 
The curriculum is closely followed. 
Leaders and parents like the training they receive.

, but not well known by

The program is liked by all participants
independent drug education professionals.

Just Say No 
growig. 
The program is young and appears to be 
, generally

The program is usually ongoing and part of a larger program
in schools.

The program has a flexible implementation.

, but its limitations are

It is usually viewed positively by everyone
recognized. 
National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth 
. Two-fifths ofthe National Federation of Parents members are no longer 
active.

Two-thirds of the active National Federation of Parents sites run youth

program.

programs which are usually Just Say No 
The National Federation of Parents provides local parent groups with 
tax-exempt status and an information network. 
Independent professionals not involved are not aware of its activities. 
RESPONDENT SUGGESTIONS FOR ALL PROGRAMS 
, the media and parental involvement in youth 
Parents believe there is a role for schools
aied 
drug education; they suggest that programs be  at elementary school children. 
Youtb feel there should be more drug education activities durg and after school and 
want parental involvement. 
, more resources and a united 
Program leaders believe there should be better materials
national effort to promote youth drug education programs that start in the elementary 
level. 
wide effort which includes an 
Independent professionals want a coordinated community-
be a strong 
ongoing drug education curriculum in the schools. They thin there should 
parental role and more resources.  RECOMMENDATIONS

ADAM 
The  and ED should develop an evaluation strategy to 
include long- and short-term evaluations of the implementation and 
program. 
effectiveness of youth drug education 
The ADAMHA and ED should assure the.effective dissemination of 
available research findings, clearnghouse information and other 
networking activities. 
The ADAMHA and ED should give special consideration to funding 
comprehensive youth drug education program which target children at 
early ages.

