U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

24–605 PDF 2005

COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINES THROUGH

PREVENTION AND EDUCATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

November 17, 2005

Serial No. 109-28

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice Chairman 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Sam Johnson, Texas 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Charlie Norwood, Georgia 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Jon C. Porter, Nevada 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Bob Inglis, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thelma D. Drake, Virginia 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

George Miller, California 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Major R. Owens, New York 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland 

Tim Ryan, Ohio 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

John Barrow, Georgia

Paula Nowakowski, Staff Director 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman

Tom Osborne, Nebraska, Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

John A. Boehner, Ohio, ex officio 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Susan A. Davis, California 

George Miller, California, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on November 17, 2005 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Castle, Hon. Michael N., Chairman, Subcommittee on Education Reform, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce .............................................. 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Hooley, Hon. Darlene, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 6

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana ...................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cain, Cristi, State Coordinator, Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention 

Project, Topeka, KS ...................................................................................... 46

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48

Denniston, Robert, Director, National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, 

Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, on behalf of Hon. Mary Ann Solberg, Deputy Director, Office 

of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President ......... 23

Prepared statement of Ms. Solberg .......................................................... 25

Icenogle, Hon. John, District Court Judge, 9th Judicial District of Nebraska, Buffalo County, NE ......................................................................... 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31

Spoth, Dr. Richard, PhD, Director, Partnerships in Prevention Science 

Institute, Iowa State University, Ames, IA ................................................ 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 35

(1)

COMBATING METHAMPHETAMINES THROUGH 

PREVENTION AND EDUCATION 

Thursday, November 17, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Education Reform 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael N. Castle 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Castle, Osborne, Souder, 

Musgrave, Davis of Illinois, Grijalva, and Hinojosa. 

Staff present: Richard Hoar, Professional Staff Member; Lucy 

House, Legislative Assistant; Kimberly Ketchel, Communications 

Staff Assistant; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of Education and 

Human Resources Policy; Whitney Rhoades, Professional Staff 

Member; Deborah L. Emerson Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern 

Coordinator; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel; Toyin Alli, 

Staff Assistant/Education; Lloyd Horwich, Legislative Associate/

Education; Ricardo Martinez, Legislative Associate/Education; Joe 

Novotny, Legislative Assistant/Education. 

Chairman CASTLE. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee 

on Education Reform will come to order. 

We are meeting today to hear testimony on combating 

methamphetamines through prevention and education. 

Under Committee Rule 12(b), opening statements are limited to 

the chairman and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, who is Mr. Grijalva today. Therefore, if other members 

have statements, they may be included in the hearing record. 

With that, I ask unanimous consent that the hearing record remain open 14 days so that all member statements and other exchanges of material referenced during the hearing could be submitted in the official hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Thank you for joining us today to hear testimony on methamphetamine prevention and education. We welcome the testimony 

of our witnesses as we seek to understand the nature of the meth 

problem in this country as well as some of the ongoing prevention 

and education efforts employed by local areas, states and the Federal Government that have been effective in combating the production and use of this dangerous drug. 

2

We thank you, the panelists—panelist, singular, right now—for 

joining us today and appreciate your thoughts. 

Methamphetamine, also known as meth, is one of the most powerful and dangerous stimulants available. It is fairly easy to 

produce because it can be created from common household or agricultural chemicals and cold medicines like ephedrine and 

pseudoephedrine. 

According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIDA, meth 

is a powerfully addictive stimulant associated with serious health 

conditions, including memory loss, aggression, violence, psychotic 

behavior and potential heart and neurological damage. 

Meth abuse was once considered a regional problem concentrated 

mainly in southern and central California. Although this drug was 

once dominant in the west, it is now spreading throughout other 

regions of the country and emerging in cities and rural settings 

thought previously to be unaffected by the drug. 

According to the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 

12.3 million Americans aged 12 and older have tried methamphetamine at least once in their lifetimes. 

Meth production and abuse affect more than just the adults directly involved with this drug. Many children are being neglected 

by their addicted parents. The children who are removed from 

meth homes are often sick, and many wind up in foster homes. 

The number of foster care children has been rising rapidly in 

states that have been hit by the meth program. As these children 

are moved around in the social service system, their parents may 

be in jail, awaiting treatment or not seeking treatment. 

Children who are the victims of the methamphetamine epidemic 

are presenting many unique challenges to schools, social service 

workers, foster parents, counselors and adoption workers. 

The Federal Government has recognized the importance that 

drug prevention and education efforts play in our communities. 

Prevention is also the most cost-effective approach to the drug 

problem, sparing society the cost of treatment, rehabilitation, lost 

productivity and other sociopathologies. 

The administration oversees a number of prevention programs 

including through the Office of National Drug Control Policy and 

the Drug Enforcement Administration. Additionally, the Department of Education administers the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities program, which is the Federal Government’s major 

initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around 

schools. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about drug prevention strategies that have been successful locally and nationally and 

where additional education and prevention efforts should focus. 

Before yielding to Mr. Grijalva, I want to announce that unfortunately, because of my schedule, I am not going to be able to stay 

for the remainder of the hearing, so the vice chair of this subcommittee, Mr. Osborne, will now take over. 

And at this time, I yield to Mr. Grijalva for whatever opening 

statement he wishes to make. 

[The opening statement of Mr. Castle follows:]

3

Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Delaware

Good morning. Thank you for joining us today to hear testimony on methamphetamine prevention and education. We welcome the testimony of our witnesses as we 

seek to understand the nature of the meth problem in this country as well as some 

of the ongoing prevention and education efforts employed by local areas, states, and 

the federal government that have been effective in combating the production and 

use of this dangerous drug. We thank you, the panelists, for joining us today and 

appreciate your insights. 

Methamphetamine, also known as ‘‘meth,’’ is one of the most powerful and dangerous stimulants available. It is fairly easy to produce because it can be created 

from common household or agricultural chemicals and cold medicines like ephedrine 

and pseudoephedrine. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), 

meth is ‘‘a powerfully addictive stimulant associated with serious health conditions, 

including memory loss, aggression, violence, psychotic behavior, and potential heart 

and neurological damage.’’

Meth abuse was once considered a regional problem, concentrated mainly in 

southern and central California. Although this drug was once dominant in the West, 

it is now spreading throughout other regions of the country and emerging in cities 

and rural settings thought previously to be unaffected by the drug. According to the 

2003 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 12.3 million Americans age 12 and 

older had tried methamphetamine at least once in their lifetimes. 

Meth production and abuse affect more than just the adults directly involved with 

the drug. Many children are being neglected by their addicted parents. The children 

who are removed from meth homes are often sick and many wind up in foster 

homes. The number of foster care children has been rising rapidly in states that 

have been hit by the meth problem. As these children are moved around in the social service system, their parents may be in jail, awaiting treatment, or not seeking 

treatment. Children who are the victims of the methamphetamine epidemic are presenting many unique challenges to schools, social service workers, foster parents, 

counselors, and adoption workers. 

The federal government has recognized the importance that drug prevention and 

education efforts play in our communities. Prevention is also the most cost-effective 

approach to the drug problem, sparing society the burden of treatment, rehabilitation, lost productivity, and other social pathologies. The Administration oversees a 

number of prevention programs, including through the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Additionally, the Department 

of Education administers the Safe and Drug–Free Schools and Communities program, which is the federal government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse and 

violence in and around schools. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about drug prevention strategies 

that have been successful locally and nationally and where additional education and 

prevention efforts should focus. I will now yield to Congressman Grijalva for any 

opening statement he may have. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for holding this very important meeting. 

Ranking Member Woolsey asked me to apologize on her behalf, 

but a critical last-minute schedule change will prevent her from attending this hearing. 

Meth is a growing and dangerous national problem of epidemic 

proportions in some areas. No longer confined to the Southwest and 

the West Coast, its use is now also transcending social classes and 

gender. There is no common denominator in categorizing a meth 

user. It could be your neighbor, a family member, a teenager, a 

mom. 

What is common about this drug, however, is that it takes lives 

and ruins communities. Meth abuse affects the very fabric of communities nationwide. Just as meth abuse dangerously impacts communities, it is also best combated by a unified community effort involving parents, schools, retailers, law enforcement, health profesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
4

sionals, social service providers, treatment providers, and many, 

many others. 

We are here today to discuss how Congress can play an integral 

role in this community in combating meth abuse through prevention and education. In recent years, Congress and the states have 

taken a hard-nosed approach focusing on restricting precursor materials and levying increased penalties and mandatory minimums. 

My own state has followed suit. The Arizona state legislature recently passed a law which limits the sale of precursor-like products. 

But my hometown, Tucson, ravaged by meth use in recent years, 

has taken it one step further. Tucson passed an ordinance in October which keeps these materials available through over-the-counter 

drugs locked up behind pharmacy counters. 

There is no question that combating meth abuse is one of the 

highest priorities to states and to our country. Arizona faces one 

of the highest overall crime rates in the nation and ranks first in 

the nation in property crime and motor vehicle crime. 

It is estimated that an astounding over 80 percent of property 

theft crimes in Arizona are meth-related. And I think Arizona reflects our national problem. This July, the National Association of 

Counties surveyed 500 law enforcement agencies in 45 states, and 

nearly 60 percent responded that meth was their biggest drug 

problem. 

There is a silver lining, though. Research confirms that as the 

perception of risk associated with a particular drug increases, use 

of that drug decreases. 

One of my constituents, who is a recovering addict, stated if he 

had known the consequences for his health and the things he 

would do under the influence of meth, he would have never tried 

it. This is the message I think we need to bring home. 

While it is obvious to adults that meth is a terrible thing, we 

cannot assume that that is equally obvious to all children and 

young people. 

I am disillusioned, however, by our government funding efforts 

to this end. President Bush himself has stated that prevention is 

a key component of our drug control strategy and agenda. Why, 

then, have appropriators and agencies cut back on funding for prevention efforts? 

In September I received a letter from the Pima Prevention Partnership, an antidrug community coalition in my district, one of the 

very entities which is so successful in bringing together all members of a community to combat methamphetamine use. They informed me that their drug-free communities grant had been terminated on questionable grounds and an appeal process denied. 

But that was not an isolated incident. Sixty-three other coalitions 

were de-funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and 

88 put on a 30-day probation. Both House and Senate appropriations bills cut funding for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and community state grants programs after President Bush proposed eliminating the state grants altogether. 

The budget and appropriations bills we passed are not simply an 

accounting measure. They are a reflection of our values and also 

a reflection of the urgency of the needs that we confront. I do not 

5

think the education appropriations bill that this House will consider reflects on us very well in that regard. 

In closing, I would just like to add that one critical way for Congress to show that meth prevention and education is a priority is 

for us to devote more resources to it. My colleagues and I on this 

committee are committed to seeing that come to pass. 

Today we have a very distinguished and experienced panel of 

witnesses. Our first panel is Representatives Souder and Hooley, 

who are Members of the Congressional Methamphetamine Caucus, 

who have introduced important methamphetamine bills here in 

Congress. Our second panel will provide insight from community, 

agency, research and judicial points of view. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses about their work to promote meth 

prevention and education programs. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OSBORNE. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. 

As a point of personal privilege, I would ask maybe that we take 

a quick look at charts here. I am not going to take more than about 

a minute. And then we will start with our first panel. 

The chairman of the subcommittee mentioned that there had 

been a movement in methamphetamine abuse across the country. 

You see in 1990 there were two states, California and Texas, the 

red states, that had 20 or more meth labs, and the rest of the country was relatively untouched. 

Look at the next picture there, and we see that by 2004 all but 

a handful of states in the northeast had been pretty much inundated by methamphetamine. So that movement is very pronounced. 

I guess the good news: It is driving heroin and cocaine out. The 

bad news: It is more addictive, it is cheaper and it affects more 

people. And it is currently being distributed now by a lot of gangs 

that were originally distributing cocaine. 

The last slide there simply shows what this does. Top left is a 

young woman, I am assuming somewhere in her early 30’s or late 

20’s, and was arrested every year for 10 years. And you can see the 

disintegration. And the bottom left picture is the final picture after 

10 years. It was taken in a morgue. 

And obviously, she had aged many, many years, maybe 40 years, 

50 years, in a 10-year period. And of course, a lot of people do not 

last that long on this drug. So some very graphic instances—recently went into a foster care situation where a young girl was 9 

years old. 

In her first 5 years, she had been in five different foster care situations. At age 5, her father told her no longer wanted anything 

to do with her. He was on meth. And so at age 5—we see kids at 

age 2 and 3 and 4 and, of course, babies affected by this drug. It 

is hugely expensive. 

So having said that, I would like to start with our first panelist. 

