DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Training and Technical Assistance

for a Drug Prevention Program
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Training and Technical Assistance

for a Drug Prevention Program

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Application Deadline: February 1, 1999
1

Introduction

Because of the wide range of funding opportunities in FY 1998 and their various requirements

and deadlines, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is initiating a

new process. Separate announcements are being published for each program under which funding

is available. The program announcements address the program’s nature and purpose, specify

eligibility requirements and selection criteria, and identify deadlines and contact information. The

program announcements do not include application materials. Application instructions, forms

(including the SF–424), and review guidelines for all OJJDP funding opportunities are provided in

the FY 1998 OJJDP Application Kit (SL–254). To apply for funding under the solicitations

presented in this program announcement, you must obtain a copy of the Application Kit.

Copies of the Application Kit and the reference materials cited in the program announcements can

be obtained from OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse or downloaded from the agency’s Web

site. You can contact the Clearinghouse in any of the following ways:

Phone: 800–638–8736 (Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Fax: 301–519–5212

Fax-on-Demand: 800–638–8736 (select option 1, select option 2, and listen for

instructions). Because of the number of pages, the Application Kit

is available in three components (#9038, Instructions and Forms,

36 pages; #9039, Peer Review Guideline, 9 pages; and #9040,

State Contacts, 12 pages). Copies are sent to your attention via

fax immediately upon request. There may be a short delay,

depending on the volume of requests.

E-Mail: puborder@ncjrs.org (publications, including the Application Kit)

askncjrs@ncjrs.org (assistance)

Copies requested by phone, regular fax, or e-mail will be sent by first class mail. Delivery will take

approximately 3–5 days. The Application Kit can also be downloaded in either HTML or PDF

from OJJDP’s Web site, Grants and Funding section:

Internet: www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm

To receive timely notification of future OJJDP funding opportunities, newly released publications,

and other information on juvenile justice and delinquency, subscribe to OJJDP’s electronic mailing

list, JUVJUST: Send e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org. Leave the subject line blank. Type subscribe

juvjust your name in the body of the message.
3

Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug Prevention

Program

Purpose

To provide a drug abuse prevention program that helps reduce risk factors and enhance protective

factors among adolescents in middle and junior high school. The Training and Technical

Assistance for a Drug Prevention Program will provide schools and/or local education agencies

with the program support and implementation materials needed to implement and evaluate

replications of a proven effective drug prevention program model that addresses their specific

substance abuse reduction needs. The broad goal of the program is to reduce youth drug use by

encouraging the promotion of multiple approaches to educating and motivating younger

adolescents to make healthy lifestyle decisions.

Background

In 1997, Congress recognized that drug use by teenagers, often a dangerous precursor to crime, is

on the rise in the United States. In particular, Congress noted that “nearly a quarter of grade

school children have been offered drugs, and . . . many children no longer believe drugs are

harmful or dangerous.” Most alarming was the fact that Congress found that “teenage use of

marijuana, a ‘gateway’ to more serious drugs, has more than doubled since 1992” (House Report

105–207, July 25, 1997).

National survey data of adolescent drug use illustrate that the 1980’s downward trend in the use

of many drugs was reversed in 1993 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997);

increases in the prevalence of use among 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students were observed

through 1996. In 1997, the data indicated a leveling off for some drug categories among some age

groups, but in general, the trends for the mid-1990’s show escalating rates of use for students in

the three grades examined.

Age-related normative expectations for substance use generally place older children at greater risk

for substance use initiation than younger children. Among preadolescent children, the use of

substances is relatively rare. The transition to middle school or junior high school is viewed as a

major risk period for experimentation with gateway substances. The 1997 Monitoring the Future

survey data indicate that by 8th grade, 47 percent of students had tried cigarettes at least once, 19

percent had smoked in the past month, and 9 percent were daily smokers (University of Michigan

Institute for Social Research, 1997). For 10th grade students, these figures jump to 60 percent, 30

percent, and 18 percent, respectively, and for 12th grade students they jump to 65 percent, 35

percent, and 25 percent, respectively. Similarly, a large number of students reported having tried

alcohol at least once during their lifetimes: 54 percent of 8th graders, 72 percent of 10th graders,

and 82 percent of 12th graders admitted having used alcohol at least once, and 25 percent, 49

percent, and 64 percent, respectively, admitted having been drunk. Prevalence of marijuana use
4

was lower than for tobacco and alcohol, but still high. Annual and 30-day prevalence rates for

those in 8th grade were 18 percent and 10 percent; in 10th grade, these rates were 35 percent and

20 percent; and in 12th grade, they were 39 percent and 24 percent.