Youth drug education programs should include a parental component to 
keep parents informed regardig what the children are learnig and 
what their own role is in drug prevention. 
ADAM 
The  and ED should review existing leader traing programs 
with a view to identifyng, developing and publiciing a model to be 
made available to States, local communities and program. 
ADAMHA has reviewed these recommendations and concurs with them (see Ap
pendix E).  INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
The Administrator of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration re
quested that the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Servces 
gather information about youth drug education activities. Specifcally, this inspection 
sought to describe the local-level implementation of three national youth drug education 
programs as perceived by program administrators, participating parents and children and 
independent professionals. 
BACKGROUND 
Drug Abuse 
The events of the last few years have brought youth drug use to the forefront of the na
tional consciousness. The media have raised the level of national awareness by 
documenting the spread of drug traffic into previously "safe" communities, the prolifera
tion of drug use among the nation s youth, and tbe advent of "crack " a stronger, less ex
The addictions and drug-related deaths of athletes and 
pensive derivative of cocaine. _
entertainers converted this concern into national action. 
On the positive side, there has been some progress in reducing drug use. For example 
an annual survey of high school seniors conducted by the University of Michigan s In
stitute for Social Research (ISR) funded by the National  Drug Abuse 
Intitute on 
(NIDA) found a 10 point decline in annual prevalance of marjuana use over the last six 
years (from 52 percent in 1981 to 42 percent in 1987). However, the surey found that in 
1987 the annual prevalence of cocaie use among senior high school students dropped 
only slightly from its 1985 record high of 13. 1 percent to 10.3 percent. 
Legislative History 
Congress has, over the last 17 years, proposed several solutions to the drug problem. 
December 1970, it authorized the former Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
(HEW) to establish a grant program for developing drug abuse curricula, educational 
materials and model programs. In 1972, the Drug Abuse Offce and Treatment Act ex
panded and further defined the Federal role in drug abuse prevention. The act created 
the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIA) within HEW and authorized it to make 
formula grants to States for treatment and servces as well as special project grants and 
contracts for drug abuse treatment and prevention programs. Under the 1972 act, the 
Federal Govemment and the States shared fiancial and admistrative responsibilities. 
In the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 , Congress gave the States even 
greater responsibility for establishing funding priorities through the introduction of block  , "
grants. This act also provided that 20 percent of substance abuse funds should be made 
available for drug abuse prevention and early intervention programs and servces. This 
plan, which reduced Federal funding, gave the States greater responsibilty for im
plementing programs. States no longer had to comply with Federal application and 
reporting requirements. 
Concerned by the limited amount of support and  prevention 
guidance' given drug abuse 
and research activities, Congress passed the 1983 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Amendments. 
These amendments encouraged NIDA to place a high priority on the identifcation and 
funding (through grants and contracts) of effective drug abuse prevention and early inter
vention projects. 
Responding to the recent public focus on the problems of drug abuse, Congress passed 
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This act provides $244.5 milion anually, starting 
with Fiscal Year 1987, for drug education and prevention activities at the Deparments of 
Education (ED), Health and Human Servces (RRS) and ACTON. These new monies 
are being used to fund programs at the Federal, State and local levels. 
The greatest share, approximately $200 milion annualy, is admstered by ED, which 
previously had a limited role in this area, for Federal support of drug abuse programs in 
schools and communities through grants to States and local education agencies. AC
TION has been given $3 million for Fiscal Year 1987 to initiate private sector efforts to 
promote voluntarism in preventing drug abuse. Within HHS, the Offce of Substance 
Abuse Prevention (OSAP) has $43 million to provide leadership to Federal drug abuse 
prevention efforts with an emphasis on programs directed at high-risk youth. The act 
also requires that these funds be spent on the most effective program and mandates in
tensive ongoing evaluation of such program. 
The House Select Commttee on Narcotics Abuse recently completed a series of hear
ings on the implementation of the 1986 act. The Commttee, in order to assure maxi
mum impact for Federal funds disbursed under the 1986 act, examined al aspects of the 
funded programs and the state of the art of drug abuse education and prevention. 
Administration Initiatives 
Both President and Mrs. Reagan have addressed the problem of drug abuse. Mrs. 
Reagan has been particularly active: making personal appearances, sponsoring the 
White Rouse International First Ladies' Conference on Drug Abuse, and working with 
drug education groups towards the goal of a drug-free generation. 
On September 15, 1986, the President signed Executive Order 12564  A Drug-Free 
Federal Workplace," stating that: Federal employees are required to refrain from the 
use of ilegal drugs; the use of ilegal drugs by Federal employees, whether on duty or off 
duty, is contrary to the efficiency of the servce; and persons who use ilegal drugs are not 
suitable for Federal employment.  In March 1987, the President issued Executive Order 12590 creatig the Cabinet-level 
National Drug Policy Advisory Board. The Board, chaired by the Attorney General, coor
dinates the activities of the 48 Federal deparments and agencies involved in drug enfor
cement and prevention. 
Executive Order 12590 also established the Drug Abuse Prevention and Health Coor
dinating Group which oversees Federal drg abuse preveI1tion, education, treatment and 
rehabilitation programs. This group reports directly to the National Drug Policy Ad
visory Board in an effort to ensure that the Board members and the President are fully in
formed and able to effectively direct Federal drug abuse activities. 
Impetus for Inspection 
In recent testimony before Congress the Deputy Administrator of the Alcohol, Drug 
(ADAM) 
Abuse and Mental Health Administration  stated his concern about the 
need to evaluate drug education and prevention programs funded under the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act of 1986. He testified that there has been no systematic effort directed towards 
evaluation by the States, Federal Government or program administrators and that the 
few programs with adequate evaluation components have demonstrated little positive im
pact on behavior. Because of the paucity of evaluation studies on drug education 
programs, their implementation, stability and effectiveness are largely unkown. 
A literature review (see Appendix A) and intervews with ADAMHA officials and other 
experts revealed three prominent national programs representing distinct approaches to 
the problem: Boys Clubs of America, Just Say No, and the National Federation of 
Parents for Drug-Free Youth. 
THREE NATIONAL DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAS 
Boys Clubs of America 
There are 1100 affiliated Boys Clubs servg minority and disadvantaged "kids of less 
chance." The average club has 877 boys and girls, 6 to 18 years old and is staffed by 
professional workers augmented by volunteers. Activities are varied and include drop-
structured and individual programs. The clubs, which have had a health emphasis since 
1972, responded in 1986 to the gencral concern by implementing a program to prevent 
and/or reduce alcohol use, drug use and pregnancy among teenage members in 10 clubs 
around the country. 
This demonstration project, called "Project Smart" (PS), teaches young people the skills 
needed to identify and resist peer and social pressures, and to take a positive personal 
stand against these pressures. This comprehensive program has three components: one 
for pre-teens which emphasizes skills needed to identify and resist peer pressures;  another for teenagers which emphasizes social skill development, resistance strategies 
assertiveness techniques, problem-solving and decision-makig skills as well as stress 
reduction; and a third for parents which augments the youth sessions. The parents ex
plore the realities of peer and social pressures, and learn communication technques to 
increase positive interaction with their children. 
The pre-teen group, called Smar Moves (SM), is led by a Prevention Team composed of 
staff, parents, community representatives and older club members who implement the 12
week program based on a manual provided by the Boys Clubs of America headquarters. 
This study looks at the SM aspect of the Boys Clubs program. 
traing 
Materials on this program wil be available to all Boys Oubs in 1988 and  sessions 
are scheduled throughout the year. About 200 Boys Clubs are scheduled to implement 
SM during 1988. 
Just Say No 
The Just Say No (JSN) program attempts to make chidren in the 7-14 age group aware 
of social pressures to use drugs, to teach specific refual skills and to correct false views 
of social norms through educational, recreational and servce activities. These clubs 
meet in schools, churches, community centers, teen centers and homes. Each club is uni
que. Since Just Say No is not copyrighted, it may be used by anyone whether affiated 
with the Just Say No Foundation or not. Even afliated program are not bound by the 
JSN Club Handbook, a 220-page book which is available through the foundation and con
tains plans for organizing a club, suggestions for meeting formats, educational servces 
and recreational activities. 
Just Say No was originally part of NIA' s Pyramid Project, a Government contract with 
the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation to intiate and evaluate programs to 
reduce substance abuse. It has since evolved into the independent Just Say No Founda
tion, established in July 1986, to support local clubs and promote the Just Say No move
ment at the national level. The foundation provides consultation to clubs, individuals 
and organizations that wish to launch clubs; produces wrtten materials; provides on-site 
assistance, workshops and training; maintains a national diectory of clubs; and provides 
materials including a comprehensive training manual, a members handbook, baners 
flags and buttons. 
National Federation of Parents for Drug-Free Youth 
The National Federation of Parents (NFP) is a grass roots parent organiation formed in 
1980 by parents alarmed by the growing evidence of drug use among children. Its prin
cipal objective is to assist in the formation and support of local parent and youth groups 
across the country that seek to elimate drug and alcohol use among youth. Parents  around the country "network" to help children understand why they must resist peer pres