Mr. Souder is detained with another vote, and we are privileged to 

have Congresswoman Darlene Hooley here, who has served in the 

5th District of Oregon since 1997, serves on the Financial Services 

Committee, the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Science Committee. 

Representative Hooley has been focused on eradicating methamphetamine in her district in Oregon for a number of years and 

6

has truly been a leader in Congress in this effort, and we really appreciate this. She has recently introduced legislation to mount a 

campaign against meth on the regional, national and international 

levels. 

And so I think you understand the lights and, you know, the procedures, so, Darlene, we are pleased to have you here today and 

we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DARLENE HOOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Ms. HOOLEY. It is my pleasure to be here. Thank you, Chairman 

Osborne and other members of the committee, and thank you for 

all the work that you have done on this issue. It is a scourge, and 

it needs all of our help. 

In my three decades of public service, I do not think I have seen 

a problem as pervasive or damaging as the meth epidemic that is 

sweeping our country. Meth is one of the fastest-growing drug 

problems in the nation. 

Meth is cheap, easy to make, and give addicts an intense, longlasting high, destroys their brain, causes them to abuse and neglect 

their children, and leads to paranoid acts of violence. 

Both Congress and state governments have been taking strong 

steps to address the supply of methamphetamine through precursor 

chemical controls and cracking down on international meth trade. 

While we have focused on enforcement and precursor controls, 

too often we neglect the prevention and treatment piece. We know 

that both prevention and treatment can be very effective, especially 

from a cost standpoint. If we can use prevention programs to keep 

people from using meth and other drugs in the first place, we will 

save the taxpayer money. 

But even more importantly, we can prevent the wreckage that 

comes when meth destroys an addict, harms a community and people around him or her. In fact, in my state, 80 to 90 percent of all 

property crimes are committed by meth addicts. 

I am here today to talk about one innovative drug prevention 

program that has proven highly successful in Oregon. It is called 

the Methamphetamine Awareness Project, or MAP. MAP uses the 

creative energy and abilities of young people to create prevention 

messages through film. 

Participating youth learn from and work with prevention and 

treatment specialists, law enforcement officials, their peers and 

professional film-makers to create public service announcements or 

documentaries intended to reduce teen meth use and raise community awareness about the dangers of meth. 

The first MAP was during the 2002-2003 school year at Oregon’s 

Sheridan High School. The Sheridan students produced a powerful 

16-minute documentary that is now shown in many schools around 

Oregon. 

The program was so successful in the first year that during the 

next school year, Oregon Partnership moved to Newberg High 

School, where the students produced two amazing television commercials that have been broadcast on television stations in Portland and have also garnered national attention from the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

7

The first commercial that I am going to show is one of the ads. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

ANNOUNCER: Do you want to lose weight fast and have all 

your hair and teeth fall out? If so, methamphetamines could be 

right for you. 

FEMALE: Shooting meth has really improved my self-esteem. 

MALE: My teeth draw tons of attention. 

MALE: I get so much done in such little time. 

FEMALE: Look at all my scabs. 

MALE: And I have met all kinds of interesting people. 

ANNOUNCER: You will be amazed at what meth can do for you. 

Meth is not for everyone. Symptoms may include paranoia, hallucinations, loss of senses, skin irritations, loss of brain cells, memory 

loss. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

Ms. HOOLEY. That was produced by the students at Newberg 

High School, and it is currently running on several television stations in Oregon, including Fox 12 in Portland. 

The Methamphetamine Awareness Project continues spreading 

around the state. Last year we helped secure a grant for Lincoln 

County to bring MAP to their schools. For a total of $80,000, four 

schools were able to participate in the program, the end result 

being 12 public service announcements and two short documentaries. 

Five of these broadcast-quality PSAs are now being shown on television stations throughout Oregon as well as having recently been 

sent to other states and Canada. This year the Office of Lincoln 

County Legal Counsel has secured another Federal grant to extend 

MAP to three more Lincoln County schools. 

Here are two of the videos produced by Lincoln County schools 

showing two different tactics that the students chose. 

The first, produced by students at Newport High School, features 

an interview with a former meth addict talking about the personal 

devastation brought about by the use of meth. 

And the final ad, produced by students participating at MAP at 

Toledo High School in Lincoln County, was featured in a recent 

meth story airing on ‘‘ABC World News Tonight.’’

Do you want to show those two? 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

FORMER METH ADDICT: When it comes to methamphetamines, once you start it, you think you are in charge. I guarantee 

you, you think you are in charge the whole time. And then all of 

a sudden, 1 day, you are lost, because before you know it, you are 

so addicted you cannot stop it. 

I hurt people that mean a lot to me. I have nightmares about it. 

All over a bag of chemicals. I will regret the day I touched the 

stuff. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

Ms. HOOLEY. Do you have the next one? There is one last one. 

(VIDEO CLIP) 

Ms. HOOLEY. The students that participated not only learned 

firsthand about the devastation of methamphetamine through research and creation of these advertisements, but they are also providing a service to the community by educating them as well. 

8

When they finished making these ads, they invited the whole 

community to come and see them. And these schools were all rural 

schools. And they had 400 and 500 people show up at night to 

watch these ads that the students made. So not only was it educating the students, but it was educating the community. 

They had an after-school program. They learned some social 

skills. They learned film-making skills. They were given an outlet 

to their creativity. And again, it kept them busy after school. 

But most importantly, the students were educating other students. They know best how to reach their classmates and what 

messages are going to be most effective in keeping them off drugs. 

The Methamphetamine Awareness Project is truly an innovative 

project that ought to be examined closely by Federal drug policy experts and, I think, expanded on a national level. It is not very expensive. Again, it is a great way for students to educate other students that they know best. 

And in fact, what I would love to see is this program go nationwide, and that these are the kinds of ads we use when we show 

the drug ads on television nationwide instead of those that are produced by professional companies. I think students know best how 

to keep other students off the drug. 

I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]

Statement of Hon. Darlene Hooley, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Oregon

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Woolsey. 

In my three decades of public service, I do not think I have seen a problem as 

pervasive or as damaging as the meth epidemic that is sweeping our country. Meth 

is one of the fastest growing drug problems in the nation. Meth is cheap, easy to 

make, and gives addicts an intense, long-lasting high, but it destroys their brains, 

causes them to abuse and neglect their children, and leads to paranoid acts of violence. 

People fighting against drug abuse frequently talk about the concept of the threelegged stool of prevention, treatment, and enforcement. Just like a stool, our efforts 

to fight drug abuse will collapse if we try to stand on just one or two legs. All three 

legs of our anti-drug strategy must be strong if we are going to be successful. 

Another way to think about drug policy is to talk like an economist about supply 

and demand. We fight against drug supply through law enforcement efforts against 

drug dealers and by choking off the supply of precursor chemicals. We work to reduce demand through our prevention and treatment programs. And you have to reduce both supply and demand in order to make a dent in our meth epidemic. 

Both Congress and state governments throughout the country have been taking 

strong steps to address the supply of methamphetamine through precursor chemical 

controls and cracking down on the international meth trade. While we have effectively focused on enforcement and precursor controls, too often we neglect prevention and treatment. Our lack of investment in these areas leaves us standing on a 

stool with two weak legs that is teetering and verging on collapse. 

We know that both prevention and treatment can be very effective’’ especially 

from a cost standpoint. If we can use prevention programs to keep people from using 

meth and other drugs in the first place, we will save the taxpayers money. Even 

more importantly, we can help prevent the wreckage that comes when meth destroys an addict and harms the community and people around him. 

I am here today to talk about one innovative drug prevention program that has 

proven highly successful in Oregon. The Methamphetamine Awareness Project, or 

MAP, originally developed by the Oregon Partnership, our statewide prevention coalition, combines substance abuse prevention theory with the creative energy and 

abilities of young people to create prevention messages through film. Participating 

youth learn from and work with prevention and treatment specialists, law enforcement officials, their peers, and professional filmmakers to create a prevention interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
9

vention tool intended to reduce the potential of teen meth use and raise community 

awareness about the dangers of meth. 

The first MAP was during the 2002–2003 school year at Oregon’s Sheridan High 

School. The Sheridan students produced a powerful 16-minute documentary that is 

now shown in schools all around Oregon. The program was so successful in its first 

year that during the 2003–2004 school year, Oregon Partnership moved to Newberg 

High School where the students produced two amazing television commercials that 

have been broadcast on television stations in Portland and have also garnered National attention from the Drug Enforcement Administration. 

One commercial depicts a doctor standing in his office, wearing a lab coat and 

holding out a bottle with a devil carrying a pitch-fork on the label. Techno music 

plays in the background as the doctor begins his pitch. ‘‘Do you want to lose weight 

fast, and have all your teeth and hair fall out?’’ he asks. ‘‘If so, meth could be right 

for you.’’ Another ad, that has been featured on the DEA’s youth education web site, 

features a young man pouring a variety of chemicals into a blender, including kitty 

litter, brake fluid, gasoline and cold medicine: all methamphetamine precursors. 

The Methamphetamine Awareness Project continues spreading through the state. 

In the 2004–2005 school year, I helped secure a grant for Lincoln County to bring 

MAP to their schools. For a total of $80,000, four schools were able to participate 

in the program, the end result being 12 PSA’s and two short documentaries. Five 

of these broadcast quality PSA’s are now being shown on television stations 

throughout Oregon, as well as having recently been sent to other states and Canada. One was even featured in a recent meth story airing on ABC World News Tonight. This year, the Office of Lincoln County Legal Counsel has secured another 

federal grant to extend MAP to three more Lincoln County schools. 

These ads include one depicting a father who is too busy cooking meth for himself 

to worry about food for his family as the police bust his home meth lab. One of the 

schools participating in MAP, chose to create interview-style public service announcements where they went out to the community and spoke with recovering 

meth addicts about their experiences. Another provides kids with a list of ‘‘Better 

things to do than meth’’ including watching halftime shows, going to a movie and 

going to dances. The ad ends with the tagline ‘‘Meth is Death.’’

The project works on several different levels. The students participating in MAP 

not only learn first hand about the devastating effects of methamphetamine through 

the research and creation of these advertisements, but they are also providing a 

service to the community at large by educating them as well. Research has shown 

that interventions that provide opportunities, skills, and recognition are likely to 

promote positive social bonding and the adoption of healthy beliefs and clear standards of behavior. MAP participants are drawn into the program with the opportunity to acquire and utilize film skills in a context where they are reinforced by 

adults and peers. Not only are they learning about the dangers of methamphetamine and film skills, they are also learning to exercise their creativity and given 

an outlet that keeps them busy after school hours. But most importantly, it is kids 

educating other kids. They know best how to reach their classmates and what messages are going to be most effective in keeping them off drugs. 

RMC Research Corporation, based out of Portland, Oregon, is conducting a threeyear study to measure the effectiveness of MAP’s prevention strategy. Although they 

are still in the progress of evaluating the results of the program, the initial study 

results indicate that MAP has been successful in decreasing the likelihood of youth 

substance use. MAP accomplishes this through four main tactics. It increases knowledge of the negative effects of meth and other illegal drugs among program participants. It increases and/or maintains anti-drug attitudes. It increases adult and social bonding and finally, it increases overall protection and resiliency. 

Early study results score the program high in a variety of categories including 

participant satisfaction, knowledge gain and skill development. Participants in MAP 

learned facts and risks related not only to meth, but also ecstasy, other club drugs 

and illegal drugs in general that supported their desire not to use. Not only was 

the program effective in educating the students about the dangers of meth use, but 

program participants also reported decreased risk related to tobacco and marijuana 

use following participation in MAP. 

Although quantitative benefits from MAP are still being determined through the 

associated research efforts, the communities involved in this unique initiative have 

reported that the project has been beneficial to their communities, both students 

and adults. Because of the attention that MAP has received in the media, it has 

increased knowledge about meth and reinforced anti-meth attitudes throughout the 

entire state and the videos that the students have created have been shown at antimeth forums and events across all of Oregon. The Methamphetamine Awareness 

10

Project is truly an innovative project that ought to be examined closely by federal 

drug policy experts and expanded on the national level. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Well, thank you very much. Excellent. And certainly the PSAs are, I think, very effective. At least they affect me. 

I guess I just have a couple quick questions. 

One is, as you mentioned, this has hit a few counties, probably 

not even in the whole state of Oregon. 

Ms. HOOLEY. No, no, a few schools. 

Mr. OSBORNE. A few schools. And you mentioned that you would 

like to see this comprehensive, nationwide if possible. I certainly 

agree. Do you have any thoughts as to—you know, obviously, funding is a problem. And I think one of the things we are doing today 

is simply try to build awareness. Maybe people in Congress will 

pay attention. 