Among youth who use drugs, a fairly predictable sequence has been observed, beginning with

substances legal for adult consumption and then moving on to marijuana and eventually other

illegal drugs (Kandel and Yamaguchi, in press). This pattern of use is largely consistent with

social attitudes and norms and the availability of drugs.

In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $5 million to the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) “to develop, demonstrate and test programs to increase the

perception among children and youth that drug use is risky, harmful, and unattractive . . .

[through an initiative that is] consistent with existing research findings on effective prevention

methods against teenage drug abuse” (Conference Report 105–405 for Pub. L. 105–119,

November 13, 1997).

A number of theories, models, and frameworks have been tested to identify possible explanatory

mechanisms of youth substance use initiation and as the basis for developing strategies for

deterring initiation, use, and progression to abuse. Interventions based on these different theories,

models, and frameworks may be more or less applicable to different target groups. Target

audiences for drug abuse prevention interventions are grouped into three categories; different

types of interventions are used for each. Universal interventions reach the general population

(e.g., all students in a school), selected programs target groups or subsets of the general

population at risk (e.g., children of drug users), and indicated interventions are designed for

individuals who are already experimenting with drugs or who exhibit other related risks that

foreshadow the use of drugs. The majority of interventions that have been developed and

rigorously tested are of the universal type (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1997).

Botvin, Schinke, and Orlandi (1995:170–172) described common approaches to drug prevention:

The most common prevention approach used by schools relies on teaching students factual

information about drugs and drug abuse. Typically, students are taught about the dangers

of tobacco, alcohol, or drug use in terms of the adverse health, social, and legal

consequences. . . . Programs that rely exclusively on providing students with facts about

drugs and drug abuse are conceptually based on a cognitive model of drug use/abuse.

Such a model assumes that individuals make a more or less rational decision to use drugs

or not to use drugs. . . . This model of drug abuse assumes that once armed with the

necessary facts, students will make a rational and informed decision not to use drugs.

Another common approach to drug abuse prevention has been referred to as affective

education. This prevention strategy [is] based on the belief that the risk of using drugs

[can] be reduced through programs designed to promote affective development. . . .

Instead of focusing on cognitive factors, affective education emphasizes the personal and

social development of students. Affective education takes a somewhat broader approach

to the problem of drug abuse than information dissemination by implicitly recognizing the
5

role of psychosocial factors. . . . For example, components of affective education

approaches that are used in some prevention programs include decisionmaking, effective

communication, and assertiveness.

Subsequently developed approaches were all designed to target the psychosocial factors believed

to promote the use of drugs. Emphasis was placed on teaching students the skills needed to resist

influences such as those from peers and the media (Botvin, Schinke, and Orlandi, 1995).

Perhaps the theory most widely applied to the problem of substance use is the Social Learning

Theory (Bandura, 1977). This theory posits that people learn behaviors through processes of

modeling and reinforcement. A model derived from this theoretical perspective is the Social

Influence Model. According to this model, youth’s perceptions that deviant behaviors are

standard practices among their peers promote deviance through the establishment of negative

normative beliefs and reinforcement of behaviors that confirm those beliefs (Botvin et al., 1995).

Thus, the onset of substance use can be viewed as behavior acquired through modeling, social

pressure, and reinforcement by friends, family, the media, and community norms and practices.

These same factors can be applied in a positive manner to change behavior. 

Epidemiologic and etiologic studies have identified various factors that predict youth drug

involvement (Bentler, 1992). A number of frameworks have been developed for classifying these

factors into conceptual domains that may contribute to an understanding of how these factors

cluster and operate—singly and together—for individuals and groups (for a review, see Hawkins,

Catalano, and Miller, 1992). Perhaps the most commonly used framework is the ecological

perspective, which groups factors into individual, family, peer group, community, and

sociopolitical contextual domains (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, 1994). Information about risks

within these domains can then be used to focus prevention programming and strategies.

Recently, there has been a concentration on the identification of factors that may protect at-risk

individuals and groups from the initiation of substance use and other problem behaviors such as

violence (Cicchetti and Garmezy, 1993: Garmezy, 1993; Masten and Coatsworth, 1998; Werner,

1995). These protective or resiliency factors have been demonstrated to reduce the initiation of

substance use under some circumstances. However, they appear to be less potent when there is an

accumulation of risk factors in an individual’s life or community (Hawkins, 1998). Moreover, risk

and protective factors are not static; their potency and meaning change with a person’s

developmental status and circumstance (Glantz and Sloboda, in press). For example,

epidemiologic studies have documented an association between changing beliefs about social

responsibility and perceived risks of marijuana use on the prevalence of use among high school

seniors (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997). That is, increases in social

disapproval of use and an increased perception of risk associated with use were followed by a

reduction in the prevalence of use from the mid-1980’s to 1992. Perceived risk began to drop in

1992, and prevalence of use began to increase in 1993. Thus, it appears that a change in social

norms can function as either a risk or a protective factor.