sure to use drugs and alcohol, and to offer healthy alternatives. They advocate greater 
parental involvement in determng the values and environment of their children. 
The NFP provides many activities coordinated by its national headquarters and imple
mented by trained voluntar networkers in 50 States. They sponsor an anual national 
conference, distribute public servce announcements, paricipated in the Whte House In
ternational First Ladies' Conference on Drug Abuse, provide a reference servce and 
afated 
lobby State legislatures and Congress. The NFP reports 800  parent groups that 
meet on a regular basis. 
The NFP umbrella organization networks with existing and new drg-free youth groups. 
It developed "Reach America" (Responsible, Educated Adolescents Can Help America 
(stop drugs)), a youth leadership training project to help older students educate younger 
ones. This is an effort to "re-educate" the American public, especially young people 
regarding the hazards of drug and alcohol use. The NFP has also developed "Project 
Graduation Celebration" in conjunction with some business organzations to help stu
dents safely celebrate high school graduation. Ths study looks at al youth program 
sponsored by NFP. 
Lastly, a benefit of NFP membership is eligibilty for tax-exempt status for all parent 
groups under the NFP umbrella. 
METHODOLOGY 
This inspection was conducted in two phases: the fIrst developed a national pk1ure 
JSN and NFP; the second was an in-depth look at the operation of al three programs in 
12 metropolitan areas. 
In Phase One discussions were  ld with the national leaders of the three programs to ex
plore their underlying philosophy and to elicit national information, such as membership 
lists and club locations. The membership lists were used to conduct telephone surveys of 
the local programs in order to project demographics and other findings. (The Boys Club 
program was excluded from the telephone survey because there are only 10 sites in its 
drug education program and 7 were included in the site visits described below.) The com
bined Just Say No and National Federation of Parents membership lists provided a 
universe of 2150 (1350 JSN and 800 NFP). A 10 percent random sample or 215 members 
(135 JSN and 80 NFP) were selected for telephone intervews. 
Forty-two were not intervewed. (Thirteen were unreachable and 29 never responded to 
letters requesting them to call us or send us a telephone number where they could be 
reached.) There was a response rate of 80 percent. It was determied that 40 were no 
longer involved and 11 were involved in groups that had no youth programs. (See Appen
dix B.) Findings from this survey can be projected to the unverse of JSN and NFP mem bers. For example, based upon the finding tbat 122 of the 173 members contacted had 
youth programs, we estimate that 71 percent ( + /- 5.5 percent at the 90 percent con
fidence level) of all members have youth program. 
Phase Two consisted of a broad range of intervews at 12 metropolitan sites. Team mem
bers from each Regional Office intervewed local drug education specialts, program 
leaders and participating children and their parents during viits to four local programs in 
each metropolitan site. Tbe metropolitan areas were in the West (Caiforna and 
Washington), the Midwest (Illiois and Missouri), the South (Texas, Florida, Georgia 
and the District of Columbia) and the Northeast (Pennlvana, New York, New Jersey, 
and Massachusetts) using the Bureau of Census geographic regions. 
The team met with 43 independent professionals (37 percent in person), not directly in
volved with the programs in the study; visited 49 local clubs (7 BC, 31 JSN, 11 NF); and 
interviewed 49 program leaders in person, 234 youth participants in person and 126 
parents of participants (32 percent in person).  ; " 
; "
FINDINGS 
ENVIRONMENTAL AND CROSSCUTTING OBSERVATIONS 
Gateway Drugs" Are The Primary Concern Of Most Respondents 
Three-quarters of the professionals, including program leaders intervewed on-site 
believe their communities have drg problems. Three-fifths of the parents agreed. 
Almost all professionals, program leaders and parents named alcohol fist when asked to 
rank the problem drugs, except in Florida, where according to respondents cocaine and 
crack are easily accessible, cheap and present a tremendous problem. Parents and leaders 
ranked marijuana next, while the independent professionals saw tobacco as the problem 
drug second to alcohol. Although all these respondents viewed tobacco as a drug, they 
did not perceive it as presenting the danger of other drugs. In these intervews we did not 
define drugs for the respondents. 
It is interesting to note that while vitualy all youth respondents agreed that cocaine and 
marijuana are drugs and 88 percent considered alcohol a drug, 25 percent of the youths 
interviewed did not see tobacco as a drug, and one-third did not view wie coolers as a 
drug. 
All Agree That Those Most At Risk Have Low Self-esteem, Drug Use In The Family 
And/Or Problems At Home 
Parents, leaders and independent professionals most often identifed youths with low self-
esteem as those most at risk and hardest to keep from takng drugs. Youths with 
problems such as drug use in the home, divorce or death of a parent, or other famy 
problems were also frequently mentioned. Respondents believed that those at risk can 
range from children of the homeless to those in high income, career-mided famlies. 
Many of the independent professionals encouraged effort towards self-esteem promo
tion, problem solving and positive decision making. For example, one community has a 
special drug education program for chidren under stress such as those with death 
divorce, drug use or other stressful conditions in their lives. The youth respondents often 
mentioned teenagers or older kids as most at risk. They also mentioned: youths that 
think they know it all and don t listen ; those who "don t fit in  tough kids" or "troubled 
kids  children whose parents or friends use drugs ; and "those with famly problems. 
Respondents Felt That Drug Education Must Be Comprehensive, Include Parents And 
Start Early 
Most independent professionals (88 percent), parents (81 percent) and program leaders 
(68 percent) intervewed said parental involvement was important, but many also agreed  , " 
always be visible. 
that drug education must include the school and the community and 
Many respondents believed that it is important to start early, before children can be in
More and more I feel it is most 
fluenced by drugs. One independent professional said 
effective with younger age groups. Direct stuff at the 4th to 6th grade, but speak about it 
earlier.1I Many said that no one program works alone, that effective drug education re
quires a wide base of support, a comprehensive approach, an early start in the schools 
amI the active support of the famly and community. 
Personalities, If Drug-free, Is A Good Strategy 
Most Agree The Use Of National 
Parents (80 percent), leaders (82 percent) and independent professionals (83 percent) in
tervewed agreed that national personalities speaking out against drug use and supporting 
drug education programs was a positive approach. However, they also felt it important 
that these personalities be drug-free and not reformed drug users. The use of reformed 
" Nancy 
addicts gives youths the message that they can use drugs and then "kick the habit.
Reagan, Kirk Cameron and Punk Brewster are the national personalities most frequent
ly mentioned. Over one-half of all respondents volunteered Nancy Reagan when asked 
what national personalities are associated with drug education, commenting that the First 
inpirg 
Lady s personal commttment to the national problem is  to those at the grass 
roots level. 
Leaders, Youth Participants And Parents Liked The Programs 
All leaders were enthusiastic and agreed that their program were positive and generally 
effective. They said the programs build self-esteem, raise awareness, teach youths to 
make good decisions and help youths react to peer pressure. 
More than three-quarters of the youths 
Both parents and youths were also enthusiastic 
chose to be in the program, considered it fun and said the programs help youths stay off 
drugs. Most parents (85 percent) were also positive and thought these drug education ac
tivities were making a difference in the community. 
Respondent Perceptions Do Not Vary By Demographics 
An analysis of the responses by demographic characteristics indicated that on certain key 
interview questions (i.e., How would you rate the program?; Do you feel the program 
helped you not to take drgs?) all categories of respondent anwers did not var with 
demographic characteristics (race, urbansuburban, geographic location) using the 1980 
il). 
S. Census data for characteristics (See Tables n and 
Independent Professionals And Leaders Are Seeking An Assessment Of What Works 
Many independent professionals and program leaders consider it difficult to know the ef
fectiveness of drug education and prevention today. Although the leaders were generally 
enthusiastic about their programs, some suggested that it would be interesting to talk to  these same youths in 5 years and see if their determnation to be "drg-free" for lie per
sists. At present, no such evaluation exists. 
Youths Report Knowing Others Who Have Tried Drugs But Few Tried Drugs Themselves 
Only 35 percent of the youth respondents (average age - 12) know 10 or more dyourtihs  who 
have ever smoked cigarettes and even fewer know youths who have had a few  (32 
percent), chewed tobacco (15 percent) or tried any other drugs (14 percent). When other 
drugs were tried, marijuana was named almost exclusively. The drug activity of the 
youths intervewed was even more limited than that of their frends and acquaintances. 
Some said they had tried a few drink (29 percent), usually on holidays or special oc
Even fewer had ever smoked cigarettes (11 percent), chewed 
casions with their parents. 
tobacco (5 percent) or tried other drugs (3 percent). 
Most Program Activities Are In Schools 
Eighty-two percent of those contacted in both the telephone surey and the site visits had 
program activities in a school. This appears to be occurrg for two reasons: schooloffi
cials and teachers are very much aware of the problems of youth drg use because they 
see it in their students and sometimes on the school propert; and additionally, schools 
are a logical environment for conducting drug education programs. This is true not only 
learng 
because it is a  environment where youths come together, but also because there 
is an opportunity for peer support which many consider essential for successful youth 
drug education programs. 
Programs Are Supported With Local Funds 
While program leaders intervewed on-site and telephone survey respondents agreed 
these programs do not require a lot of money, they would like additional resources. 
Since 82 percent of the programs are in schools, the school provides a leader in most 
cases, generally a teacher. When the program meets after school the leader sometimes 
volunteers his/her time. A few programs have State or local governent grants, but most 
obtain additional fuding from the parent- , local businesses or or
teacher associations
ganizations and/or fundraising activities like bake sales or car washes. Ths appears to be 
a case of seed money working. 
Minorities Are Participating