But sometimes this whole thing seems to be flying a little bit 

under the radar screen, and I wonder what your perception is as 

to what the most effective way would be to get this translated to 

a national level, a national scope. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Well, I should have the numbers with me, and I 

will get those to the committee. We spend a fair amount of money, 

and I know a lot of it—the time and the energy is donated—not energy, but time is donated by professional ad companies. 

But what we spend on advertising every year on drug ads—I 

think we could use some of that money or most of that money and 

put it into our schools and let our students make those ads. 

We have incredibly talented students. And if they have a little 

bit of help from some film-makers or some other people that have 

some expertise, I think this could spread nationwide. And then 

show these instead of the professional ads we have done. 

And again, I think these ads have more of an impact than some 

of the ads that are done professionally, again, because they are 

done by students and they know what impacts other students better than anybody else. 

So I think there are some ways—and we have some proposals on 

where to get the money, and I would be happy to bring it to you, 

and I do not have it with me today. 

Mr. OSBORNE. I think those comments are certainly well taken, 

very appropriate. Have you given any thought to age appropriateness? In other words, this is primarily aimed at the high school 

student. 

Ms. HOOLEY. We think it is appropriate to use in junior high. I 

mean, again, it has not been used in that many schools in Oregon. 

I think it is gone in about seven schools. And one of the schools 

was a junior high. And what they came up with was absolutely terrific. 

And in the process of doing these PSAs, they have also done documentaries. And some of them are 15 minutes. One is 16 minutes. 

One is 10 minutes. But they have done some documentaries as 

well, and they—I mean, I think they have done a terrific job. 

But I think it is very age appropriate for junior high, which is, 

I mean, the age that kids are experimenting. They want to be an 

adult 1 minute. They want to be a kid the next minute. Lots of 

11

young women are using this as a way of losing weight. And I think 

junior high is as appropriate as high school. 

Mr. OSBORNE. The reason I mention that is that there are some 

who are even suggesting as low as 3rd or 4th grade, at least with 

some materials, because that is when people start shaping their 

thoughts about substance abuse. 

And of course, underage drinking on average, I think, starts at 

about 12.7 years of age. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Right. 

Mr. OSBORNE. And of course, lots of people when they are high 

on something else will take meth when somebody says, well, here, 

try this, you know, this will make you really feel good. They do not 

even know what it is. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Well, I think a documentary that students make 

can also be used as one of the many tools they would use in grade 

school, in 4th and 5th and 6th grades as well. So I mean, I think 

that could be part of a curriculum. 

Again, as you said, younger and younger students are using 

drugs and alcohol. And I mean, I think the numbers are pretty—

as far as how young kids are starting to use some kind of substance abuse. 

Mr. OSBORNE. All right. Well, I do not want to take more time 

at this point. I just want to thank you for your testimony and 

thank you for coming. 

And at this point—oh, I see our other witness, Mr. Souder, is 

here. So we probably should at this point welcome him and allow 

him to testify, and then we will turn the questioning over to other 

members of the panel. 

Mark Souder has been very active in methamphetamine legislation. He has been a representative of the 3rd District of Indiana 

since 1994 and chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee 

on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. 

So his subcommittee has done a great deal of work and has jurisdiction over domestic and international antidrug efforts for the 

Federal Government—is authorizing the Subcommittee for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

He also serves on this committee as well as the House Committee on Homeland Security. And I know Mark just had a series 

of votes. 

And we are pleased to have you here, Mark, and so why don’t 

you go ahead with your testimony at this time? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks. And knowing my full testimony will be in 

the record, let me just summarize a couple of points. 

I apologize; we were voting in Homeland Security. 

And I want to thank Congresswoman Hooley and, as I referred 

to you yesterday, Coach Congressman Governor Osborne, for his 

leadership on this issue. It looks like either today or tomorrow we 

are going to have the first major meth legislation in the history of 

Congress on the House floor. Congresswoman Hooley has some elements of this in the international area. 

12

The pictures that you have steadily brought to the House floor 

have helped develop attention among members of the devastation 

of this disease. And we both have a war on drugs and a health crisis on drugs. They are both things, and meth is the latest iteration 

of this. 

There is a couple of different points I think are most relevant to 

the Education and Workforce Committee. I have held 11 hearings 

around the country on meth and seen many variations of rural and 

urban. Clearly, this committee has jurisdiction over Safe and DrugFree Schools which will be coming up as we reauthorize the No 

Child Left Behind, the elementary education act, that will be coming up. This committee also has important jurisdiction over the 

workforce. 

And let me immediately address more precisely what is in front 

of this committee and then more broadly some prevention efforts. 

I believe that the legislation we are about to pass will start to get 

control some of the international market. 

That combined with what we are doing in Homeland Security 

and Judiciary will address some of the border questions. We have 

some meth kingpin and over-the-counter legislation. That buys us 

time. 

But ultimately, when we do law enforcement and international 

enforcement, if it is not coupled with prevention and treatment—

can only stabilize or slightly slow the growth. It does not accomplish the purpose. 

We also have to get the prevention message out and then treat 

the wounded so they do not keep coming back. In some cases in 

labs—we had one in Indiana just a couple weeks ago—the prosecutor told me he was up for his third mom and pop lab, and he 

still had not been in jail for the first one because it takes so long 

to get to prosecution. Others, the second they are out of their treatment program, they are back in. So we need much more research 

and treatment. 

But as we look at prevention, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

program presents an interesting challenge to us, because on the 

one hand, we have tried to do so much with this program that it 

has not been targeted enough. And I think we need to look at that 

as we do reauthorization. 

A second thing is as much of the meth problem is located in rural 

areas, and in our allocation formula by school, often a rural 

school—sometimes they get $300, sometimes $700. It is not really 

enough to put together a coordinated campaign. 

And we need to look at how to do some pooling in the rural 

areas, because the way Safe and Drug-Free Schools is structured, 

it would be very hard to get dollars into many of the areas where 

the meth has hardest hit. 

I think a third aspect of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, which is 

a different type of challenge, is that when we are doing Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools, meth is not predominantly a youth drug. 

Now, we want to do the education and the prevention so they do 

not get into it later, but part of the reason I mentioned the importance of workforce here is I think the frontier that we need to tackle next year, in addition to some of the EPA questions and some 

things that—clearly, ONDCP needs a meth clearinghouse. 

13

We need to see what has worked in Montana, what has worked 

down in Kentucky—two success programs we have. And right now, 

when you talk to local groups, they do not even know where to go 

to get this. Association of Counties does some of it. Individual congressmen do some of it. Sometimes it is a community coalitions 

group that does it. 

We clearly need a clearinghouse. And I think ONDCP can do 

that without legislation. But if need be, we do legislation. 

But where we need to really look at this is this drug seems to 

be concentrated most heavily in the workplace. And in this committee we need to look at this. Small Business Committee—we 

need to look at this—because often it seems to be a combination 

of—in some cities, like in Minneapolis, we heard that the bulk of 

the people who were in meth treatment were women. An extraordinarily high percentage were using it for weight loss. 

Other areas, it is just a standard, ‘‘I am out on drugs and this 

one got me higher.’’ And then one of the things that we have seen 

in my home state is it is used like an amphetamine, and many 

truck drivers use it. They can stay awake longer, at least initially, 

till they get devastated and lose their job. And people use it like 

that. 

Well, a standard national ad campaign or a standard Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools program is not really going to work in the workplace. We need to get where they are. So we have been asking 

Partnership for Drug-Free America for—are we going to have posters we can put at the workplace? 

Are we going to have things that we can put in with the check 

when they get their payments? Are there things that we can target 

at the workplace? Do we look at drug testing in the workplace? 

And how can we—a number of years ago we did this with the small 

business. So we need to be creative. 

One last point: The Partnership for Drug-Free America has offered their new anti-meth ads to any Member of Congress who will 

do this. The T.V. ads are done. They are very near completion on 

the radio ads, and they are working on billboard and newspaper 

ads that should be available by the 1st of the year. 

I encourage every Member of Congress, rather than just talk 

about this, if you have meth in your district, to lead the prevention 

effort. Get these materials. Go to your T.V., go to your other media 

outlets in the district, and work with the high schools, too. They 

have little T.V. stations, radio stations. They can put posters up. 

And I think if we work together, as we have been here in Congress, we can really turn the tide on this drug, because it is the 

easiest one to sell that we have ever had in modern times—to say 

this is what it does to your body, this is what it does to you. 

Thank you for letting me testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Souder follows:]

Statement of Hon. Mark Souder, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Indiana

Chairman Castle, Ranking Member Woolsey, and my colleagues on the Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me to testify on this very important 

subject. I’d like to commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing, which addresses one of the critical components of our effort to stop the methamphetamine 

epidemic: meth use prevention and education. 

14

As chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug 

Policy and Human Resources, I’ve held eleven hearings on the meth epidemic, including seven field hearings. In places as diverse as Indiana, Arkansas, Hawaii, 

Minnesota, Ohio, and Oregon, I have heard gripping testimony about how this drug 

has devastated lives and families. But I have also learned about the many positive 

ways that communities have fought back, targeting the meth cooks and dealers, trying to get addicts into treatment, and working to prevent abuse, by educating young 

people about the risks of meth. 

‘‘Prevention—stopping use before it starts,’’ in the words of President Bush’s National Drug Strategy Report—is a vital component of any effective drug control 

strategy, and that is particularly the case for meth. In many respects, it is the most 

important component, since it is the demand for drugs that attracts the supply. 

Moreover, as with anything else, an ounce of effective prevention really is worth a 

pound of cure. Once a person is addicted, treatment is very difficult—especially for 

meth. While many people correctly state that we will never simply arrest our way 

out of the meth problem, neither will we simply treat our way out of it, either. If 

we don’t cut back on the number of addicts, we will never be able to provide enough 

effective treatment for all of them. 

Prevention must therefore be central to our anti-meth strategy. Even as the 

House and Senate consider legislation to reduce the diversion of meth precursor 

chemicals like pseudoephedrine, we must also consider how best to prevent the ‘‘diversion’’ of young lives to the destructive path of meth abuse. 

The federal government’s major prevention programs include the Safe and Drug–

Free Schools (SDFS) program at the Department of Education, which includes formula grants to the states, and ‘‘national programs’’; the National Youth Anti–Drug 

Media Campaign (the ‘‘Media Campaign’’) at the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy (ONDCP), which helps fund a national advertising campaign to educate 

young people and parents about the dangers of drug abuse; the Drug–Free Communities (DFC) program at ONDCP, which provides small grants to local ‘‘coalitions’’ 

of organizations and individuals who come together for drug use prevention efforts 

in their communities; and prevention programs funded through grants provided by 

the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), part of the Substance and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) at the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). The federal government also funds significant research and 

development of drug prevention methods, through CSAP, and the Counterdrug 

Technology Assessment Center (CTAC) at ONDCP, and the National Institute on 

Drug Abuse (NIDA). 

At a hearing last April, I expressed my concerns about the Administration’s budget proposal for drug use prevention programs in general. By proposing to eliminate 

the SDFS state grants, flat-funding the Media Campaign and DFC programs, and 

reducing SAMHSA’s prevention funds, the Administration would have reduced prevention funding to only 13% of the fiscal year ‘‘06 drug control budget. Although the 

Administration has valid concerns about how effective our prevention programs 

have been in reducing drug use, I believe the appropriate response is to reform the 

existing programs by making them more accountable, or to propose new and better 

programs. The Administration’s deep cuts, unaccompanied by any new proposals, 

would have suggested a significant abandonment of prevention. 

I think that Congress and the Administration need to come up with a comprehensive strategy for drug use prevention, starting with meth use prevention. I am 

pleased that ONDCP has finally begun producing ads through the Media Campaign 

targeting meth use; we need more of them, and a commitment to ensure they are 

broadcast in the most affected areas of the country. Targeted ads against ‘‘ecstasy’’ 

had a real impact in recent years in reducing youth abuse of that drug; targeted 

ads against meth hold similar promise. 

With respect to Safe and Drug–Free Schools, I firmly believe that program can 

play a vital role in meth prevention. We need, however, innovative thinking and 

new ideas about how to communicate anti-drug messages in the schools. Among 

other things, I think that at least some part of those funds should be available to 

help schools implement targeted, non-punitive drug testing programs. Such programs would help vulnerable kids stay off drugs, and kids already heading down 

the road of abuse to get into treatment. They are also an excellent tool for measuring the success of other drug use prevention programs, as they show whether the 

true ‘‘bottom line’’—reducing drug use—has been achieved. 

Thank you again, Chairman Castle and Ranking Member Woolsey, for your leadership and commitment to improving meth prevention programs. I hope to work 

with you, and all of my committee colleagues, to move forward a comprehensive 

meth prevention plan. 

15

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Souder. 