Despite these caveats, the use of risk and protective factors as a framework for the selection of

community prevention programs has become widespread, and a number of studies have
6

demonstrated the utility of the model for this purpose (Hawkins, 1998). In general, the more risk

factors present in a community, the greater the likelihood that an individual will become involved

with drug and alcohol use and other problem behaviors. Knowledge of the specific risk factors

present in a community and among youth within that community provides policy makers,

practitioners, and implementers with information critical for comprehensive, communitywide

prevention planning.

The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV), University of Colorado, Boulder,

has identified 10 prevention and intervention programs that meet the highest scientific standards

of program effectiveness. CSPV has described these programs and provided the documentation

necessary for their replication in a series of publications called Blueprints. OJJDP’s

implementation of the Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug Prevention Program will

consist of the replication of an effective drug abuse program model from the Blueprint series: the

Life Skills Training (LST) program. Developed by Dr. Gil Botvin, this program has empirically

demonstrated, across settings, that it reduces gateway drug use among youth. Although this

model has been tested in a number of jurisdictions, the Training and Technical Assistance for a

Drug Prevention Program will foster its replication in more and diverse jurisdictions such as

urban, rural, or tribal settings. The program targets middle and junior high school youth (sixth and

seventh grades). For a more complete explanation of the LST program, see the appendix. 

Goal

The specific goal of the Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug Prevention Program is to

substantially reduce drug use among younger adolescents (middle and junior high school students)

by increasing the perception among children and youth that drug use is risky, harmful, and

unattractive.

Objectives

To adapt, implement, and monitor the implementation of the Life Skills Training program.

To reduce youth vulnerability to prodrug social influences.

To decrease risk factors for drug use and associated behaviors by enhancing personal and

social competencies and other protective factors among youth.

Program Strategy

Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug Prevention Program funding for the replication of

the LST model will not be awarded to individual schools and local education agencies, but rather

to CSPV. OJJDP has awarded a cooperative agreement to CSPV to assist in the selection of the

schools and local education agencies for the replication of the LST model and to support the
7

training, technical assistance, and process evaluation components of the program in each of the

selected schools and local education agencies. In conjunction with CSPV, the LST team will

provide training and technical assistance worth up to $60,000 to each site for a 3-year period.

Essentially, the Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug Prevention Program will be

implemented by CSPV and the LST team through a four-step process. First, as part of the

selection process, CSPV with LST will determine the suitability of applicant organizations (sites)

to conduct the planned replication of LST after being deemed qualified by the OJJDP review

panel. CSPV and LST will do this by reviewing applications, holding conference calls (if deemed

necessary by OJJDP), and—when necessary—making site visits. Second, once sites have been

selected, CSPV and the LST team will facilitate the delivery of curriculum materials during the 3-

year program to the sites, because the LST program requires strict adherence to a core

curriculum. Third, through a technical assistance component, CSPV and the LST team will

provide first-year technical assistance and training sessions during the course of the 3-year

program. Fourth, CSPV will monitor implementation at the local level and conduct a process

evaluation to assess how well the program is being implemented and is serving the selected sites. 

Evaluation

The evaluation of the Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug Prevention Program will

consist of two parts, a process evaluation and an outcome evaluation. First, in conjunction with its

monitoring function, CSPV will conduct a process evaluation that will focus on the individual

project’s adherence to the model. CSPV will collect data through observing project functions,

examining project documents, and interviewing staff to determine whether the program is

reaching the target population and whether the program is being implemented as designed.

Information regarding the findings of the process evaluation will be provided periodically to the

projects for use in making project management decisions. 

Second, in cooperation with OJJDP, the National Institute on Drug Abuse will conduct an

outcome evaluation to assess the extent to which a large scale replication program in schools and

local education agencies with diverse characteristics is able to effectively implement the LST

model across multiple sites and reduce substance abuse. To facilitate the evaluation, applicant

schools and/or local agencies, as appropriate, must agree to and/or arrange for the following

conditions: 

Applicants must document the cooperation and assurance of the school or local education

agency’s administration to (a) provide matched sites for random assignment to either

intervention or control groups (it is anticipated that up to 30 sites will be randomly selected);

(b) assist in obtaining informed consent from parents for their children’s participation in the

project; and (c) cooperate with the administration of pretests, posttests, and annual followup

school surveys through the students’ high school years to assess the impact of the

implementation over time.
8

Applicants must agree to collaborate with the prevention researchers in designing and

administering surveys to assess risk and protective factors and potential mediators of program

effectiveness such as school environment (school policies, school behavioral norms), drug use

behaviors, perceptions of risk, and changes over time in skill development and/or other

essential intervention components.