NF 
Nearly half (46 percent) of the JSN and  program included in the telephone survey 
reported minority club memberships of at least 20 percent. For the purposes of thi 
study, minority is defined as black or Hispanic. Twenty-seven percent reported that their 
club membership was at least one-half miority. (See Table I.)  TABLE I

JSN AND NFP PROGRAMS BY

PERCENT OF MINORITY PARTICIPANTS *

PERCENT OF PROGRAS 
% BLACK OR  NATIONAL FEDERATION  TOTALJSN & 
HISPANIC  JUST SAY NO  OF PARENTS  NFP COMBINED 
50% +  31%  27% 
20-49  16%  32%  19% 
53%  59%  54% 
Number 
of Programs 
115 
Surveyed 
. Survyed by Telephon 
Of the two programs, JSN had the larger miority club membership. Nearly one-third of 
its local clubs had 50 percent or more minority children among their members. 
While minorities participated in al four regions of the country, as defied by the United 
States Census Bureau, their involvement was most pronounced in the South and North
east and least in the Midwest. (See Table n. 
TABLE II

PERCENT OF MINORITY PARTICIPANTS IN

JSN AND NFP TELEPHONE SURVEY

PROGRAMS BY REGION *

PERCENT OF PRORAS 
% BLACK & 
HISPANIC  WEST  MIDWEST  NORTHEAST  SOUTH  TOTAL 
50+  12.  25%  42%  27% 
209 
12.  11%  25%  23%  19% 
0-19  75%  85%  50%  35%  54% 
Number of 
Programs 
Surveyed  115 
. Survyed by Telephone
 There appears to be a relationship between the character of the sponsorig community 
and the level of minority participation. Generally, miority participation was greatest in 
inner-city areas. Those program in urban areas had the second highest levels of 
minority participation. While program in rural areas, though less liely than either 
inner-city or urban areas to serve substantial numbers of minorities, were more likely 
than suburban areas to report minority club memberships of at least 20 percent (Table 
III). 
TABLE II 
PERCENT OF MINORITY PARTICIPANTS IN JSN

AND NFP TELEPHONE SURVEY PROGRAMS BY

URBAN CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY *

PERCENT OF PROGRAS 
% BLACK & 
URB 
HISPANIC  INNER  SUBURBA  RURAL  TOTAL 
50+  63%  31%  12%  27% 
20- 16%  28%  20%  25%  19% 
21%  41%  68%  56%  54% 
Number of 
Programs 
Surveyed  115 
* Surveyed by Telephone 
These percentages of minorityehildren participating were reported by program respon
dents in the telephone survey. There was no opportunity to veri the racial composition 
of those regularly attending club sponsored activities. However, of the children inter
viewed during site visits, 18 percent at JSN sites were miority, and 13 percent at NFP 
sites were minority. 
Although the Boys Clubs program was not included in the telephone survey, information 
gained from visits made to seven of the 10 Boys Club sites showed that 76 percent of the 
children participating were miority. 
Parental Involvement Is Reported As Minimal 
Although approximately two-thirds of survey respondents and leaders intervewed on-site 
said that parents are involved in the program to chaperon, provide 
tranportation or  refreshments, or help with special program, less than one-thid of the youths said their 
parents were involved. From the on-site intervews it appeared that one or two parents 
are very active within each program. However, more than 80 percent of independent 
professionals and parents intervewed would like to see more parental involvement. 
BOYS CLUBS OF AMERICA OBSERVATIONS 
Demographics 
Using the site visits as a source, the average age of youth participants in Smart Moves was 
12 years old and the average grade level of those youth intervewed was the seventh. This 
program had a large number of minority participants intervewed, with the South (82 per
cent) and Midwest (100 percent) both having a majority of miorities. The West (45 per
cent) and the Northeast (40 percent) also had a substantial number of miority 
participants, as ilustrated by Table IV below: 
TABLE IV 
AGE, GRADE AND RACE/ETHNICITV 
STATUS OF YOUTH