And one thing that we have done in my district—my staff and 

I are in every middle school, every high school, with a PowerPoint 

showing some of the more graphic stuff, and we feel it has made 

a difference. 

I have already had a series of questions, and so at this point I 

would like to turn to Mr. Grijalva. Oh, he is gone. 

Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 

and let me begin by commending Mr. Souder and Representative 

Hooley for the leadership that they have demonstrated. 

Mark has been relentless as chairman of the drug committee. It 

really should be called the antidrug committee, because I have seen 

him all over the country trying to help educate, bring awareness, 

and really trying to get a handle on what I consider to be one of 

the most serious problems facing America, period. 

And of course, it has worldwide implications because you see it 

when you travel abroad. And it is one of the problems that we have 

not been able to seriously get a handle on. 

And I am always perplexed when we talk about costs and finding 

the resources to do education and prevention, because we can obviously see it is not a matter of spending. It is a matter of investing, 

and that if we do not invest on the front end, then we are going 

to spend on the back end, but think of all the misery that has occurred in between that could have been prevented. 

And I just do not understand why we seem to have so much difficulty understanding that, or why we have so little faith in education. Smoking is one of the best examples that one can think of. 

Twenty years ago, there would have been smoke all over this room. 

Ten years ago, we would have separated the smokers, and they 

would have been in the back on one side. 

And now we have finally come around to realize the danger of 

smoking as a result of intense education campaigns. It did not happen by itself. I used to smoke cigarettes when I was a kid, and I 

smoked them because I did not know any better. 

My mother used to tell us that if you know better, I believe that 

you would do better. And I think if our country knew better, if kids 

growing up knew better, if people in the workplace knew what drug 

use will do for and to them, they would do better. 

And so my question is, Mark and Darlene, how do we convince 

what seems to be an unbelieving public that it really makes sense 

to invest? If there is no investment, there is no return. We understand that. We live in a capitalistic society. We always have. 

And if we do not invest in programs like the MAP program, then 

we have got to invest in the hospitals. We have got to invest in the 

morgues. We have got to invest in trying to cure some of the poverty. 

But how do we convince an unbelieving public that it makes 

sense to invest in prevention and treatment? 

Ms. HOOLEY. First of all, we need you going around the country 

giving that message everywhere we go. That would help. 

And as you know, most education programs—it takes a while to 

get—first of all, to convince people in this building that this is an 

important program that we have to invest in. 

16

The other day I was talking to a couple of addicts, former addicts, and some judges, and they have a very successful court program. When the judge has the carrot or the hammer, whether the 

person goes to jail or they go to a treatment program, the cost to 

put them in jail is $25,000 a year. The cost to treat them for a year 

is $2,400. 

Now, I have been trying to figure out why, if we save that jail 

time, we cannot take that—and by the way, in this program, because they do not have any money to run the program, the addict 

has to pay for it themselves. And how many addicts can pay for it 

themselves? And sometimes they have parents or family members 

that will help do this. 

But why can’t we take some of that saved money from that jail 

time to pay for the treatment program. But I mean, again, it is all 

of us coming together and saying this is important to invest in. 

This destroys families. In my state, we have had increase in number of foster homes needed because of children that are in meth 

homes. 

It is costing all of us a ton of money. It is always much easier 

or we always save money if we invest. And I think it takes the will 

of all of us that we understand this issue is a problem, and it is 

going to take our will to find that money to invest in the prevention 

programs. 

Mr. SOUDER. If I can make a couple comments on this, I think 

that there are several things. Some are real and some are perceived. One is that the impact of education is delayed. And as legislators, we tend to want to address the problem in front of us, get 

immediate thing, and then move on—particularly those of us who 

run every 2 years—want to fix the problem, and we do not want 

to say it is still continuing. 

And so when you have a prevention program, it is a delayed impact, whereas when you are dealing with a crime or somebody who 

is violent or making a drug lab, it is immediate. 

I think a second thing is—and this is a criticism of some of the 

prevention movement—that the accountability historically has been 

less on prevention than it has been in other types of categories. 

And because it is more vague, and you already have this delayed 

effect, it becomes more difficult when there is a budget thing in 

front of you to take it. 

And we need to make sure that our prevention programs are actually targeted with results that are measurable. To the degree 

that we do, we will be more successful and make sure we are hitting the target. 

But I think all that said—also, one other thing that makes a 

problem here is when we look at Federal investment, the fact is 

that the costs of not investing in prevention are split. The state 

picks up some, the county picks up some, the schools pick up some, 

the individuals pick up some, the families pick up some. 

And therefore when you are looking at your limited budget, unless we can get the state, local, federal, private working together 

for a combined effort, then no single group has the incentive to do 

the prevention. 

But let me illustrate why I believe in certain things it becomes 

absolutely appalling if you do not get into prevention. And let’s just 

17

talk about what happened with crack and now I think is happening 

with meth. 

In my home town, we got hit with crack and most of it was coming in from Detroit, not Chicago, because crack hit Chicago later. 

But because it was not there yet, they were not trying to prevent 

it. In meth what we see—and we have heard this myth that it does 

not hit in urban areas and it does not go into the black population. 

Yet in Minneapolis, we have seen it now in Omaha, we have seen 

it in Portland—that when certain groups, distribution groups, see 

that they can cut out the Colombians and make more money on 

crystal meth, hey, they are right to crystal meth. 

So in Chicago, we ought to be looking at aggressive prevention 

before it hits, not trying to clean up the mess afterwards. And so 

prevention is much harder once it has grabbed than when you can 

sell it in advance. 

So I think if we get more sophisticated prevention methods, organize it better, and coordinate, we can overcome some of the past 

resistance. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Can I just add one other thing? And you said it, 

because we are elected every 2 years. I think it is being persistent 

and consistent in sustaining that for a number of years. You cannot 

go on from the issue of the day to next week another issue and 

next year another issue. 

You have to really stick with this issue. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Musgrave? 

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This meth situation just breaks my heart. I mean, in rural areas 

where you can have labs out, you know, where it is isolated, the 

toll on our children is absolutely horrific. 

And I was just absolutely incredulous the other day. A member 

of our city council in the rural community—I live a little bit south 

of it—was arrested for cooking meth in his home. And you know, 

I am not saying he is guilty, but that is what he was arrested for. 

And to me, that spoke to the addiction that someone even after 

they have moved on still cannot kick. 

And I was at an apartment complex recently and I saw this 

young woman with a toddler on her hip, and she was there, and 

she was talking to me, and her teeth were just rotten. She is this 

beautiful, young woman. It was meth mouth that I was looking at. 

And here she was a mom. And we have to do something. 

And, Mr. Davis, your remarks about spending on the front end 

or the back end and the misery in between—I mean, the misery 

just breaks your heart. And in my district, I have a vast district, 

and we have 75 percent of the population living along the front 

range, and then we have 25 percent out in the rural area. And Mr. 

Osborne knows very well what those rural areas are like. 

So we are seeing the devastation of meth. I have a son-in-law 

that is a police officer, and he is just overcome with what this is 

doing to rural America. 

And then when you get a little closer to the front range, in another community that I represent, we have had a number of 

deaths, gang related deaths, and it is because of methamphetamine. And you know, I am all for peers educating peers, these 

18

kids. But we have got to get a hold of this problem and do something. 

And I did not even know, Mark, that we could do ads. I did not 

even know that. And you can bet that I will be participating in any 

way possible. And when these—I think we need ads that let these 

young people know that this just kills you from the inside out, and 

if you want to lose weight and look great, you know, you better 

think of the teeth, you know, that you are not going to have, because they are going to be just melting in your mouth. 

So I applaud you on your efforts. I really do not have a question 

other than, you know, get me on board and let me do what I can 

do, because it is devastating. And I think in these small towns that 

the chairman and I would be familiar with, because we see people 

in the grocery store, and we talk to a mom whose daughter has 

died because of her meth problem, we have that level of intimacy 

where we see it. 

It is not in a big town. It is not lost. You know, it is your friends 

and neighbors, the teachers you know, and the law enforcement 

people that are affected by this, and the effect is just horrific. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SOUDER. May I comment briefly? The partnership is going to 

show two of the ads in the next panel. And they are effective in 

different ways, one showing the impact on family, one is more 

chemicals. 

But sometimes we as politicians—I mean, I have never even 

smoked a cigarette. I am not a really good test case here. And so 

I am kind of naive as I approach this type of issue and communicating it, and so it has been hard for me to understand why 

somebody gets on meth. 

And we really have to pound the pictures here like Congressman 

Osborne has done and the immediate impacts, because we—one of 

the people at Oregon, which was kind of appalling, and please, everybody, cover your ears if you are not ready for this, but one of 

our witnesses said it was 12 times more—the impact was 12 times 

greater than the best orgasm he has ever had, that people can 

drive three nights without sleeping, that they can up their performance at work, because the question is what gets them into this. 

Given that we have these warnings, why do they go to meth? 

And we have to understand why they do, because we see doctors, 

we see lawyers, we see people who say this is not logical that this 

has happened. Now, what we need to communicate is that it does 

not sustain itself. That might work once or twice, but you get addicted to this stuff, you look like that lady, or you die, or you cannot perform at all. 

When you actually talk to meth addicts, they may get some 

short-term performance and short-term excitement, but this, unlike 

any other drug, has a ‘‘boom’’, like that, on you, and if we cannot 

communicate that clearly, then we are lacking communication 

skills. 

That is why I say this is a drug where we can show clearly—and 

the chemicals going into this—smoking has rat poison. This stuff 

has about every kind of poison dumped into your body. If we cannot communicate this, and if we cannot spend some dollars communicating this, it is not clear what we can communicate. 

19

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you very much for your comments. 

And I would just add one comment here. One thing that is really 

difficult about CBO scoring is it never takes into account savings. 

And therein lies the rub here in Congress, because we talk about 

the importance of investment. We talk about the importance of prevention. 

And so you may spend $3 million to save $1 billion, but it does 

not score. You know, it just scores $3 million spent. And that is the 

thing that is so hard to get across. And it really ties your hands. 

I am sorry, Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for 

calling this hearing. 

I thank our colleagues, friends and colleagues, for coming to better inform us on this very important, critical issue of drug prevention. 

I was looking at the testimony and wanted to ask Representative 

Hooley—it seems that you testified about our lack of investment in 

the antidrug prevention and education. 

Can you expand on that a little bit more for us and talk about 

how we need to improve that area? 

Ms. HOOLEY. This is an issue actually I have been working on 

for 17 years. And when I first started, it was all about the expenses 

of how do you clean up a meth lab, so it was all about law enforcement and how you clean up—very expensive process, and trying to 

get money into our communities for law enforcement for cleanup efforts. 

Again, because it is so hard to show savings with prevention, as 

Mr. Souder’s pointed out, it is split so many ways. I mean, and you 

have to have a prevention program that comprises more than just 

one thing. I mean, it has to be—but all of us learn differently, and 

so we need to do a variety of prevention programs. And a big portion of that is education. 

This Congress has to take a look at what has been done in communities, what has seemed to work—for example, we know that if 

we get the younger students that we are usually better off. But a 

lot of times, we do not trace that from grade school through high 

school through college and on. 

We take a program that we think has worked—for example, Just 

Say No. Well, most of the literature I have read—maybe it has 

worked, and maybe it has not, but most of the literature I have 

read, you know, has seemed to say that it has not been terribly 

successful. But maybe you can change that or take a little different 

tack. 

One of the reasons I brought these T.V. ads in—that may not 

work for everybody, but it is a way of students doing hands-on 

work, learning about it on their own, making ads that they think 

are effective for other students. And I think that is one of many 

programs that we can do. 

But let’s try all of them, and let’s see which ones work. And you 

know, maybe we will find a couple of silver bullets. I doubt it, but 

maybe we will find a couple of ones that are just the thing. But 

let’s put some real effort and some real time and some real money 

into prevention. 

20

We are trying to deal with the supply problem in our bill. Let’s 

try to deal with the demand problem as well. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Congresswoman Hooley, I am impressed by the 

way you describe the MAP program in your district, and also I am 

impressed by your commitment and passion for this prevention program. 

Tell us a little bit about—when you talk with adults and students who are part of this program, what do they tell you about 

why the program works so well and what could be done to improve 

it? 

Ms. HOOLEY. When I talk to the students, first of all, they are 

very excited about doing this. They feel like—I mean, first of all, 

they have had to do the research. They have had to look at pictures 

like this. They have gone out and talked to addicts. They have 

talked to people that are in the treatment programs. They have 

talked to law enforcement. 

They have spent a lot of time. Some of these PSAs have taken 

them a whole year to do. So they have spent a lot of time learning 

about not only methamphetamines but all drugs. And then they 

have—it has also given them something to do after school, and we 

know after-school programs work very well at keeping a lot of kids 

out of trouble. 

