PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001

DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT

PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION

115 STAT. 814 PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001

Public Law 107–82

107th Congress

An Act

To extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program for

an additional 5 years, to authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition

Institute, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the United

States will grow by 21 percent, adding 6,500,000 youth to

the population of the United States. Even if drug use rates

remain constant, there will be a huge surge in drug-related

problems, such as academic failure, drug-related violence, and

HIV incidence, simply due to this population increase.

(2) According to the 1994–1996 National Household Survey,

60 percent of students age 12 to 17 who frequently cut classes

and who reported delinquent behavior in the past 6 months

used marijuana 52 days or more in the previous year.

(3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey conducted

by the University of Washington reported that students whose

peers have little or no involvement with drinking and drugs

have higher math and reading scores than students whose

peers had low level drinking or drug use.

(4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10

percent of teens saw marijuana users as popular, compared

to 17 percent in 1998 and 19 percent in 1997. The rate of

past-month use of any drug among 12- to 17-year-olds declined

26 percent between 1997 and 1999. Marijuana use for sixth

through eighth graders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as

is use of cocaine, inhalants, and hallucinogens.

(5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United

States are successfully developing and implementing comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse

among youth on a sustained basis. For example:

(A) The Boston Coalition brought college and university

presidents together to create the Cooperative Agreement

on Underage Drinking. This agreement represents the first

coordinated effort of Boston’s many institutions of higher

education to address issues such as binge drinking, underage drinking, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol

abuse that exist on college and university campuses.

(B) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater

Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local students in

21 USC 1521

note.

Dec. 14, 2001

[H.R. 2291]

PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001 115 STAT. 815

grades 7 through 12. The results provided evidence that

the Coalition’s initiatives are working. For the first time

in a decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati appears

to be leveling off. The data collected from the survey has

served as a tool to strengthen relationships between schools

and communities, as well as facilitate the growth of antidrug coalitions in communities where such coalitions had

not existed.

(C) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strategy

to decrease the percentage of high school seniors who

reported using marijuana at least once during the most

recent 30-day period. The development of a media strategy,

the creation of a network of prevention agencies, and

discussions with high school students about the dangers

of marijuana all contributed to a decrease in the percentage

of seniors who reported using marijuana from over 22

percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 1997. The Miami Coalition

was able to achieve these results while national rates of

marijuana use were increasing.

(D) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with

elementary and middle school children in an attempt to

influence them toward positive life goals and discourage

them from using substances. The Partnership targeted an

area in East Nashville and created after school programs,

mentoring opportunities, attendance initiatives, and safe

passages to and from school. Attendance and test scores

increased as a result of the program.

(E) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the

Bering Strait Community Partnership in Nome, Alaska,

youth identified a need for a safe, substance-free space.

With help from a variety of community partners, the Partnership staff and youth members created the Java Hut,

a substance-free coffeehouse designed for youth. The Java

Hut is helping to change norms in the community by providing a fun, youth-friendly atmosphere and activities that

are not centered around alcohol or marijuana.

(F) Portland’s Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) has promoted the establishment of drug-free workplaces among

the city’s large and small employers. Over 3,000 employers

have attended an RDI training session, and of those, 92

percent have instituted drug-free workplace policies. As

a result, there has been a 5.5 percent decrease in positive

workplace drug tests.

(G) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to increase

the age at which youth first used illegal substances.

Research suggests that the later the age of first use, the

lower the risk that a young person will become a regular

substance abuser. As a result, the age of first illegal drug

use increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in

1997.

(H) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend

of increased alcohol use by teenagers in the Troy community. Using its ‘‘multiple strategies over multiple sectors’’

approach, the Troy Coalition worked with parents, physicians, students, coaches, and others to address this problem

from several angles. As a result, the rate of twelfth grade

students who had consumed alcohol in the past month

115 STAT. 816 PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001

decreased from 62.1 percent to 53.3 percent between 1991

and 1998, and the rate of eighth grade students decreased

from 26.3 percent to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition

believes that this decline represents not only a change

in behavior on the part of students, but also a change

in the norms of the community.