PARTICIPANTS IN SMART MOVES PROGRAM VISITED BY REGION

WEST  MIDWEST  SOUTH  NORTHEAST  TOTAL 
Average Age 
Average Grade  8th  7th  6th  9th  7th 
% White  27.  18%  60%  24% 
% Black  45%  100%  82%  63% 
% Hispanic  27.  40%  13% 
Number of 
Youth

Interviewed

Young, Growing Initative For High Risk Children 
Smart Moves, a part of the Boys Clubs Project Smar, began in December 1986 as a 
federally-funded demonstration project in 10 Boys Club chapters. Because of the posi
tive reception the program received at these sites, it is being expanded to 200 chapters 
nationwide.  , "

One example of the positive reception Smar Moves has received is that though it was ini
tially funded to be run once in one Tampa, Florida club, it is now running at least three 
times per year at each of the seven Tampa clubs and is supported with loca fundig. 
Because the Boys Clubs, which frequently serve girls too, were usualy located in inner 
cities, sometimes in public housing projects, they reach "kids of less chance." Boys Club 
youth participants appeared to be famliar with the street drug culture. For example 
, were approached to run drugs or 
youths reported they frequently witnessed drug deals
serve as look-outs for dealers. One Boys Club unit director said  re competing with 
the drug dealers for these kids. They could make $200 a day out there." This is sup
ported by the finding that 7 percent of the Boys  intervewed had tried 
Clubs paricipants 
ilegal drugs, while less than 1 percent of the other youths intervewed had. 
Smart Moves Is Voluntary And The Demand Is High 
Participation in Smart Moves is completely voluntary. Every youth participant inter
viewed said that they chose to join Smart Moves. Boys Oubs leaders reported that more 
children wish to join Smart Moves than they are currently able to serve. With club sizes 
ranging up to 1000 members and a Smar Move class limit of about 30, it is not surprising 
that some clubs have continued to run sessions beyond the pilot period. To meet the 
demand some clubs have gone to club-wide activities in support of Smart Moves such as 
health fairs, games or outings. 
The Curriculum Is Closely Followed 
Smart Moves is conducted from a currculum which includes an outline for each of the 12 
sessions, role play situations, suggested related activities, and questions and anwers to 
review. All of the program leaders intervewed said they lied and followed the cur
riculum closely: the only modifications made at the local level were to increase the 
amount of role playing and to rewrite some sections of the manual so the youths could 
read and easily understand it. 
Leaders And Parents Like The Training They Receive 
The leaders of the local programs all attended formal training provided by the national 
office. There was a consensus among the leaders that the 
traing was good and impor
tant to the success of the project. 
They also liked the parent program which coordinates with Smart Moves. One leader 
said that parent participation in this 8-hour program (offered either as a 1-day session or 
4 2-hour sessions) was about 40 percent. Many of the parents intervewed reported liking 
the program and thinkng it of great value to them by helping them to communicate bet
ter with their children and allowing them to know what is going on in their children 
drug education program.  It Is Well Liked  Not Well Known 
But
Leaders, youths, and parents were unanimous in their support of Smart Moves. All 
leaders, 97 percent of the youth participants and 94 percent of the parents thought it did 
a good job of keeping kids off drugs. 
While the leaders interviewed on-site praised SM's neighborhood involvement and peer 
counseling, the children most often mentioned enjoying the chance to talk openly, the 
role playing and the skits. The only criticism voiced to us by the children was that the 
program ended. 
Smart Moves is unique to the Boys Clubs. Among the independent professionals con
tacted only 52 percent had heard of the Boys Clubs drug prevention efforts and even 
among those, only one-sixth felt knowledgeable enough to offer an opinon on its merits. 
All who offered an opinion thought SM had a positive infuence on youth drg related be
havior and delayed the onset of drg use. Several independent professionals said it 
provides adolescents with positive alternatives. 
JUST SAY NO OBSERVATIONS 
Demographics 
Comparing the United States population by region (using U.S. Census figures for 1980) 
to projections made from the telephone survey reveals that JSN is concentrated in the 
South and under-represented in the Northeast and West. The South comprises 33 per
cent of the U.S. population, although 52 percent of JSN clubs are found there. The 
Northeast comprises 22 percent of the population, yet only 12 percent of the JSN clubs 
are in the Northeast. The West comprises 19 percent of the population, with a JSN repre
sentation of 12 percent. The only section of the country whose JSN representation ap
proximates its percent of the U.S. population is the Midwest which comprises 26 percent 
of the population and has a JSN representation of 24 percent. (See Appendix C. 
Just Say No program locations closely follow the distribution of the U.S. population in 
urban, suburban and rural areas. As shown in Appendix D, there is practicay no dif
ference between the distribution of the sample of JSN program surveyed by telephone 
and the urban, suburban and rural location of the U.S. population. (Since the defition 
of the three categories differs from the U.S. population and for the program, the data 
are only comparable in a general way. 
The telephone survey respondents reported the modal age range of JSN participants to 
be 9 to 11 years old, with females predomiating with an average of 67 percent of the 
club members. 
The distribution by race is discussed above. (See Tables I, II, il.  Using the site visits as a source, the average age and grade of club participants vared 
slightly from region to region. Overall the average age was 11 years old and the average 
grade the sixth, which are both within the target age group described in the JSN manual. 
(See Table V. 
TABLE V