And then they are trying to do ads that they think will have an 

impact on their fellow students. And they are learning a new skill. 

So it is all of these things rolled into one. Is this the end-all? You 

know, I do not think so. But does it work? It seems to work. 

We are looking at doing a study and evaluating the impact and 

the effectiveness of this. We have just started. It has only been in 

progress for about a year. This has only been a 3-year program. It 

has only been done in, in do not know, six or seven schools. 

But it works. And let’s take things like that that we know work 

and expand that. If there are other programs around the country, 

and I am sure there are, let’s take those and expand those. And 

let’s see what really makes an impact. 

And let’s do follow up, not only the next year and the next year, 

but several years out and see what has happened and if we have 

actually made, you know, some progress in preventing students 

from getting on drugs. 

One of the things these ads have done and the documentaries 

have done is not only just for methamphetamines, but it really 

works for all drugs. I mean, they have a much greater awareness 

of the dangers of drugs. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has run out. I wish I could have asked 

the question of Congressman Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. May I make a brief comment on that? 

Mr. OSBORNE. Yes, why don’t you go ahead, Mark? 

Mr. SOUDER. A direct challenge of our committee when we do the 

reauthorization in elementary education—this committee does Safe 

and Drug-Free Schools. And we, in my opinion, in working on 

that—I have tried multiple amendments the last time through. 

In reaching many allowable use, nice goals, what we have done 

is taken the best antidrug prevention program in the United States 

21

and had it so frittered down that we have seen a number of studies 

now showing that this money is not working. 

That has resulted in multiple attempts by the administration to 

zero out this program. And I have been fighting to keep it in. They 

also try to keep only the national part, because when we break it 

up by school, often what results is one speaker comes in. 

And what we need to be looking at—which is fine. It is better 

than nothing. But it is not an effective use of the program. And we 

need in our committee here on education to be looking at what can 

we do to give some more direction. And I believe part of it is how 

to leverage money. 

And I believe that many schools now have their own little T.V. 

and radio areas inside the school. They also have posters and announcements. They also can work—often the local broadcasters 

love to have kids come forth with things they can use as PSAs in 

the local community. 

And we need to be looking internally, because we do the bill in 

this committee of how can we encourage things and, if necessary, 

market not exactly what to do, but that this should be part of the 

component of leveraging the dollars in Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

in getting the kids involved in addressing kids’ issues. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Souder, do you believe that this part of the 

education program should be a part of the essential elements of 

learning in K-12 programs? 

Mr. SOUDER. I believe this is an interesting debate that has revolved around character education for many years. Should character education be taught as a separate program, or should it be 

integrated? 

And my position has always been both, that there ought to be 

some things targeted directly at drugs, but it ought to be integrated in to health classes. It ought to be integrated in to phys-ed 

classes and physical education classes because of what it does to 

your body, as we see what is happening with steroids in the United 

States. 

It is just like character education. It ought to be everywhere, but 

also focused. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Well, thank you, and I would like to thank the 

members of the panel and—sure, all right. 

Mr. Davis? 

Mr. DAVIS OF ILLINOIS. I just wanted to ask you this one question. I do not know anybody who have spent more time, energy, effort on this than you have. Have you run into any successful—and 

it is hard to measure success over short periods of time—but good 

prevention programs targeted specifically for the workplace? 

Mr. SOUDER. Not as much, and there is not as much research on 

workplace. I am sure they exist. 

One of my frustrations is we do not really have a good clearinghouse, and it is one of the things I think ONDCP ought to be doing, 

is serving as a clearinghouse, so when somebody says do I have a 

workplace program, do I have a school program, do I have a community program, they can go there and look—here is meth, here 

22

is cocaine, here is general—and that we have this clearinghouse 

type of thing. 

There have been some scattered successes for periods of time. 

For example, drug testing usually works at the workplace to clear 

your place out, but it does not help the individual. And very few 

companies want to invest in the treatment that goes with the drug 

testing, unless, of course, there is low unemployment and then they 

have an incentive to try to keep their employees there. 

Generally speaking, it depends on how you define your goal. Is 

your goal to eliminate drugs from the workplace? Is your goal to 

help the individual so you do not just kick them over to another 

place that does not drug test? 

But my feeling is that there has been very little—and I was 

chairman of the Small Business Empowerment Subcommittee, we 

did the first drug-free workplace bill in Congress about 10 years or 

8 years ago, something like that. And it was a start of how you do 

drug testing that management needed to be included, not just 

labor. 

It needed to make sure that you had an accurate test, and that 

you included treatment. Otherwise you were losing your employees 

and not helping them. You were just shifting in between businesses. That was a pilot program, never went very far, and did not 

focus, really, on the prevention side. It was more preventing once 

you found somebody. 

My opinion is probably there is a little bit, but both in that subcommittee and since then I have seen very little related to workplace. That is not to say that it is not there, but I have not seen 

much. 

Ms. HOOLEY. Representative Davis, let me—in one of my communities, Salem, Oregon, there is a program that I will—I do not 

know enough details about it. I will send you the information. 

That is a community that has a program that the whole community is working on, Not in My Backyard, and it not only deals with 

trying to stop the demand and the treatment programs, but the entire community, including the business community, is very, very involved. It is the best community effort I have seen to date. 

And again, it may happen in other communities, but I will send 

you that information. 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, and Cincinnati has had a very successful community-wide—and in southeast Kentucky, but they have not—they 

include the businesses in it. 

For example, in a program that is starting up in my district with 

the schools, they are not only doing some drug testing. They have 

brought in the business community to find jobs for kids that are 

willing to stay clean, who are in high-risk populations and do not 

have the ability to get a job. 

There are combined efforts, but I cannot think of one, and we 

ought to look inside some of these programs, how they implement 

it specifically at the workplace. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Okay. Well, thank you so much for coming, both 

of you, and appreciate your work on this issue and your expertise. 

And we will call up the second panel at this time and get the appropriate identification. So please have a seat. 

Okay, at this time I will introduce the second panel. 

23

Mr. Robert Denniston is presenting for the Honorable Mary Ann 

Solberg. Mr. Denniston currently serves as the director of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign at the White House Office 

of National Drug Control Policy. 

Previously, he served as director of the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services’ Secretary’s Initiative on Youth Substance Abuse Prevention. Prior to that, Mr. Denniston held several 

positions in the prevention field, including director of the Division 

of Prevention Application and Education at the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

In addition, I want to thank Mr. Denniston for stepping in for 

Deputy Director Solberg at the last moment. 

Someone who is from my district, the Honorable John Icenogle 

is a district judge and district court judge serving Buffalo County, 

Nebraska. Judge Icenogle has served as president of the Juvenile 

Justice Association and, since 1995, has headed the District Judges 

Education Committee. 

Judge Icenogle has a long-term interest in children’s issues and 

is a member of the Nebraska Governor’s Children’s Task Force. 

So we are very pleased to have you here today as well. 

And Dr. Richard Spoth is the director of the Partnerships in Prevention Science Institute at Iowa State University, not too far 

away. And in addition to his current position, Dr. Spoth has a long 

history of involvement in substance abuse prevention including 

joining with his colleagues to spearhead the development of a number of other prevention and research-related organizations, including the Institute for Social and Behavioral Research at Iowa State 

University. 

So welcome, Dr. Spoth. We are glad to have you here. 

And then the final member of our panel is Ms. Cristi Cain, and 

she serves as the state coordinator for the Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention Project in Topeka. Prior to her current position, 

Ms. Cain served in several prevention programs in the Topeka, 

Kansas region. 

In addition to her work experience, she has trained people from 

all over the country to educate and rehabilitate individuals with 

drug addictions. 

So we want to thank all of you witnesses for your time and your 

testimony, and also the members for their participation. 

And so at this point—I think Mr. Denniston and Mr. Icenogle 

has to leave before noon, so we will definitely try to get your testimony in, but we will hear from all of you. 

So, Mr. Denniston? 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DENNISTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN, OFFICE OF NATIONAL 

DRUG CONTROL POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, ON BEHALF OF HON. MARY ANN SOLBERG, DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

Mr. DENNISTON. Chairman Osborne and distinguished members 

of the committee, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the key pillar of the president’s national drug control strategy, 

stopping use before it starts, education and community action. 

24

As we know, methamphetamine use can be prevented by a combination of federal, state and local officials and actions and communities. And I am here today on behalf of Mary Ann Solberg, the 

deputy director of ONDCP, who unfortunately could not be here because of a family emergency. 

Deputy Director Solberg’s written testimony discusses a number 

of programs and efforts to stop meth use through prevention and 

education. And I respectfully request that it be made part of the 

record. 

I serve as director of the ONDCP’s National Youth Anti-Drug 

Media Campaign. As you all know, meth is incredibly dangerous 

because of its high potential for addiction, its devastating physical 

and psychological consequences and its harm to communities. 

We believe that reducing the demand for meth through prevention will result in less demand for the drug, and this will help drive 

down production, thereby putting less strain on law enforcement 

and treatment providers. 

Nationally we have worked to support prevention activities 

through proven initiatives that support state and local efforts. The 

youth campaign, student drug testing grants, and the drug-free 

community support program all push back against the negative influences of drugs and now, more than ever, against meth as well. 

Now, the National Youth Media Campaign leads our efforts to reduce youth drug use. It is a strategically integrated communications effort that delivers antidrug messages and skills to America’s 

youth, to their parents, and to influential adults. 

The youth campaign and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America have partnered to develop new, hard-hitting antimeth ads for 

television, radio and print. These ads aim to build public understanding of the threat from the manufacture and use of meth and 

to alert citizens about what they can do to protect themselves and 

their communities. 

We released these ads this week, earlier this week, on Monday, 

in Springfield, Missouri. Several people were there, including Senator Talent and, of course, ONDCP Director John Walters. 

At this point, I would like to show you two of those new ads. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

GIRL: This is my [inaudible] when my dad and I cooked breakfast together. He always called me his honey. But then he started 

using the kitchen to make meth. One night, the police came in with 

white suits and gas masks. I was taken to the hospital and decontaminated. I haven’t seen my dad since. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

Mr. DENNISTON. We should have another ad in the series. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) 

ANNOUNCER: The toxic fumes from this meth lab are seeping 

into Jamie’s sinus cavity. Ammonia vapors invade her throat. Toxic 

gases fill her lungs. Jamie’s body is deteriorating, and she doesn’t 

even know it. 

MOTHER: Jamie? Dinner. 

ANNOUNCER: So, who has the drug problem now? Find out how 

meth affects you at drugfree.org/meth. 

(END VIDEO CLIP) 

25

Mr. DENNISTON. These are two of the five ads in the new campaign created, again, by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America 

for us and they were actually produced by the top-flight ad agencies, Leo Burnett and J. Walter Thompson, so we are very pleased 

with these ads and are getting them out to communities across the 

country just as quickly as we can. 

We believe by working with Congress, states, local communities 

and the private and non-profit sectors we hope to show these 

antimeth ads in every community that suffers from the detrimental 

effects of methamphetamine. 

Now, turning to student drug testing, in addition to the media 

campaign, random student drug testing is an effective part of a 

community-based strategy to reduce the demand for illegal drugs 

including methamphetamine. 

The purpose of student drug testing is not to punish kids but, 

rather, to stop drug use before it starts or in its earliest stages. It 

serves as an effective deterrent to drug use. Since 2001, we have 

seen a 25 percent decrease in meth drug use. That is very good 

news. 

And that is part of a reduction of 17 percent in overall illicit drug 

use by teens the last 3 years. Everyone who has been involved in 

this whole effort to reduce teen drug use should really be commended. That is a dramatic drop, 17 percent in the last 3 years. 

Turning to drug-free communities, the drug-free communities 

program provides grants to communities that have formed antidrug 

coalitions that present a united community front in the fight 

against drug abuse. This program currently funds more than 700 

coalitions that seek to form, sustain and evaluate effective efforts 

to prevent and fight the use of illicit drugs, particularly by youth. 

In conclusion, I am pleased to present to you today some of the 

Federal Government’s prevention efforts to stop meth in our communities. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to any 

questions the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Solberg follows:]

Statement of Hon. Mary Ann Solberg, Deputy Director, Office of National 

Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC

Chairman Castle, Ranking Member Woolsey, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, I am honored to appear before you to discuss the President’s National Drug Control Strategy and how the Administration is preventing methamphetamine use across our country. 

The President’s National Drug Control Strategy aims to reduce use of all drugs 

in America by 25 percent within five years and recognizes methamphetamine as one 

of the primary drug threats to America. Within the Strategy are three priorities: 

1) stopping drug use before it starts, 2) healing America’s drug users, and 3) disrupting the market for illegal drugs. 