(6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a

serious problem facing communities across the United States.

For example:

(A) According to the Pulse Check: Trends in Drug

Abuse Mid-Year 2000 report—

(i) crack and powder cocaine remains the most

serious drug problem;

(ii) marijuana remains the most widely available

illicit drug, and its potency is on the rise;

(iii) treatment sources report an increase in admissions with marijuana as the primary drug of abuse—

and adolescents outnumber other age groups entering

treatment for marijuana;

(iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources reported

increased availability of club drugs, with ecstasy

(MDMA) and ketamine the most widely cited club

drugs and seven sources reporting that powder cocaine

is being used as a club drug by young adults;

(v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is expanding, no

longer confined to the ‘‘rave’’ scene;

(vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown

from nightclubs and raves to high schools, the streets,

neighborhoods, open venues, and younger ages;

(vii) ecstasy users often are unknowingly purchasing adulterated tablets or some other substance

sold as MDMA; and

(viii) along with reports of increased heroin

snorting as a route of administration for initiates, there

is also an increase in injecting initiates and the negative health consequences associated with injection (for

example, increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C) suggesting that there is a generational forgetting of the

dangers of injection of the drug.

(B) The 2000 Parent’s Resource Institute for Drug Education study reported that 23.6 percent of children in the

sixth through twelfth grades used illicit drugs in the past

year. The same study found that monthly usage among

this group was 15.3 percent.

(C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future study,

the use of ecstasy among eighth graders increased from

1.7 percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in 2000, among tenth

graders from 4.4 percent to 5.4 percent, and from 5.6 percent to 8.2 percent among twelfth graders.

(D) A 1999 Mellman Group study found that—

(i) 56 percent of the population in the United

States believed that drug use was increasing in 1999;

(ii) 92 percent of the population viewed illegal

drug use as a serious problem in the United States;

and

(iii) 73 percent of the population viewed illegal

drug use as a serious problem in their communities.

PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001 115 STAT. 817

(7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center

on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University

entitled ‘‘Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on

State Budgets’’, using the most conservative assumption, in

1998 States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage

of substance abuse, only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat

the problem and $433,000,000 for alcohol and tobacco regulation

and compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was distributed

as follows:

(A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 percent

of justice spending).

(B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of

education spending).

(C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of

health spending).

(D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32

percent of child and family assistance spending).

(E) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and developmental

disabilities (31 percent of mental health spending).

(F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of public

safety spending) and $400,000,000 for the state workforce.

(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination

through national, State, and local or tribal leadership and

partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of substance

abuse among youth in communities across the United States.

(9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem

nationally than at the community level. According to a 2001

study sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts, between 1994

and 2000—

(A) there was a 43 percent increase in the percentage

of Americans who felt progress was being made in the

war on drugs at the community level;

(B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is

a ‘‘crisis’’ in their neighborhood, compared to 27 percent

who say this about the nation; and

(C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground

in the war on drugs on a community level fell by more

than a quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to 37 percent

in 2000.

(b) EXTENSION AND INCREASE OF PROGRAM.—Section 1024(a)

of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1524(a))

is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (4); and

(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following

new paragraphs:

‘‘(5) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;

‘‘(6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;

‘‘(7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;

‘‘(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;

‘‘(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and

‘‘(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.’’.

(c) EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Section 1024(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1524(b)) is amended by striking

paragraph (5) and inserting the following new paragraph (5):

‘‘(5) 6 percent for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007.’’.

115 STAT. 818 PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001

(d) ADDITIONAL GRANTS.—Section 1032(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C.

1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph (3):

‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL GRANTS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (F), the

Administrator may award an additional grant under this

paragraph to an eligible coalition awarded a grant under

paragraph (1) or (2) for any first fiscal year after the

end of the 4-year period following the period of the initial

grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be.

‘‘(B) SCOPE OF GRANTS.—A coalition awarded a grant

under paragraph (1) or (2), including a renewal grant under

such paragraph, may not be awarded another grant under

such paragraph, and is eligible for an additional grant

under this section only under this paragraph.