AGE, GRADE & RACE/ETHNICITY STATUS OF

YOUTH PARTICIPANTS IN JUST SAY NO

PROGRAM VISITED, BY REGION

WEST  MIDWEST  SOUTH  NORTHEAST  TOTAL 
Average A!e 
Average Grade  5th  7th  6th  6th  6th 
% White  80%  96%  69%  81%*  80% 
% Black  15%  31%  11%  17% 
% Hispanic 
Number of 
Youth  149 
Interviewed 
* Total percent does not equal 100 because one Asian youth was interviewed in the Northeast. 
The Program Is Young And Appears To Be Growing 
The president of the JSN Foundation reports that the first school club was established in 
January, 1985, and the JSN handbook was published less than a year ago. He further 
reports that since 1985 the program has grown quickly to between 15 000 and 17,000 
clubs. However, the membership list JSN provided the study team contaied only about 
200 names. The JSN Foundation president clais that the dierence between 1 200 
and 17 000 may be explained, in par, by the fact that an entire school system may be 
counted as one member on the list, but may contain a club in every school. Since no 
record is kept of how many separate clubs are represented by every school 
system on the 
list, there is no way of knowig how many clubs exist. 
According to the telephone survey, the average JSN group has been in existence for 
months and the current leader has been involved almost the entire time. All but one in
dependent professional respondent familiar with JSN (95 percent) indicated that the 
program is growing in their community. It is  program to start in one or two 
tyical for the 
classes in a school and then expand to other classes and other schools in the community.  The Program Is Usually Ongoing And Part Of A Larger Program 
Almost all people contacted in the telephone survey (86 percent) and JSN program 
leaders interviewed as part of the on-site visits (93 percent) said their program were on
going. Since 84 percent of those surveyed and 77 percent of the leaders visited had 
school programs, most programs ran for the school year with youth members involved for 
the entire time. Only 12 percent of the youths intervewed said they no longer took part 
in a JSN program. 
Most independent professionals felt that JSN should be par of a larger program and 80 
percent of those programs visited were in fact part of a larger program. There is usually 3 
drug education curriculum in the State, school system, school or class of which JSN is a 
have a comprehensive cuicuum with a manual that is 
part. Several jurisdictions visited 
distributed to al1 schools. 
Although JSN is usual1y part of a school program, three-quarters of the youth respon
dents said they could choose to join. In one case where the program is part of a school 
curriculum, only students who choose to sign the JSN pledge are considered a part of the 
program, although al1 students must attend the in-class club meetings. 
The Just Say No Model Is Flexible 
The JSN handbook was developed to lin the slogan "Just Say No" with a program. The 
handbook describes Just Say No clubs as "groups of children, mostly 7 to 14 years old 
united in their commtment to say '  ' to drugs... not a formal currculum or a highly-
structured approach... designed to be flexible, allowing it to be tailored to the unique 
needs of every community, of each group of children. 
The JSN is implemented in many ways with some clubs following the 
traditional descrip
tion in the handbook, but others not. When the leaders intervewed on-site were asked if 
their program was like the one descrbed in the handbook, some (42 percent) agreed, but 
almost as many (35 percent) described their program as only partialy using the hand
book, saying they had altered it to fit their own needs. Several did not even have a JSN 
handbook. 
Since most of the program visited were in schools, they usualy met during class time. 
Sometimes the groups met after school, but it is often difficult for the students to stay for 
after school meetings. Some schools had representatives selected from each class take 
part in a meeting and return to their classes with information and suggested activities. 
Stil others had specific time al10tted to clubs during the school day; JSN was one of the 
many clubs the youths could join. 
There was a wide range of activities described by the groups visited. Most youth respon
dents (56 percent) said they heard talks about drugs. Other activities included group dis
cussions, pledge signing, movies, skits, poster and essay contests, trips and speakers.  , " , ' , "
Both the telephone survey and on-site intervews revealed that most of the leaders are 
teachers. It was difficult for many leaders to estimate how many hours a month they 
spent on program activities, and there was a wide range for those that tried: from 2 to 50 
hours per month. The training of the leaders varied: almost three-quarers of the 
, whie others had 
leaders interviewed on-site had no specific training in drug education
been to relevant workshops. 
Limitations Are Recognized 
Just Say No Is Usually Viewed Positively, But 
The leaders were anxous to 
All of the JSN participants visited were very enthusiastic 
talk about and have the children demonstrate their activities. Over 80 percent of the 
youth respondents said the program helped both themselves and others stay away from 
drugs. Most of the parents (92 percent) felt their chidren s involvement in the JSN 
program has had a positive effect on their drug-related behavior and attitudes and 80 per
cent felt that the local program made a difference in their community. 
For the most part, the independent professionals familiar with JSN also had a positive im
pression. Approximately two-thirds of those interviewed said involvement in the JSN 
program influences drug-related behavior and has made a difference in their community 
and its schools. Fifty-eight percent felt the program delayed or prevented the onset of 
drug use. Eighty-five percent of the independent professionals intervewed gave JSN a 
rating of good or excellent. 
Although they liked the program, some independent professionals said the JSN national 
effort is simplistic. Yet, they credit its simplicity with causing "awareness of drugs in 
lower grades." Creating an awareness of the drug problem was often cited as the greatest 
strength of the JSN program. 
Many of the local experts stressed the importance of a comprehensive approach. As one 
respondent, the drug educatio:q '2oor:dinator for a metropolitan school system, said  Just 
" Another inde
Say No" is one facet on the diamond that is our (drug education) program.
pendent professional said  It must be integrated into existing servces; if you say " 
what are you offering as alternatives?" 
lited 
Most people (88 percent) intervewed in the telephone survey had  contact with 
the national offce: they received materials and had occasional telephone conversations. 
Almost all (91 percent) found the contact and the material  helpful, and one-hal of the 
respondents rated the support they receive from the national organtion good, and an 
additional one-quarter rated it excellent. The program leaders intervewed on-site 
agreed: all received materials and 81 percent found the materials helpful; two-thirds 
rated the support they received from the national office as good, while another one-third 
thought it excellent. 
Most leaders felt there should be more parental involvement in the program. An inde
pendent professional in the South said  Teaching youths and not the parents is like c1ap " " " "
ping with one hand." Some mentioned that the materials the JSN foundation offers are 
too expensive and some respondents talked of providing better trainig for the leaders. 
When youths were asked what they liked best about the JSN program their answers 
varied. Some of the most frequently mentioned comments were: "learng about drugs 
teaching kids drg awareness  the whole thing,  working. together on projects" and 
helping people." More than three-quarters of the children intervewed, when asked 
like about the JSN program, answered "nothing" or "I like it all." 
what they did  not 
FRE 
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF PARNTS FOR DRUG-
YOUTH OBSERVATIONS 
Demographics 
When comparing the United States population by region to the NFP projection made 
from the telephone survey, NFP proves to be quite evenly distributed: the South com
prises 33 percent of the U.S. population with a 36 percent NFP representation; the North
east comprises 22 percent of the population with an NFP representation of 23 percent; 
NF 
the Midwest comprises 26 percent of the population with an  representation of 18 
NF 
percent; and the West comprises 19 percent of the population with an  repre
sentation of 23 percent. (See Appendix B.) 
As shown in Appendix D, NFP program surveyed by telephone appear somewhat more 
NF 
likely to be located in suburban areas than the U.S. population. The  telephone sur
vey respondents reported a modal age range of 14 to 17 years old for youth participants 
with females predominating at 88 percent of membership. The race distribution of the 
telephone survey respondents is discussed previously and described in Tables I, n and III. 
NF 
Using the site visits as a source the average age of participants in 
groups is 14 while
the average grade is the 8th, without signcant variations. (See Table VI. 
Two-Fifths OfNFP Members Are No Longer Active 
According to the NFP members caled in the telephone survey, 
40 percent were no longer active. No  mentioned for en
paricular reason was frequently 
ding their involvement. Their children growing up, movig to a new area or the lack of 
volunteers were some of the reasons heard. A number had also joined for inormation 
and once the information was received, membership was no longer needed. 
It is interesting to note that using the membership list provided by NFP, the on-site team 
had difficulty finding NFP youth groups  existence. Only one southern State had a 
stil in 
number of groups. Interestingly, they were run by VISTA volunteers from ACTON.  TABLE VI 
AGE, GRADE AND RACE/ETHNICITY