This balanced strategy is working. Nationally, we have made progress over the 

last three years against substance abuse. The 2004 Monitoring the Future survey 

showed a 17 percent decline in youth drug use since 2001. This equates to 600,000 

fewer young people using illegal drugs today than were using three years ago. The 

use of methamphetamine by teenagers has declined even further, with use down 25 

percent since 2001. Despite these decreases in use, methamphetamine is still too 

prevalent across the Nation. In 2004, 1.4 million Americans had used methamphetamine within the past year, and 318,000 of them had tried methamphetamine for 

the first time. Despite the decrease in teen methamphetamine use, 1.4 percent of 

twelfth graders in 2004 still said they have used methamphetamine in the past 

month. 

Nationally, drug treatment admissions for methamphetamine/amphetamine dependencies have been increasing. In 2002, nearly seven percent of treatment admisVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
26

sions nationwide were for methamphetamine/amphetamine, up from just one percent in 1992. Similarly, emergency room visits related to methamphetamine/amphetamine use increased 54 percent between 1995 and 2002. 

Dangers of Methamphetamine 

Methamphetamine is an addictive, synthetic drug that is extremely dangerous 

both to take and to produce. The use and the manufacture of methamphetamine are 

twin problems that together are ravaging many communities across the Nation and 

each presents major challenges at the Federal, state, and local levels. 

Methamphetamine has a high potential for abuse and dependence. Methamphetamine abuse can have devastating physical and psychological consequences. The 

drug causes increased heart rate and blood pressure, and its use has been associated with serious and prolonged brain damage. Over time, many users become badly 

emaciated from suppressed appetite, and suffer rapid severe tooth decay, and, in the 

long run, suffer psychosis. Methamphetamine is easy to make and can be manufactured for as little as $50 in supplies, allowing users to manufacture and supply 

methamphetamine cheaply for their own needs. During the manufacturing process, 

methamphetamine cooks face exposure to toxic fumes, asphyxiation, and the possibility of serious injury or death due to fire or explosion. These dangers extend to 

those in close proximity who may not be involved in the process, such as children. 

Methamphetamine’s damage spreads beyond the user and harms the lives of children who grow up around this dangerous drug both because of the chemical exposure as well as the neglect of parents who are high on meth. Across the nation, increasing numbers of children have been sickened by exposure to toxic chemicals 

used in methamphetamine production while others have been placed in foster care 

because parents or guardians who abuse methamphetamine are unable to care for 

them. Methamphetamine labs present environmental challenges, and clean up of 

the toxic sites is both dangerous and expensive. 

Reducing the demand for methamphetamine through prevention will result in less 

demand for the drug which will help drive down production, thereby putting less 

strain on the public safety officials and drug treatment providers who deal with 

methamphetamine’s harmful effects. 

Prevention programs are varied and often creative, and the National Drug Control 

Strategy discusses an array of prevention programs—including school and community-based programs such as Meth Watch, student drug testing programs, educational efforts and public service advertisements. Prevention programs may vary 

widely, but generally are associated with information, education, model behaviors, 

and early intervention activities. These programs focus on reducing risk factors and 

building protective factors and may be directed at any segment of the population. 

Several prevention activities or strategies may be used effectively in combination. 

Nationally, we have worked to support prevention activities through effective initiatives that support local efforts: the National Youth Anti–Drug Media Campaign, 

student drug testing grants, and the Drug Free Communities support program. 

National Youth Anti–Drug Media Campaign 

ONDCP’s National Youth Anti–Drug Media Campaign leads our efforts to reduce 

youth drug use. The Youth Campaign is an integrated effort that combines advertising with public communications outreach. It has developed a series of advertisements that change youth attitudes of drug use and coach parents in monitoring teen 

behavior and promoting early intervention against signs of early drug use. We are 

convinced that the Youth Campaign has been a major contributor to our success. 

This year’s results from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study conducted by the 

National Institute on Drug Abuse in the Department of Health and Human Services 

(DHHS), further strengthen the historic reductions observed in last year’s results. 

Among all three grades surveyed by the MTF over the course of the Youth Campaign, youth report being to a ‘‘great extent’’ or ‘‘very great extent’’ less favorable 

toward drugs and less likely to use them in the future. Further, more than half of 

the increase in most of these outcomes among all three grades has occurred in the 

past three years. This is particularly striking among 10th graders, our primary target audience. With these results, the Youth Campaign will continue as ONDCP’s 

primary drug prevention program, and I look forward to additional progress in the 

future. 

On November 2, ONDCP launched a new, positive, aspirational brand that resonates with the Media Campaign’s core target audience of 14–16-year-olds. The 

‘‘Above the Influence’’ brand is the result of extensive qualitative and quantitative 

research ONDCP initiated with teens to ensure the Campaign is speaking with a 

message and voice relevant to today’s youth. The new brand speaks directly to teens 

at a vulnerable age, when they start to test limits, defy their parents, become more 

27

independent, make their own choices, and assume greater responsibility for their actions. The ‘‘Above the Influence’’ brand empowers teens to recognize and live above 

peer pressure and negative influences. It squarely addresses the social context that 

leads to bad decisions, such as drug use. A teen who is ‘‘Above the Influence’’ recognizes the risks of negative influences and is empowered to live above them. 

The television, print and internet advertisements, and the Web site, explore a variety of pressures teens face and the positive value of resisting negative influences. 

All the advertisement executions of the concept were reviewed by dozens of teen 

focus groups before being selected for production. Brand and behavioral experts 

were consulted throughout the creative process, and all the television ads were subjected to rigorous quantitative copy-testing before airing. The cumulative research 

indicates that the ‘‘Above the Influence’’ brand resonates across all segments of the 

target audience by gender, race, grade, beliefs and attitudes. The Web site, 

www.AbovetheInfluence.com, includes information and resources, as well as interactive features to aid teens in recognizing and rejecting negative influences including quizzes and games, along with free downloads and blog icons to share with 

friends. 

The campaign has also begun to focus on the dangers of methamphetamine. This 

past Monday, Director Walters announced in collaboration with the Partnership for 

a Drug Free America a new advertising campaign targeting the illicit drug methamphetamine. Designed to mobilize individuals and local community groups to reduce methamphetamine use at the local level, the new effort will run in 23 U.S. cities where methamphetamine has a high prevalence. 

The ad campaign combines real-life stories of people impacted by methamphetamine with scenarios that depict the unique secondhand threat methamphetamine 

poses to communities at large. The campaign’s two main themes, ‘‘So, Who Has the 

Drug Problem Now?’’ and ‘‘End Meth in Your Town’’ challenge individuals to learn 

more about the threats methamphetamine poses to both their families and their 

communities. The advertising campaigns were created pro bono for the Partnership 

by two agencies, Leo Burnett of Chicago and J. Walter Thompson of New York. Developed under the direction of the Partnership for a Drug–Free America, the research-based campaigns were subject to rigorous qualitative testing, and proved resonant among community members, spurring them to seek information on methamphetamine and to take part in their community’s efforts to fight the drug. All 

advertising spots direct audiences to a newly-created microsite on the Partnership’s 

Web site, www.drugfree.org/meth. 

In addition to the new Above the Influence brand, the Media Campaign continues 

to support parents through the development of a series of advertisements that coach 

parents in monitoring teen behavior and promote early intervention against signs 

of early drug use. 

The National Youth Anti–Drug Media Campaign will also host roundtables 

around the country with members of the news media and representatives from the 

entertainment industry. Experts on various aspects of methamphetamine production, addiction and treatment will be invited to discuss the dangers of the drug and 

answer questions on the Administration’s approach. 

Student Drug Testing 

In addition to the Media Campaign, another promising prevention practice is random student drug testing. Over three years have passed since the U.S. Supreme 

Court upheld the authority of public schools to test students involved in extracurricular activities for illegal drugs, making this powerful tool available to any 

school battling a drug problem. Since that historic ruling, a number of schools 

across the country have seized this opportunity to implement drug testing programs 

of their own. 

As the President stated in his 2004 State of the Union address, drug testing has 

proven to be an effective part of a community-based strategy to reduce demand for 

illegal drugs. Student drug testing is an excellent means of protecting kids from a 

behavior that destroys bodies and minds, impedes academic performance, and creates barriers to success and happiness, and it is available to any school, public or 

private, that understands the devastation of drug use and is determined to confront 

it. Many schools urgently need effective ways to reinforce their anti-drug efforts. 

Drug testing can help them. 

Indeed, student drug testing is that rare tool that makes all other prevention efforts more effective. By giving students who do not want to use drugs an ‘‘out,’’ testing reduces the impact of peer pressure. By giving students who are tempted by 

drugs a concrete reason not to use them, testing amplifies the force of prevention 

messages. And, by identifying students who are using illegal drugs, testing supports 

28

parental monitoring and enables treatment specialists to direct early intervention 

techniques where they are needed. 

Schools considering adding a testing program to their prevention efforts will find 

reassurance in knowing that drug testing can be done effectively and compassionately. The purpose of testing, after all, is not to punish students that use drugs, 

but to prevent use in the first place, and to make sure users get the help they need 

to stop placing themselves and their friends at risk. Random drug testing is not a 

substitute for all our other efforts to reduce drug use by young people, but it does 

make those efforts work better. 

Drug Free Communities 

Experience has taught us that people at the local level often know best how to 

deal with drug problems in their own communities. But to combat the threat, they 

need good information and the best resources available. One way that the Administration is helping to provide them with these resources is with the Drug Free Communities support program (DFC). 

The Drug Free Communities program, run through ONDCP and administered 

through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA), provides grants of up to $100,000 per year to communities that come 

together to form community anti-drug coalitions that present a united community 

front in the fight against drug use. The program has two major goals: (1) reduce 

substance abuse, including alcohol, tobacco, and drugs among youth (2) strengthen 

collaboration among various sectors in the community. 

DFC coalitions are required to include members from different parts of the community working on multiple community drug prevention strategies. Community coalitions catalyze civic action and serve to connect individuals from such disparate 

parts of the community as health care, law enforcement, business, drug treatment, 

and education. The Drug Free Communities support program funds over 700 of 

these coalitions that seek to form and sustain effective efforts to fight the use of 

illegal drugs, particularly by youth. Coalitions host activities such as town hall 

meetings on drug issues, youth summits, local drug use surveys, beverage server 

training, youth leadership training, social marketing campaigns, and policy change. 

Many of these coalitions are in rural areas where methamphetamine use is a particular problem. Coalitions in these areas have been working to change the social 

norms as they are confronted with the dangers of methamphetamine. For example, 

some coalitions in Oregon are working with stores to increase awareness about the 

supplies needed by methamphetamine cooks to make the drug, making it harder for 

methamphetamine producers to set up shop in their area. They are also working 

with young people to help them understand the dangers of using methamphetamine. 

Through education and prevention, they are making a difference and are acting as 

the first line of defense against methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs. 

Other Programs 

ONDCP and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) have also recently launched 

a new website, www.methresources.gov, as a tool for policymakers, law enforcement 

officials, treatment and prevention professionals, businesses and retailers, and antidrug activists. The comprehensive site brings together information and resources 

available to communities on the topic of methamphetamine. The website also enables visitors to share information and best practices with one another, as well as 

pose questions to their peers. 

One methamphetamine specific prevention program that the retail industry has 

fostered and ONDCP has supported is ‘‘Meth Watch.’’ This innovative and voluntary 

program trains employees in retail establishments that sell key precursor chemicals 

such as pseudoephedrine to watch for unusual patterns or behaviors that ‘‘meth 

cooks’’ might display such as buying large quantities of these chemicals or returning 

frequently to buy the same chemicals. The retailers refuse to sell the products and 

law enforcement is notified so that they can investigate and determine whether the 

intended purchases are part of a methamphetamine lab operation. This is particularly important in states that do not have any controls over the sales of precursor 

chemicals. 

Conclusion 

I have discussed a variety of prevention programs, including school- and community-based programs, student drug testing programs, and public service advertisements. These diverse approaches help parents keep kids away from alcohol and dangerous drugs like methamphetamine and marijuana. Yet none of these programs is 

enough to make a decisive difference without significant parental involvement—and 

for good reason. Available research is unambiguous about the importance of having 

parents discuss the dangers of illegal drugs and underage drinking with their chilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
29

dren. Parents and other caregivers need to do more than simply talk about drugs 

and alcohol. They also need to act by monitoring the behavior of teen children, 

knowing where their teenagers are at all times, particularly after school, and knowing whom they are with and what they are doing. Such techniques have proved remarkably effective in keeping teenagers away from drugs. 