Applicants must agree to allow researchers access to all process evaluation data, including

those data that monitor the fidelity of implementation across sites, participation rates, and

barriers to implementation.

Over the course of the project, prevention researchers will provide feedback to participating

schools and agencies about the outcome evaluation, including interim and final reports. 

Eligibility Requirements

OJJDP invites applications from schools, local education agencies, local public health agencies,

and public and private drug prevention agencies. Joint applications between schools or local

education agencies and nonschool applicants are welcome. If the applicant is not a school or local

education agency, the application must include a memorandum of understanding that documents

the local education agency’s formal commitment to cooperate with the applicant, participate in all

training, and provide all necessary data for the duration of the project.

Selection Criteria

Because this project will not provide funding directly to sites, but instead will provide training,

curriculum materials, and technical assistance, OJJDP has modified its standard selection criteria.

Applicants will be reviewed based on the following:

Applicants’ assessment of the juvenile drug use problem in their communities, particularly

whether specific problem areas coincide with the requirements of the LST model.

Applicants’ understanding of the program’s specific goals and objectives.

Applicants’ ability to restate the objectives in measurable terms.

The local structure established to implement the project. 

Before the CSPV and LST team review the process described above, applicants will be evaluated

and rated by a review panel according to the criteria outlined below. 
9

Problems To Be Addressed (15 points)

Applicants must describe the targeted school or local education agency and explain why it would

be a suitable site for replication of the LST program. This description should include the number

of schools and students that will participate in the LST program and must explain the community

assessment process, including the procedures used, the types and sources of data, and the

relationship of the data to the target population. Emphasis should be placed on establishing

baseline data that describe community risk and protective factors and general characteristics of the

population to be served. Applicants should also describe other drug prevention programs (e.g.,

efforts to reduce underage drinking and community-based coalitions designed to reduce substance

abuse by youth) in the community and explain how this program will be coordinated with them.

Goals and Objectives (5 points)

Applicants must provide succinct statements demonstrating an understanding of the goals,

objectives, and tasks associated with the project (see, for example, sections regarding evaluation

and implementation design and also the appendix). Objectives must be quantifiable and

measurable, and applicants must convey a clear understanding of the purpose, implementation,

evaluation requirements, and expected results of the project.

Implementation Design (40 points) 

Applicants must demonstrate that the LST program meets the drug prevention needs of the target

population of students within the specific community. They must provide a detailed description of

the processes for planning and implementing the project and for cooperating with the outcome

evaluation grantee.

Because successful prevention programs change students, schools, neighborhoods, and families in

ways that reduce drug use by youth, proposals must be based on local objective data that identify

characteristics and risk factors that need to be addressed and protective factors that show

potential. Data collected about populations other than the specific populations that will receive

direct services under the program (for example, national or State data on youth drug use) are not

considered sufficient evidence that the program responds to the community-level needs of the

target population. Applicants should provide evidence that they will work with the LST training

and technical assistance provider to make the program culturally relevant to the target community

and its population.

Applicant schools and agencies also should consider that greater effectiveness is achieved when

the core elements of the original research-based model are retained. Core elements are the basic

structure, content, and delivery of the program. For example, the structure of the program

includes the number of sessions during year 1 and booster sessions during years 2 and 3 required

to achieve the desired effect; the content includes the critical components such as normative

education, refusal skills, and social skills training; and delivery includes the provision of

appropriate staff training and resources to assist in implementation.
10

Applicants also must establish and fund as an in-kind contribution a mechanism for coordinating

onsite training and technical assistance such as providing a suitable location for provider training

by LST staff. Applicants should describe this mechanism. For example, a school might designate

one or more individuals as training and technical assistance coordinator(s) for the jurisdiction.

Applicants should list and total those in-kind contributions required to implement this project and

describe plans for institutionalizing the project.

Management and Organizational Capability (35 points)

Applicants must demonstrate that their management structure and staffing are adequate for the

successful implementation of the project. They must present a workplan that identifies responsible

individuals, major tasks, and milestones (timeline) for implementing the LST model in their

school(s), beginning in spring 1999. Applicants should specifically describe coordination and

collaboration efforts related to the project.

Applicants must demonstrate any existing efforts or partnerships related to substance abuse

prevention by submitting descriptions of the projects or memorandums of understanding,

interagency agreements, or other formal commitments. These documents may be attached as

appendixes; however, the collaborative relationship must be clearly described in the application.

Staff résumés or job descriptions should also be attached as an appendix. Training is anticipated

to begin April 1999. Because scheduling in schools may vary, time of implementation may also

vary; this must be indicated in the application.