‘‘(C) NO PRIORITY FOR APPLICATIONS.—The Administrator may not afford a higher priority in the award of

an additional grant under this paragraph than the

Administrator would afford the applicant for the grant

if the applicant were submitting an application for an

initial grant under paragraph (1) or (2) rather than an

application for a grant under this paragraph.

‘‘(D) RENEWAL GRANTS.—Subject to subparagraph (F),

the Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant

recipient under this paragraph for each of the fiscal years

of the 4-fiscal-year period following the fiscal year for which

the initial additional grant under subparagraph (A) is

awarded in an amount not to exceed amounts as follows:

‘‘(i) For the first and second fiscal years of that

4-fiscal-year period, the amount equal to 80 percent

of the non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions, raised by the coalition for the applicable fiscal

year.

‘‘(ii) For the third and fourth fiscal years of that

4-fiscal-year period, the amount equal to 67 percent

of the non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions, raised by the coalition for the applicable fiscal

year.

‘‘(E) SUSPENSION.—If a grant recipient under this paragraph fails to continue to meet the criteria specified in

subsection (a), the Administrator may suspend the grant,

after providing written notice to the grant recipient and

an opportunity to appeal.

‘‘(F) LIMITATION.—The amount of a grant award under

this paragraph may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal year.’’.

(e) DATA COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION.—Section 1033(b) of

that Act (21 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end

the following new paragraph:

‘‘(3) CONSULTATION.—The Administrator shall carry out

activities under this subsection in consultation with the

Advisory Commission and the National Community Antidrug

Coalition Institute.’’.

(f) LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR EVALUATION

OF PROGRAM.—Section 1033(b) of that Act, as amended by subsection (e) of this section, is further amended by adding at the

end the following new paragraph:

PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001 115 STAT. 819

‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR EVALUATION

OF PROGRAM.—Amounts for activities under paragraph (2)(B)

may not be derived from amounts under section 1024(a) except

for amounts that are available under section 1024(b) for

administrative costs.’’. (g) TREATMENT OF FUNDS FOR COALITIONS REPRESENTING CER- TAIN ORGANIZATIONS.—Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1532)

is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF FUNDS FOR COALITIONS REPRESENTING CER- TAIN ORGANIZATIONS.—Funds appropriated for the substance abuse

activities of a coalition that includes a representative of the Bureau

of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal government

agency with expertise in the field of substance abuse may be counted

as non-Federal funds raised by the coalition for purposes of this

section.’’. (h) PRIORITY IN AWARDING GRANTS.—Section 1032 of that Act

(21 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended by adding at the end the

following new subsection: ‘‘(d) PRIORITY IN AWARDING GRANTS.—In awarding grants under

subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), priority shall be given to a coalition serving

economically disadvantaged areas.’’.

SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES UNDER DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM.

Subchapter I of chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership

Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is amended by adding at

the end the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 1035. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING

ACTIVITIES.

‘‘(a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS.—As part of the program

established under section 1031, the Director may award an initial

grant under this subsection, and renewal grants under subsection

(f), to any coalition awarded a grant under section 1032 that meets

the criteria specified in subsection (d) in order to fund coalition

mentoring activities by such coalition in support of the program. ‘‘(b) TREATMENT WITH OTHER GRANTS.— ‘‘(1) SUPPLEMENT.—A grant awarded to a coalition under

this section is in addition to any grant awarded to the coalition

under section 1032. ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT FOR BASIC GRANT.—A coalition may not

be awarded a grant under this section for a fiscal year unless

the coalition was awarded a grant or renewal grant under

section 1032(b) for that fiscal year.

‘‘(c) APPLICATION.—A coalition seeking a grant under this section shall submit to the Administrator an application for the grant

in such form and manner as the Administrator may require.

‘‘(d) CRITERIA.—A coalition meets the criteria specified in this

subsection if the coalition—

‘‘(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;

‘‘(2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts, measurable

results in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse

among youth;

‘‘(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors for

persons seeking to start or expand the activities of other coalitions in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse;

21 USC 1535.

115 STAT. 820 PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001

‘‘(4) has demonstrable support from some members of the

community in which the coalition mentoring activities to be

supported by the grant under this section are to be carried

out; and

‘‘(5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for the

coalition mentoring activities to be supported by the grant

under this section.