The good news is that parental monitoring has been shown to be remarkably effective in reducing a range of risky behaviors among young people. Studies indicate 

that kids who are monitored are one-fourth as likely to use illegal drugs and onehalf as likely to smoke cigarettes as kids who are not monitored. Put another way, 

the research confirms what many parents of teenagers tend to doubt: kids really do 

listen to their parents, and they do respond to parental expectations. For example, 

surveys show that two-thirds of youth ages 13 to 17 say losing their parents’’ respect 

is one of the main reasons they do not smoke marijuana or use other drugs. 

In conclusion, I am pleased to present to you today the Federal government’s cooperative efforts to stop methamphetamine in our communities. Within the context 

of our National Drug Control Strategy, we know that reducing all drug use including methamphetamine use will require a balanced consistent, and coordinated focus 

from all sectors of the community, including the Federal, state, and local government. With the continued support of Federal, state, and local leaders, and concerned 

citizens everywhere, we are moving closer to creating an America that is free from 

dangerous drugs such as methamphetamine. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Denniston. Thank you 

for being here. 

And Judge Icenogle? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ICENOGLE, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

DISTRICT 9, BUFFALO COUNTY, NE 

Mr. ICENOGLE. It is a privilege. Thank you. It is a privilege for 

me to be here today. I have been a judge in central Nebraska for 

almost 30 years, and I have been doing the last 16 years general 

jurisdiction work which includes criminal courts, divorces, child 

welfare cases, and drug court. 

And I took this opportunity to come and visit with you about my 

observations about what meth is doing within the communities and 

what it is doing to children. 

I am not an expert in law enforcement, and I am not an expert 

in drug treatment programs, and I am not an expert in prevention 

programs. And most of my colleagues will tell you that I am probably not an expert in law either. 

But that aside, methamphetamine in our communities has a devastating effect on all of our children, and not just the children who 

become users directly. We see the prevalence of cooking meth in 

homes. And when you cook meth, you do it in what they call a lab 

or a kitchen. That kitchen can be in the trunk of a car, garage, outside in a shed or, most likely, they cook in the kitchen. 

Meth labs, when they go awry, blow up. People are burned, and 

burned severely. Fumes are admitted and people can die. There is 

a reason that law enforcement wears the gear and garb that they 

do when they go into clean up a meth lab, and that is to avoid 

being exposed to the same environment children within that home 

are being exposed to daily. 

The use and manufacture of methamphetamine leaves a residue 

in the home. Blankets, clothing, toys, teddy bears have all tested 

positive for the presence of methamphetamine, thereby exposing 

the children in those homes to the risk of long-term physical injury 

and mental damage. 

30

The toxin involved causes medical problems, including anemia, 

respiratory illness, neurological symptoms in the child, and those 

toxins have also been linked with developmental delay and brain 

damage. 

The parents in the home who use the meth create a second and 

probably more dangerous threat to the children by being their parents. The addicts who are entrusted with the care of these children 

display post-use behaviors that include violence, paranoia, hallucination, agitation and schizophrenic-like symptoms. 

They suffer from cognitive impairments, such as memory loss, 

confusion, insomnia, depression and boredom. The cognitive impairments often cause the users to misinterpret what other people are 

saying to them, which results in violent, paranoid reactions. The 

net result is that the children are suffering gross abuse and neglect 

in these homes. 

When the meth addict finally comes down off the drug and crashes, that addict sleeps, sometimes for 3 to 5 days. The children in 

that home are often left unfed, unsupervised and, perhaps worse, 

placed in the care or the whims of their drug-using friends and 

buddies of the parents. 

When the parents awaken, they suffer from depression, heightened cravings for more, and even suicidal ideation. Throughout this 

period of time, these are these children’s parents. 

The children are also victimized by the environment that we see 

in meth homes. They are victims and witnesses of significant domestic violence, physical abuse, and methamphetamine is in a culture that is, quite frankly, sexually explicit. 

More than one law enforcement officer has marveled to me that 

every meth home seems to lack the basic essentials to take care of 

the children, but they all have a large-screen T.V. and an ongoing 

supply of pornographic videos. 

The children continue to be exposed to a culture of alcohol use 

and drug use as the friends of the users—parents—come and go. 

In Nebraska, we have 1.7 million people. Currently almost 6,000 

children are placed out of home with the Department of Health and 

Human Services. Over half of those children are placed—or 62 percent, actually, for non-alcohol substance abuse problems of the parents, mostly identified as methamphetamine. 

Recently, in Lancaster County, which is the county our state capital, in a 2-week period, nine juvenile petitions were filed for children born from parents or a mother who had a significant meth 

problem and therefore the new child had a significant meth problem as well. 

We have seen the cost, and the cost is tremendous, whether it 

is prisons, whether it is welfare, whether it is medical. And I have 

outlined some of that in my testimony that I submitted in writing. 

What I do know is this. If we can take drug courts and spend 

$1 and get a return in savings of $9, which is just uniform across 

the country, what kind of return can we get by preventative education? To me, the dollar savings would be tremendous. But from 

our perspective, and my selfish perspective, the saving in human 

misery would be so much greater. 

These children deserve better. They deserve a chance. I quote 

one real quick story and why I think prevention is necessary. I had 

31

a young lady who came into my drug court. She had four children 

who had been removed from her home. She had no job, no family 

support and an addiction. 

Two and a half years later, she came out of drug court. She had 

her children back. She had a job. She had gotten her other extended family back and was doing really well. Six months later, 

after leaving the drug court program, she had her meth back, had 

lost her children and did not have a job. It is a drug that is best 

confronted before it is used. 

And I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Icenogle follows:]

Statement of Hon. John Icenogle, District Court Judge, 9th Judicial 

District of Nebraska, Buffalo County, NE

Chairman Castle, Ranking Member Woolsey, and members of the committee, I 

want to thank you for the opportunity to testify about the issues arising from the 

production and use of methamphetamine and its effects on the children of Nebraska, 

especially rural Nebraska. My name is John Icenogle and I have served the last 30 

years as a state court judge of general jurisdiction. Initially I served as a state county judge with juvenile court jurisdiction. For the last 16 years I have presided over 

cases involving domestic disputes, divorce, child custody, criminal law, civil law, and 

during the last three years have also served as a drug court judge. I am not an expert concerning drug treatment programs, law enforcement, or even prevention programs. I appear here to share with you some of my knowledge and experience regarding the effects of methamphetamine on children and their families within our 

communities. 

The manufacture and use of the highly addictive stimulate, methamphetamine 

(meth), has grown exponentially over the last 25 years gaining a strong and lethal 

foothold throughout the midwest and southwestern United States. The very nature 

of the drug victimizes not only the addicts but often the children within their care. 

The drug is relatively cheap to purchase on the street, and can be made inexpensively at home following recipes available on the internet. ‘‘Cooking’’ meth is almost 

as easy as baking a chocolate cake. One of the simplest recipes requires the use of 

anhydrous ammonia which is in agricultural areas. Laboratories easily fit into car 

trunks, hotel rooms, garages, and home kitchens. 

The labs themselves are extremely dangerous to persons, frequently children, 

within their proximity. The ‘‘cooking’’ process involves a substantial risk of explosion 

and produces fumes which can be fatal. In my own jurisdiction, a rural county of 

some 45,000 persons, law enforcement has uncovered several meth labs. One was 

operated by a counselor employed by our own youth rehabilitation center. He was 

cooking methamphetamine in the garage of his children’s home. 

The use and manufacture of methamphetamine leaves a residue of the drug 

throughout the home. Blankets, clothing, children’s toys and even teddy bears have 

tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine thereby exposing children to 

the risk of long term physical injury and mental damage. The toxins involved cause 

medical problems including anemia, respiratory illness and neurological symptoms 

in children. They have also been linked to developmental delay and brain damage. 

Parental use of methamphetamine creates a second and even more dangerous 

threat to children because of the drug’s immediate and long term effects on the user. 

Addicts entrusted with the care of children display post-use behaviors that may include violence, paranoia, hallucinations, agitation and schizophrenic-like symptoms. 

Users suffer cognitive impairments such as memory loss, confusion, insomnia, depression and boredom. The cognitive impairments often cause users to misinterpret 

body language and words resulting in violent paranoid reactions to perceived 

threats. This neurological damage and psychotic behavior can persist months and 

even years after use is discontinued and often results in children suffering gross 

abuse and neglect. 

When a meth addict stops using the drug, the addict’s body often ‘‘crashes’’ seeking sleep. Addicts often sleep from three to five days leaving their children unfed, 

unbathed, unsupervised and often in the ‘‘care’’ or at the whims of their drug using 

buddies. Upon awakening, the addict may suffer from severe depression, heightened 

cravings or suicidal ideations. Throughout all of this, the meth addict is still ‘‘parenting’’ the children. 

32

The children in a meth home are also victimized by the very environment in 

which they live. They are victims of, or witnesses to, significant domestic violence 

and physical abuse. The methamphetamine culture is often sexually explicit. More 

than one law enforcement officer has marveled that almost every meth home he has 

entered lacked the basic essentials for the care of children, but contained a large 

screen tv and ample supplies of pornographic videos. The children in a meth home 

are exposed to both an alcohol and a drug culture as friends of the users come and 

go. Children tend to isolate themselves from other children and have high truancy 

rates from school. 

Children living in an identified meth home are also victimized by the necessity 

of being removed from their home environment. In April, 2005, 5852 children were 

living in out-of-home placements within the State of Nebraska (a state with a population of only 1.7 million people). Sixty-two percent of the parents from whom children are removed suffer from non-alcohol substance abuse and more than one-half 

of those have problems primarily due to use of methamphetamine. During a recent 

two week period in Lancaster County, the home county for our state capitol, the 

county attorney filed juvenile petitions on behalf of nine newborns because of methamphetamine use by the mothers. In the Omaha area, the county attorney’s office 

estimated that at least 50% of the children currently entering the state’s social service system enter because of methamphetamine use. 

Even when identified, meth homes are not quickly fixed. Mom’s required to choose 

reunification with their children or continued meth usage, all too often choose their 

drugs rather than their children. One Nebraska judge has estimated that in abuse 

or neglect cases involving methamphetamine addicted parents, intervention in his 

county has been successful only 20% of the time. I personally observed one young 

mother enter our drug court program addicted, without family support, without employment, and having just lost custody of her four children. After two and one-half 

years in the drug court program, she obtained sobriety, became self-supporting, and 

gained custody of her children. Within six months after completing the program, she 

again started to use meth and has lost custody of the children. Although the tale 

is tragic for the mother, it is more tragic for her children. 

One must be mindful that children are not only the innocent victims of methamphetamine users within their family or their community, they all too often will 

become users themselves. For some, methamphetamine offers a method of weight 

control, sexual adventure and peer acceptance. When children become users, successful redirection of their lives and successful treatment interventions are far more 

problematic than for adults. 

As a society we all agree that these children need protection. We have spent millions of dollars for enforcement of criminal laws, millions of dollars for foster care 

and programs for the child victims. We have spent too few dollars for treatment programs for users. We have spent virtually nothing on prevention efforts. 

We recognize the collateral cost of addiction in caring for the children of addicts. 

Additional birthing expenses for a meth mother include as much as $1500.00 to 

$25,000.00 per day for the care of her child. Low birth weights caused by meth use 

necessitate neonatal care of some $25,000.00 to $35,000.00. Some children require 

nearly a quarter of a million dollars in care to ensure the child attains the age of 

one. The developmentally delayed children can require up to three quarters of a million dollars in special care during the child’s first 18 years of life. 

The cost of addressing the problem of methamphetamine use is staggering and 

increasing. One wonders what the dollar savings could be if we create an effective 

prevention program. More importantly, one wonders how much human misery could 

be eliminated, especially for children, if we address and support effective use prevention programs. 

I want to thank this committee for the opportunity to visit with you today and 

will gladly answer any questions that you might have. 

INFORMATION SOURCES

Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, Steven Belenko, PhD, The National Center on 

Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, New York, New York. June 2001. 

Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem 

Solving Court Programs in the United States, the National Drug Court Institute, Washington, 

D.C., May 2005, Volume I, No. 2. 

Parental Methamphetamine Use in Children in Out of Home Care, State Foster Care Review 

Board, State of Nebraska, June, 2005. 

Treatment Methods for Women, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of 

Health. 

Methamphetamine: New Threat to Women and Children, Kathleen M. West, Drug Endangered Children Research Center, Los Angeles, California. 

‘‘Meth Moms’’ Choosing Drugs over Children. Article by Carol Bryan The Independent, 1999. 

33

Drug Courts: An Effective Strategy for Communities Facing Methamphetamine, see West 

Huddleston III, Bureau of Justice Assistance, United States Department of Justice, May 2005. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you very much, Judge. I have been at a 

couple of your drug court graduations and you do a good job, and 

we appreciate it very much. 