Budget (5 points)

Because Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug Prevention Program funding for the

replication of the LST model will not be awarded to individual schools and local education

agencies, but rather to CSPV, applicants are required to submit budgets detailing only the in-kind

contributions they will make to ensure sufficient onsite coordination of and support for replication

of the model. Examples of in-kind contributions include, but are not limited to, office space, an

appropriate location for provider training and onsite technical assistance, personnel, and

equipment that will be used to coordinate the project activities. 

Format

The narrative portion of this application must not exceed 25 pages (excluding the budget

narrative, forms, assurances, and appendixes) and must be submitted on 81⁄2- by 11-inch paper,

double-spaced on one side of the paper in a standard 12-point font. These standards are necessary

to maintain a fair and uniform standard among all applicants. If the narrative does not conform to

these standards, OJJDP will deem the application ineligible for consideration.
11

Project Period 

Sites selected will be provided 1 year of technical assistance, 3 years of program implementation

training, and LST curriculum materials. 

Project Sites and Level of Support

Up to 70 projects will be selected under this program to replicate the LST model locally over 3

years. Successful applicants will receive the training, curriculum materials, and technical

assistance from CSPV and LST (under a contractual agreement with CSPV). In making final

selections, the OJJDP Administrator will consider geographic distribution and balance in the

number of each type of jurisdiction (urban, rural, and tribal) selected. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number

For this program, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number, which is required

on Standard Form 424, Application for Federal Assistance, is 16.729. This form is included in

OJJDP’s Application Kit, which can be obtained by calling the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at

800–638–8736 or sending an e-mail request to askncjrs@ncjrs.org. The kit also is available online

at www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm.

Coordination of Federal Efforts

To encourage better coordination among Federal agencies in addressing State and local needs, the

U.S. Department of Justice is requesting applicants to provide information on the following: (1)

active Federal grant award(s) supporting this or related efforts, including awards from the U.S.

Department of Justice; (2) any pending application(s) for Federal funds for this or related efforts;

and (3) plans for coordinating any funds described in items (1) or (2) with the funding sought by

this application. 

For each Federal award, applicants must include the program or project title, the Federal grantor

agency, the amount of the award, and a brief description of its purpose.

“Related efforts” is defined for these purposes as one of the following:

Efforts for the same purpose (i.e., the proposed award would supplement, expand,

complement, or continue activities funded with other Federal grants).

Another phase or component of the same program or project (e.g., to implement a planning

effort funded by other Federal funds or to provide a substance abuse treatment or education

component within a criminal justice project).
12

Services of some kind (e.g., technical assistance, research, or evaluation) to the program or

project described in the application.

Delivery Instructions 

All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail

Stop 2K, Rockville, Maryland 20850; 301–519–5535. Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the

envelope, the applicant must clearly write “Training and Technical Assistance for a Drug

Prevention Program.”

Due Date 

Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application package

are received by 5 p.m. ET on February 1, 1999.

Contact

For further information, call Eric Stansbury, Program Manager, Special Emphasis Division, at

202–307–5914, or send an e-mail inquiry to stansbur@ojp.usdoj.gov.

References

Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Bentler, P.M. 1992. Etiologies and consequences of adolescent drug use: Implications for

prevention. Journal of Addictive Diseases 11(3):47–61.

Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., and Botvin, E.M. 1995. Long-term follow-up results of a

randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white-middle-class population. Journal of the

American Medical Association 273(14):1106–1112.

Botvin, G.J. 1995. Drug abuse prevention in school settings. In Drug Abuse Prevention With

MultiEthnic Youth, edited by G.J. Botvin, S. Sckinke, and M. Orlandi. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Bronfenbrenner, U., and Ceci, S.J. 1994. Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental

perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review 101(4):568–586.

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 1998. Blueprints for Violence Prevention,

Book 5: Life Skills Training. Golden, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
13

Cicchetti, D., and Garmezy, N. 1993. Prospects and promises in the study of resiliency.

Development and Psychopathology 5:497–502.

Garmezy, N. 1993. Children in poverty: Resiliency despite risk. Psychiatry 56:127–136.

Glantz, M., and Sloboda, Z. In press. Analysis and reconceptualization of resilience. In Resilience

and Development; Positive Life Adaptations, edited by M. Glantz and J. Johnson. New York,

NY: Plenum Press.

Hawkins, J.D. 1998 (June). Moving to phase five in the prevention cycle: Collaborating with

communities to make prevention science prevention practice. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Park City, UT.

Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Miller, J.Y. 1992. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and

other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse

prevention. Psychological Bulletin 112(1):64–105.

Kandel, D.B., and Yamaguchi, K. In press. Developmental stages of involvement in substance

use. In Sourcebook on Substance Abuse: Etiology, Epidemiology, Assessment, and Treatment,

edited by R.E. Tarter, R.J. Ammerman, and P.J. Ott. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.

Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. 1998. Development of competence in favorable and

unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist

53(2):205–220. 

National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1997. Preventing Drug Use Among Children and Adolescents:

A Research-Based Guide. NIH Publication No. 97–4212. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Pentz, M.A., Cormack, C., Flay, B., Hansen, W.B., and Johnson, C.A. 1986. Balancing program

and research integrity in community drug abuse prevention: Project STAR approach. Journal of

School Health 56(9):389–393.

Pentz, M.A., Dwyer, J.H., MacKinnon, D.P., Flay, B.R., Hansen, W.B., and Johnson, C.A. 1989.

Primary prevention of chronic diseases in adolescence: Effects of the Midwestern Prevention

Project on tobacco use. American Journal of Epidemiology 130(4):713–724.

Pentz, M.A., Trebow, E.A., Hansen, W.B., MacKinnon, D.P., Dwyer, J.H., Johnson, C.A., Flay,

B.R., Daniels, S., and Cormack, C. 1990. Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug

use behavior: The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Evaluation Review 14:264–289.

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. 1997 (December 18). Drug use among

American teens shows some signs of leveling after a long rise. Press release. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.
14

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1997 (December 20). Drug use survey shows

mixed results for nation’s youth: Use among younger adolescents appears to be slowing. Press

release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Werner, E.E. 1995. Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science

4(3):81–85.
15

Appendix

Applicants should contact The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of

Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 442, Boulder, Colorado

80309–0442; 303–492–8465, to obtain copies of the Life Skills Training Blueprint. The cost is

$10. 

Following is a brief description of the LST model, summarized from Blueprints for Violence

Prevention, Book 5: Life Skills Training.

The Life Skills Training Program

The LST program is a primary prevention program that targets individuals who have not yet

developed drug abuse problems. The goal of the program is to prevent gateway substance use

among adolescents by making an impact on risk factors associated with tobacco, alcohol, and

marijuana use, particularly occasional and experimental use. This goal is accomplished by

providing adolescents with the knowledge and skills to:

Resist peer and media pressure to smoke, drink, or use drugs.

Develop a positive self-image.

Make decisions and solve problems on their own.

Manage anxiety.

Communicate effectively and avoid misunderstandings.

Build healthy relationships.

Handle social situations with confidence. 

The LST program is a school-based intervention designed to be implemented in the classroom.

This intervention often is referred to as a universal intervention in that it is designed for all

individuals in a given setting. The program was developed to have an impact on drug-related

knowledge, attitudes, and norms; teach skills for resisting social influences to use drugs; and

promote the development of general personal self-management skills and social skills. The LST

prevention program comprises three major components. The first component is designed to teach

students a set of general self-management skills. The second component focuses on teaching

general social skills. The third component includes information and skills that are specifically

related to the problem of gateway substance use. The first two components are designed to

enhance overall personal competence and decrease the motivation to use drugs and vulnerability

to social influences. The problem-specific component is designed to provide students with

material that relates directly to drug use (drug resistance skills, antidrug attitudes, and antidrug

norms). Skills are taught using training techniques such as instruction, demonstration, feedback,

reinforcement, and practice. In school districts that have a middle school structure, the program is

implemented with sixth, seventh, and eighth graders. Where there is a junior high school structure,

the program is implemented with seventh, eighth, and ninth graders. 
16

The LST prevention program is a 3-year intervention designed to prevent or reduce gateway drug

use. The program comprises 15 sessions in year 1, 10 booster sessions in year 2, and 5 booster

sessions in year 3. The most natural and logical provider for a school-based prevention program is

a regular classroom teacher. In addition to their availability, teachers are a logical choice because

of their teaching experience and classroom management skills. Selection of program providers

should be based on their interest, experience, enthusiasm, and commitment to drug abuse

prevention; the extent to which they will be positive role models; and their willingness to attend

the training workshop and implement the intervention carefully and completely according to the

provider’s guide. 

The LST program provides project personnel 1- or 2-day initial training on the curriculum. This

training is designed to familiarize intervention providers with the prevention program, its

rationale, and the results of prior studies and to provide them with the opportunity to learn and

practice the skills needed to successfully implement the program. Onsite and telephone technical

assistance also are available to school personnel implementing the program in the respective

project sites. In addition, LST provides booster training sessions during the second and third

years. 

There are two ways to implement LST in the classroom. The program can be scheduled so that it

is taught at a rate of one class per week, or it can be programmed as a curriculum module or

minicourse so that the entire program is conducted on consecutive class days. LST is a prescribed

prevention program but has some implementation flexibility. It can be implemented in a number of

different curriculum slots such as health education or drug education, if available, or through a

major subject area such as science or social studies. Generally, it is implemented in a single subject

area and taught by one teacher. However, some schools have implemented the program through

more than one subject area where students are being taught by a team of teachers.