STATUS OF YOUTH PARTICIPANTS IN NFP

PROGRAMS VISITED, BY REGION 
WEST  MIDWEST  SOUTH  NORTHEAST  TOTAL 
Average Age 
Average Grade  8th  9th  7th  9th  8th 
% White  100%  92%  62%  100%  87% 
% Black  38%  13% 
% Hispanic 
Number of 
Youth

Interviewed

Of The NFP Sites Conduct Youth Programs Which Are Usually JSN 
Two- Thirds 
Programs 
Nearly one-half (44 percent) of the NFP members intervewed in the telephone survey 
that have youth groups have Just Say No program. Although NFP has its own youth 
group curriculum called Reach America which involves a weekend of intense drug educa
tion, only two of the survey respondents said their youth program was Reach America. 
The site visits found only one Reach America program. The youth participants and 
leaders interviewed on-site were enthusiastic However, since it was a weekend event 
meet
with periodic reunions, many of the participants said they would like more frequent 
mgs. 
Parents, youth participants and the leader were unanmous in their praise of the program. 
Some comments were, "It has an emphasis on self-esteem and self-respect and gives the 
" li
youth the feeling that it's okay to be drug-free. lt's fun and educationa1." 
NFP Provides Local Parent Groups With Tax-Exempt Status And An Information Net
work 
Many of those intervewed in the telephone survey stated that they had joined NFP as a 
source of educational material and to get the group tax-exempt status that membership 
offers. The tax-exempt status helps these program raise money because persons and or ganizations can deduct their donations to such NFP program. However, this could 
prove to be a vulnerability since two-fifths of the members are no longer active. Some of 
those called were parent "networkers " and stil others wanted to affliate with the or
ganization to market their own educational materials. 
NFP Are Not Aware OrIts Activities 
Independent Professionals Not Involved  In 
NF, 
Although 63 percent of independent professionals had heard of  only 20 percent 
knew enough about it to answer the intervew questions. They all felt involvement in 
loca1 NFP programs delayed or prevented the onset of drug use and also felt that this in
volvement has made a difference in the community. However, some felt NFP should 
have more interaction with other drug programs, there should be more multifaceted ac
tivities and youth should be included more often. 
RESPONDENT SUGGESTIONS FOR ALL PROG 
dent. 
they had for im
All persons contacted during the inpection were asked what suggestion 
sumarized below by tye of respon
proving youth drug education. Their responses are 
Parents believe there is a role for both schools and media in youth drug education and

suggest that it be aimed at elementar school children. They also recognze the need for

a parental role. They made some other interesting suggestions such as:

Include parental education.

Promote stricter laws. 
Talk to the kids, not at them. 
Youth feel there should be more drug education activities during and after school and 
want parental involvement. They also suggested solutions to the drug problem such as: 
Stop beer and tobacco commercials. 
Stop grown-ups from using drugs.

Keeping drugs from coming into the country.

Program leaders (on-site) believe there should be governmental funding and a united na
tional effort to promote youth drug education programs that start at the elementary 1evel. 
They also believe that beer and alcohol advertisements in the national media are 
from the leaders include: 
detrimental. Other suggestions 
Promote interaction among program leaders. 
Find better role models.  , "
Create and share resource listings. 
Run program on a broad, communty-wide basis. 
Independent professionals want a coordinated, community-wide effort which includes an 
ongoing drug education curriculum in the schools. They think this should be government 
funded and have a strong parental role. One independent professional said  Kids want 
to be active and involved. They wi grab whatever is out there. They need help in or
ganizing and being handed something to be involved in. They don t need to be preached 
at to be involved. They need to be guided with information. Kids ran the show for a long 
time. 
Telephone Survey 
Those surveyed suggested more Governent funding, better materials, and a parental 
role in an ongoing school program starting at the elementar level. Other suggestions in
cluded: 
Increase the use of peer program.

Focus on junior high school.

Make youth drg education a truly national effort.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations were developed based on the inspection fidings and 
respondent suggestions: 
The ADAMHA and ED should develop an evaluation strategy to 
include long- and short-term evaluations of the implementation and 
effectiveness of youth drug education programs. 
Respondents, especially the independent professionals, are looking for an 
evaluation of what  work best in preventing youth from 
tyes of approaches 
using drugs.