‘‘(e) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—A coalition awarded a grant under

this section shall use the grant amount for mentoring activities

to support and encourage the development of new, self-supporting

community coalitions that are focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse in such new coalitions’ communities. The

mentoring coalition shall encourage such development in accordance

with the plan submitted by the mentoring coalition under subsection

(d)(5).

‘‘(f) RENEWAL GRANTS.—The Administrator may make a

renewal grant to any coalition awarded a grant under subsection

(a), or a previous renewal grant under this subsection, if the coalition, at the time of application for such renewal grant—

‘‘(1) continues to meet the criteria specified in subsection

(d); and

‘‘(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development

of one or more new, self-supporting community coalitions that

are focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.

‘‘(g) GRANT AMOUNTS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the

total amount of grants awarded to a coalition under this section

for a fiscal year may not exceed the amount of non-Federal

funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind contributions,

for that fiscal year. Funds appropriated for the substance abuse

activities of a coalition that includes a representative of the

Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal

government agency with expertise in the field of substance

abuse may be counted as non-Federal funds raised by the

coalition.

‘‘(2) INITIAL GRANTS.—The amount of the initial grant

awarded to a coalition under subsection (a) may not exceed

$75,000.

‘‘(3) RENEWAL GRANTS.—The total amount of renewal grants

awarded to a coalition under subsection (f) for any fiscal year

may not exceed $75,000.

‘‘(h) FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION ON AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR

GRANTS.—The total amount available for grants under this section,

including renewal grants under subsection (f), in any fiscal year

may not exceed the amount equal to five percent of the amount

authorized to be appropriated by section 1024(a) for that fiscal

year.

‘‘(i) PRIORITY IN AWARDING INITIAL GRANTS.—In awarding initial grants under this section, priority shall be given to a coalition

that expressly proposes to provide mentorship to a coalition or

aspiring coalition serving economically disadvantaged areas.’’.

SEC. 3. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DRUGFREE COMMUNITIES.

Section 1048 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988

(21 U.S.C. 1548) is amended by striking ‘‘2002’’ and inserting ‘‘2007’’.

PUBLIC LAW 107–82—DEC. 14, 2001 115 STAT. 821

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2291:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–175, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Government Reform).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 147 (2001):

Sept. 5, considered and passed House.

Nov. 29, considered and passed Senate.

WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 37 (2001):

Dec. 14, Presidential remarks.

Æ

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTIDRUG

COALITION INSTITUTE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Office of National Drug

Control Policy may, using amounts authorized to be appropriated

by subsection (d), make a grant to an eligible organization to

provide for the establishment of a National Community Antidrug

Coalition Institute.

(b) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.—An organization eligible for the

grant under subsection (a) is any national nonprofit organization

that represents, provides technical assistance and training to, and

has special expertise and broad, national-level experience in community antidrug coalitions under section 1032 of the National Narcotics

Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532).

(c) USE OF GRANT AMOUNT.—The organization receiving the

grant under subsection (a) shall establish a National Community

Antidrug Coalition Institute to—

(1) provide education, training, and technical assistance

for coalition leaders and community teams, with emphasis on

the development of coalitions serving economically disadvantaged areas;

(2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms,

and measures to better assess and document coalition performance measures and outcomes; and

(3) bridge the gap between research and practice by translating knowledge from research into practical information.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized

to be appropriated for purposes of activities under this section,

including the grant under subsection (a), amounts as follows:

(1) For each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $2,000,000.

(2) For each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $1,000,000.

(3) For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $750,000.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.

The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy

shall ensure that the same or similar activities are not carried

out, through the use of funds for administrative costs provided

under subchapter II of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of

1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.) or funds provided under section

4 of this Act, by more than one recipient of such funds.

Approved December 14, 2001.

21 USC 1521

note.

21 USC 1521

note.