Individual or district-level school sites may implement the school-based program, which is

designed to serve between 330 and 1,000 students in the school/district population who enter the

program over a 3-year period in groups of equal size.

LST is based on an understanding of the causes of gateway substance use. LST interventions are

designed to target the psychosocial factors associated with the onset of drug involvement. The

initiation of drug use is the result of a complex combination of diverse factors; there is no single

pathway or single variable that serves as a necessary and sufficient condition for initiating drug

use. The LST approach to drug abuse prevention is based on an interactive model of drug abuse;

drug abuse is thought of as resulting from a dynamic interaction of an individual and his or her

environment. Social influences to use drugs (along with the availability of drugs) interact with

individual vulnerability. Some individuals may be influenced to use drugs by the media (television

and movies that glamorize drug use or suggest that drug use is normal or socially acceptable and

advertising efforts that promote the sale of alcohol and tobacco products), family members who

use drugs or convey prodrug attitudes, and friends or acquaintances who use drugs or hold

attitudes and beliefs supportive of drug use. Others may be propelled toward drug use or a drugusing peer group because of intrapersonal factors such as low self-esteem, high anxiety, other

negative feelings, or the desire for excitement.
17

The program focuses on drug-related expectancies (knowledge, attitudes, and norms), drugrelated resistance skills, and general competence (personal self-management skills and social

skills). Increasing prevention-related drug knowledge and resistance skills can provide adolescents

with the information and skills needed to develop antidrug attitudes and norms and to resist peer

and media pressure to use drugs. Teaching effective self-management and social skills (improving

personal and social competence) can produce an impact on a set of psychological factors

associated with decreased drug abuse risk (by reducing intrapersonal motivations to use drugs and

by reducing vulnerability to prodrug social influences).

Examples of the types of personal and social skills typically included in this prevention approach

are decisionmaking and problem-solving skills, cognitive skills for resisting interpersonal and

media influences, goal setting and self-directed, behavior-change techniques, adaptive coping

strategies for dealing with stress and anxiety, general social skills, and general assertiveness skills.

This prevention approach teaches both these general skills and their application to situations

related directly to tobacco, alcohol, or drug use. Building knowledge and skills in these areas can

provide adolescents with the resources they need to resist peer and media pressures to use drugs

and aid in developing a school climate in which drug use is not acceptable. 

More than one-and-a-half decades of research with the LST program have consistently shown

that it can cut drug use in half. These reductions (relative to controls) in both the prevalence (i.e.,

proportion of persons in a population who have reported some involvement in a particular

offense) and incidence (i.e., the number of offenses that occur in a given population during a

specified time interval) of drug use have been reported primarily in tobacco, alcohol, and

marijuana use. These studies have demonstrated that this prevention approach can produce

reductions in drug use that are long lasting and clinically meaningful. For example, long-term

followup data indicate that reductions in drug use by seventh graders can last up to the end of

high school. Evaluation research has demonstrated that this prevention approach is effective with

a broad range of students including white middle-class youth and poor, inner-city minority

(African-American and Hispanic) youth. Not only has this approach demonstrated reductions in 

alcohol and marijuana use of up to 80 percent, but evaluation studies have shown that LST also

can reduce more serious forms of drug involvement such as the weekly use of multiple drugs or

the prevalence of heavy smoking (a pack a day), heavy drinking, and episodes of drunkenness.
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a variety of publications—

Fact Sheets, Bulletins, Summaries, Reports,

and the Juvenile Justice journal—along with

videotapes, including broadcasts from the juvenile justice telecommunications initiative.

Through OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC), these publications and other resources are as close as your phone, fax,

computer, or mailbox.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7:00 p.m. ET)

Fax:

301–519–5212

Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm

E-Mail:

puborder@ncjrs.org (to order materials)

askncjrs@ncjrs.org (to ask questions

about materials)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Fact Sheets and Bulletins are also available

through Fax-on-Demand.

Fax-on-Demand:

800–638–8736, select option 1, select option 2,

and listen for instructions

To ensure timely notice of new publications,

subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic

mailing list.

JUVJUST Mailing List:

e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

leave the subject line blank

type subscribe juvjust your name

In addition, JJC, through the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is the

repository for tens of thousands of criminal and

juvenile justice publications and resources from

around the world. They are abstracted and

made available through a data base, which is

searchable online (www.ncjrs.org/

database.htm). You are also welcome to submit

materials to JJC for inclusion in the data base.

The following list highlights popular and recently published OJJDP documents and videotapes, grouped by topical areas.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Brochure (1996, NCJ 144527 (23

pp.)) offers more information about the agency.

The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers

a complete list of OJJDP publications and is

also available online.