The ADAMHA and ED should assure the effective dissemination of 
available research findings, clearinghouse information and other 
networking activities. 
This recommendatiol1 was strongly supported by feedback from program 
leaders and independent professionals. Although this inormation is 
presently available in various places, due possibly to breakdown in 
communication, the inormation is not getting to the grass roots. 
ADAM 
The  and ED should give special consideration to funding 
comprehensive youth drug education programs which target children at 
early ages. 
The independent professionals felt strongly that drug education must start early, 
long before the target age of first use (12 years old) and before habits are formed. 
The leaders intervewed on-site and most of the telephone survey respondents 
agreed. 
Youth drug education program should include a parental component to 
keep parents informed regarding what the chidren are learning and 
what their own role is in drug prevention. 
More than 80 percent of independent professionals and parents interviewed 
would like to see more parental involvement. The parents intervewed who par
ticipated in the Boys Club parent program liked it and thought it of great value. 
The ADAMHA and ED should review existing leader trainig programs 
with a view to identifyng, developing and publicizing a model to be 
made available to States, local communities and programs.  Almost three-quarers of tbe leaders intervewed in the JSN on-site visits had no 
training in drug education; the others attended workshops. There was consensus 
among the Boys Clubs leaders wbo attended formal training provided by the na
tional office that the training was good and was important 
to the success of the program.  APPENDIX A

The resource materials included in the following bibliography were reviewed during the 
inspection. 
Bibliography 
Adams, Thomas; Resnik, Hank; et al. "Stop Drug Abuse Before It  Starts.  The Just Say 
No Handbook, 1986. 
Botvin, Gilbert J.; Wils Personal and Social Ski1s Training: Cognitive-Be
, Thomas A. 
havioral Approaches to Suhstance Ahuse Prevention . Monograph 63, DHHS Pub. No. 
(ADM) 85-1334, 1985. 
Botvn, Gilbert J. "Substance Abuse Prevention Research: Recent Developments and 
Future Directions.  .(Qurnal of School Health.  Vol.56, No.9 (November 1986), pp.369
374.

Botvin Prevention Research, DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 85-1372  1984.

, Gilbert J. 
Bukoski, Wiliam. .. School-Based Substance Abuse Prevention.  Journal of Children in

(Fall/inter 
Contemporary Society,  Nos.  1985), pp.95-115. 
Vol.18,  1/2. 
Childhood and Chemical Abuse: Prevention and Intervention.  Journal of Children in 
Contemporary Society.  Vol.18  Nos.  (Fall/inter 1985), pp.249-278. 
1/2 
Goodstadt, Michael  Prevention Strategies For Drug Abuse. 
So. "
Issues In Science and Technology, (Winter 1987), pp.28-35. 
Guide For Drug Ahuse Prevention  DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 86-1465, 
1986. 
Helping Your Pre-teen Say No, DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 86-1417 
1986. 
Manatt Parents, Peers, and Pot n. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 83-1290  1983. 
, Marsha. 
Mann, Peggy. "  re Teaching Our Kids To Use Drugs.  Reader s Digest, Vol. 131 
No.787 (November 1987), pp.107-110.

Meeting The Challenge: Just Say No. The Just Say No Foundation for ACTON. Con

137-H304/01  1987. 
tract No. 

Moskowitz, Joel M. ; Schaps, Eric; et al. ''Te Effects of Drug  Moskowitz, Joel M.; Schaps, Eric; et al. 'The Effects of Drug 
Education at Follow-Up.  Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 
Vol.30 (Fall 1984), pp.45-48. 
Parents: What You Can Do Ahout Drug Abuse. DHHS Pub. No. (ADM) 86-1267 1983. 
Project Summaries: Twenty Prevention Programs. National Association of State Al
cohol and Drug Abuse Directors, October 1987. 
Schools Without Drugs.  S. Dept. of Education, 1986.  APPENDIX B

TELEPHONE SURVEY CHARACTERISTICS 
JSN  NFP  TOTAL 
SAMPLE  135  215 
INTERVIEWED  111  173 
NO LONGER 
INYOLYED* 
HAD YOUTH 
122 
PROGRAMS 
* Three that are no longer involved had youth programs in the past and completed the interview.  APPENDIX C 
Comparison of Telephone Sample Populations and 
United States Population by Region 
Sample Population
TOTAL 
REGION  S. Pop. *  JSN  NFP  JSN & NFP 
Northeast  22%  12%  23%  14% 
Midwest  26%  24%  18%  23% 
South  33%  52%  36%  50% 
West  19%  12%  23%  14% 
Number =  226,450,000  115 
* 1980 Census Data  APPENDIX D

. Comparison of JSN & NFP Programs Surveyed by 
Populations by Urban,

Telephone and  S. 
Suburban and Rural Areas * 
JSN  NFP  TOTAL 
POPULATION 
% Urban  42%  43%  36%  42% 
% Suburban  32%  28%  28%  30% 
% Rural  26%  29%  16%  28% 
Number = 22,450,  115 
* U.S. population groups based on Census categories of rural, urbn fringe and other urban areas are 
compared with self-reported designations by program respondents of their communitieR as "rural 
suburban" or "urban inner city or "urban ). The two sets of categories are comparable in only a 
" (i.e., "
very general way.  ( ?

.. 
APPENDIX E

"IYIC., 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES	 Public Health Service 
'II.a  Memorandum 
Date  Ma rc h 2 2 , 19 88
Deputy Administrator, Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Heal 
From	
Administra tion (ADAMHA) 
National Youth Drug Education Program 
Subject	
Inspector General, Off ice Of The Inspector General (OIG) 
coment on the 
Thank you for the opportunity to review and 
subject report. The report is excellent. I particularly value 
informtion 
the availability of  from your on-site look at the 
operation of these programs. 
We are looking forward to discussing the final report and
following up on the recomendations with the Department of
Education. 
Robert L. Tracht