OJJDP sponsors a teleconference initiative,

and a flyer (LT 116) offers a complete list of

videos available from these broadcasts.

Corrections and Detention

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of

Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998,

NCJ 164727 (116 pp.).

Boot Camps for Juvenile Offenders. 1997,

NCJ 164258 (42 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 1996. 1997, NCJ 167578

(12 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1995. 1998,

NCJ 170607 (112 pp.).

Courts

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1995. 1997,

NCJ 167885 (12 pp.).

RESTTA National Directory of Restitution

and Community Service Programs. 1998,

NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50.

Youth Courts: A National Movement Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171149 (120 min.),

$17.00.

Delinquency Prevention

1997 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention

Programs. 1998, NCJ 170605 (71 pp.).

Allegheny County, PA: Mobilizing To Reduce

Juvenile Crime. 1997, NCJ 165693 (12 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report).

1996, NCJ 157106 (200 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Summary). 1996, NCJ 157105 (36 pp.).

Mentoring—A Proven Delinquency Prevention

Strategy. 1997, NCJ 164834 (8 pp.).

Mentoring for Youth in Schools and Communities Teleconference (Video). 1997, NCJ 166376

(120 min.), $17.00

Mobilizing Communities To Prevent Juvenile

Crime. 1997, NCJ 165928 (8 pp.).

Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Education

Mainstream. 1997, NCJ 163920 (12 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 1998,

NCJ 170027 (8 pp.).

Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth:

The MST Approach. 1997, NCJ 165151 (8 pp.).

The Youngest Delinquents: Offenders Under

Age 15. 1997, NCJ 165256 (12 pp.).

Gangs

Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior. 1997,

NCJ 165154 (6 pp.).

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249

(20 pp.).

Youth Gangs in America Teleconference

(Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17.00.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State

Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998,

NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17.00.

Developmental Pathways in Boys’ Disruptive

and Delinquent Behavior. 1997, NCJ 165692

(20 pp.).

Exciting Internships: Work Today for a Better

Tomorrow. 1998, NCJ 171696 (6 pp.).

Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working With Children, the Elderly, and Individuals

With Disabilities in Need of Support. 1998,

NCJ 167248 (52 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume III, Number 2. 1997,

NCJ 165925 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume IV, Number 2. 1997,

NCJ 166823 (28 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume V, Number 1. 1998,

NCJ 170025 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Justice Reform Initiatives in the States

1994–1996. 1997, NCJ 165697 (81 pp.).

A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century.

1998, NCJ 169726 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update

on Violence. 1997, NCJ 165703 (32 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National

Report. 1995, NCJ 153569 (188 pp.).

Keeping Young People in School: Community

Programs That Work. 1997, NCJ 162783

(12 pp.).

Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act and

Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs.

1997, NCJ 163705 (52 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Court Appointed Special Advocates: A Voice

for Abused and Neglected Children in Court.

1997, NCJ 164512 (4 pp.).

Federal Resources on Missing and Exploited

Children: A Directory for Law Enforcement and

Other Public and Private Agencies. 1997,

NCJ 168962 (156 pp.).

In the Wake of Childhood Maltreatment. 1997,

NCJ 165257 (16 pp.).

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse:

An Overview. 1997, NCJ 165153 (8 pp.).

Protecting Children Online Teleconference

(Video). 1998, NCJ 170023 (120 min.), $17.00.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.).

Substance Abuse

Beyond the Bench: How Judges Can Help Reduce Juvenile DUI and Alcohol and Other Drug

Violations (Video and discussion guide). 1996,

NCJ 162357 (16 min.), $17.00.

Capacity Building for Juvenile Substance

Abuse Treatment. 1997, NCJ 167251 (12 pp.).

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998,

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile

Justice System. 1998, NCJ 167889 (92 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Drug Treatment:

Promising Approaches Teleconference (Video).

1997, NCJ 168617 (120 min.), $17.00.

Preventing Drug Abuse Among Youth Teleconference (Video). 1997, NCJ 165583 (120 min.),

$17.00.

Violence and Victimization

Child Development–Community Policing:

Partnership in a Climate of Violence. 1997,

NCJ 164380 (8 pp.).

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in

Schools. 1998, NCJ 167888 (16 pp.).

Epidemiology of Serious Violence. 1997,

NCJ 165152 (12 pp.).

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153681

(255 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk

Factors and Successful Interventions Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171286 (120 min.),

$17.00.

State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile

Crime: 1996–97 Update. 1998, NCJ 172835

(16 pp.).

White House Conference on School Safety:

Causes and Prevention of Youth Violence

Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 173399

(240 min.), $17.00.

Youth in Action

Planning a Successful Crime Prevention

Project. 1998, NCJ 170024 (28 pp.).
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

SL 000274