Dr. Spoth? 

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD SPOTH, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIPS IN PREVENTION SCIENCE INSTITUTE, IOWA 

STATE UNIVERSITY, AMES, IA 

Mr. SPOTH. Chairman Osborne and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to represent the Partnerships 

in Prevention Science Institute at Iowa State University in this 

critically important hearing on substance abuse prevention with a 

special focus on methamphetamine abuse. 

As a research institute focused on prevention science, most of our 

work involves experimental studies that evaluate outcomes of preventative interventions for youth and families. I am here to address a number of questions about our work. 

The first one is what are our methamphetamine-related results. 

Research at our institute has found that interventions delivered 

through our partnerships with schools and communities have revealed significant effects on lifetime or past-year methamphetamine use, up to 6.5 years after the baseline assessment in these 

studies. 

Results from two of our longitudinal studies are summarized in 

this slide. For example, 11th graders in study two who participated 

in a combination of school-based and family-focused interventions 

reported 64 percent less lifetime meth use than youth who do not 

participate in the interventions. 

Second question: What is our science with practice approach to 

prevention? There are five key elements to our approach. The first 

is a linkage of existing state public education systems, ones that 

have infrastructure for optimal delivery and evaluation of interventions with other service or resource systems. 

This includes public schools and the cooperative extension system based in land grant universities. This system serves a purpose 

of disseminating research-based information and programming to 

the general public. It is the largest informal education system in 

the world. It has over 3,150 agents at last count and a presence 

in nearly every county in every state. 

A second feature is strategic partnerships. This slide shows our 

current three-tier partnership structure that helps us move our scientifically tested evidence-based interventions from the university 

out into the schools and communities in the state that can benefit 

from them. 

To date, our projects have partnered with 106 public schools long 

term, and many others short term. Our local teams are small and 

strategic. They select interventions from an intervention menu and 

handle all logistics involved with their implementation. 

A prevention coordinator team provides continuous proactive 

technical assistance to those local teams. A university prevention 

team provides administrative oversight and offers input on data 

34

collection and analysis. Currently we are implementing this model 

on a project called Prosper with our colleagues at Pennsylvania 

State University. 

Concerning evidence-based interventions, the Society for Prevention Research has summarized standards for them. In a word, they 

are theory-based. They have clear objectives. They are rigorously 

tested and show positive outcomes. Hereafter, I will label them 

EBIs for short. 

One of the key advantages of EBIs is that positive outcomes and 

economic benefits are more likely for youths and families and others. 

Number three, the reason for emphasis on quality implementation is that numerous studies have shown that over time intervention implementation tends to drift away from the quality necessary 

to produce positive program outcomes. 

Number five, we also place a premium on sustainability planning, because research suggests that one of the major barriers to 

public health impact of evidence-based interventions is a failure to 

sustain programmatic efforts, particularly when the activities are 

initially funded through time-limited grants. 

The third question is what is the evidence that our approach 

works in general. Many positive outcomes from six randomized controlled studies and 11 supplemental studies have shown effective 

partnership processes and positive long-term outcomes. 

I will share two additional examples. To illustrate positive longitudinal outcomes in addition to those concerning methamphetamine use, in one of our studies we examined rates of substance 

initiation from 6th grade through 12th grade. 

Analyses demonstrated statistically significant differences in the 

rate of growth for the substance use between our family-focused 

intervention group, the blue line, and the control group, represented by the red line. 

Results concerning lifetime drunkenness are shown in this slide. 

Importantly, research at our institute and that of others has demonstrated the economic benefits of these positive substance prevention outcomes. 

This figure shows the estimated return for each dollar invested 

in a family-focused evidence-based intervention under actual study 

conditions, an estimated return of $9.60 for every dollar invested. 

The figure also shows expected changes in the dollars returned 

when the number of adult alcohol use disorders prevented per 100 

participants is increased by and decreased by one. 

The last question that I will answer is how can this kind of approach, our approach, help to address larger-scale prevention impact. First, we need to rise to the many challenges. Our partnership model is designed for dissemination to other states. There are, 

however, some major challenges to scaling up this and any other 

approach. 

First, we need to increase the number of evidence-based interventions to serve youth and their families in a culturally competent 

way across all settings and all stages of youth development. 

Second, we need to gradually change our delivery systems so that 

they can sustain large-scale quality implementation of evidenceVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
35

based intervention. A large number of states have already expressed interest in adopting our partnership model. 

Scaling up for widespread dissemination requires, number one, a 

set of state-focused replication plans to gradually bring our partnership model to additional states, to address a range of youth development and problem behavior areas where evidence-based interventions could help; and two, the development of infrastructure to 

support a network for new partnerships, including information materials, technical assistance and a structure for partnership networking. 

In short, to hearken to the words that we heard earlier, we believe in an investment in the type of partnership approach outlined 

above would save money, do substance-related problems, and improve youth and family health and well-being, making a real world 

difference. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spoth follows:]

Statement of Dr. Richard Spoth, PhD, Director, Partnerships in Prevention 

Science Institute, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me to 

represent the Partnerships in Prevention Science Institute at Iowa State University 

in this critically important hearing on substance abuse prevention, with its special 

focus on methamphetamine abuse. As a research institute focused on prevention 

science, most of our work involves experimental studies that evaluate the outcomes 

of preventive interventions for youth and families. A unique aspect of our program 

of research is its model of school-community-university partnerships that implement 

the interventions and help sustain preventive efforts over time. 

As I understand it, my task today is to respond to questions concerning our methamphetamine-related findings, how we approach methamphetamine and other types 

of substance abuse prevention, the evidence we have that our approach works in 

general, and how our approach can help to address the challenge of large-scale prevention impact. I am pleased to do this. 

If I were to respond to this task with one sentence it would be: The effort to 

achieve larger-scale impact is very complex and challenging, but there has been 

much progress and some promising future directions are clear. Responses to the 

questions I have been asked to address will serve to highlight these points. 

I. What are some illustrative methamphetamine-related results from our prevention work? 

A. Short answer: Our randomized, controlled studies have shown intervention effects as long as 61⁄2 years past the baseline assessment. 

B. More detailed answer. To begin with some background information on our prevention work, our university motto ‘‘science with practice’’ captures the central 

theme of our Institute promoting the application and translation of intervention 

science into community practices, to improve people’s health and well-being. 

Our Institute’s mission is: ‘‘To conduct innovative research promoting capable and 

healthy youth, adults, families, and communities through partnerships that integrate science with practice.’’ Almost all of our work has been funded through grants 

from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, the 

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and the National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, with the lion’s share of the funding coming from the latter. We also 

have received funding from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention in the Services Administration for Mental Health and Substance Abuse. 

In pursuit of this mission we have three primary goals. 

1. To study the effects of prevention and health promotion interventions for youth, 

adults, families, and communities; 

2. To examine factors influencing youth, adult, and family involvement in evidence-based prevention, health promotion interventions, and intervention research 

projects; and 

36

3. To evaluate the quality and sustainability of community-school-university partnerships and partnership networks, for widespread implementation of evidencebased prevention, positive youth development, and health promotion interventions. 

To address our first goal we have designed and conducted a number of preventive 

intervention outcome studies. Motivated by the findings of epidemiological research 

on increasing rates of methamphetamine use among adolescents, we added methspecific outcome measures on two of our long-running preventive intervention studies. As you know, dramatic increases in use among adolescents have been seen; the 

2003 prevalence rates are almost five times higher than the rates in 1992 (Johnston, 

O Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2004; Oetting et al., 2000). Researchers have 

noted that adolescents in smaller towns and rural areas are particularly vulnerable 

to methamphetamine use, given the potentially powerful peer influences in rural environments and the historical appeal of stimulants to rural youth (Wermuth, 2000). 

The threat to rural Midwestern adolescents has been particularly acute (Rawson, 

Anglin, & Ling, 2002; Hall & Broderick, 1991; National Clearinghouse on Drug and 

Alcohol Information, 1997). 

Our analyses of interventions delivered via community-university partnerships 

have revealed significant effects on lifetime or past-year methamphetamine use, up 

to 6.5 years after a baseline assessment. There also are some positive results from 

a third study, based on results from data collected at 1.5 years past baseline. 

The following graph illustrates intervention effects on methamphetamine use 

(Spoth, Clair, Shin, & Redmond, 2005). Another way of describing the results from 

eleventh graders in Study 2 is as follows: eleventh graders who participated in both 

school-based and family-focused interventions reported 64% less lifetime meth use 

than students who did not participate in the programs.

Note: ISFP is the Iowa Strengthening Families Program; SFP + LST is the Strengthening 

Families Program (revised ISFP) plus Life Skills Training 

II. What is our ‘‘science with practice’’ approach to prevention? A. Short answer: 

A science-driven partnership network linking public schools, Land Grant Universities and other resource systems. 

B. More detailed answer: There are five key elements in our approach: 

1. Linkage of existing, stable public education systems—ones that have infrastructure for optimal delivery and evaluation of interventions—with other service or resource systems; 

2. Strategic partnerships with ongoing, hands-on technical assistance, including 

direct support from scientists or evaluators; 

3. Evidence-based interventions for positive outcomes and economic benefits; 

4. Quality implementation of evidence-based interventions for optimizing outcomes; and 

5. Sustainability planning model for long-term local buy-in and funding. 


spoth1.eps
37

1. Linkage of existing, stable public education systems—ones that have infrastructure for optimal delivery and evaluation of interventions—with other service or resource systems. 

About 15 years ago we began the first in a series of large-scale experimental studies. At that point we saw tremendous potential in the linkage of public education 

intervention delivery systems—the State Land Grant University System and the 

Public School System and linking them, in turn, with other community service delivery systems. In large measure, we saw the potential of their existing capacity for 

intervention delivery and for partnering in intervention research. To highlight this 

capacity, I will mention a few salient features of public education delivery systems. 

The Cooperative Extension System is: the largest informal education system in 

the world; has over 3,150 agents in nearly every county that are highly educated; 

and has a ‘‘science with practice’’ orientation. The Public School System is a universal program delivery system reaching nearly all children; it has networks within 

each state for programming support and has increasing emphasis on accountability, 

as well as an empirical orientation. 

For those of you who are less familiar with the Land Grant University and the 

Extension System, the Morrill Act of 1862 and the Hatch Act of 1887 established 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture and granted land in each state to support a college for teaching agriculture and engineering, as well as establishing agricultural 

experiment stations to conduct research. The Extension system soon followed, to 

carry the practical and relevant education to ordinary citizens through an extensive 

network of state, regional, and county extension offices in every U.S. state and territory. Its mission is: ‘‘To advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human 

health and well-being, and communities by supporting research, education, and extension programs in the Land–Grant University System and other partner organizations.’’ Extension is uniquely funded by a combination of federal, state, and county 

government monies. 

Our framework is designed to seize the opportunity for intervention delivery in 

the existing public education systems. We do so by following Everett Rogers’’ (1995) 

‘‘linking agents’’ concept from his Diffusion of Innovation Theory. That is, we emphasize the role of Land Grant University Extension agents who link public school 

personnel who are aiming to implement tested, proven programs for their students 

and families, with systems of external services and resources, to promote health and 

well-being among youth and families. 

In sum, linking public schools with the Land Grant Extension System and with 

other social and human services facilitates our efforts by helping PPSI to: 

a. Deliver evidence-based interventions that have the greatest likelihood of producing favorable individual- and community-level outcomes; 

b. Have the potential to reach every community across the U.S.; 

c. Focus on community capacity-building and sustainability, so that chosen interventions will continue to be implemented over time; and 

d. Develop and maintain ongoing partnerships, to which I will turn next. 

2. Strategic partnerships with ongoing, hands-on technical assistance, including 

direct support from scientists or evaluators. 

Over the 15 years our projects have entailed partnering with 106 public schools 

on a long-term basis and many others on a short-term basis. Over the course of the 

last 15 years, our partnership model has evolved. To begin, our evaluation of community-based interventions had an initial community-university partnership structure for collaborative research and program implementation. In a study called 

Project Family Trial I, we collaborated with local Extension agents early in the process to help coordinate with local public school staff and program facilitators who, 

in turn, closely communicated with university partners to implement and evaluate 

our preventive interventions. This led to a second generation partnership structure 

employed in another earlier project, namely the ‘‘Capable Families and Youth’’ 

Project, where we learned how helpful it was to involve Extension staff who acted 

as linking agents at the state/regional level and assisted in coordinating our intensive program implementation and evaluation work across communities. The second 

generation partnership added a loosely-knit group of community residents who 

helped with organization and implementation of the intervention, but did not function as a team committed to long-term implementation (e.g., with regularly scheduled meetings and decision-making capabilities concerning implementation). 

Inspired by the successes of the first two generations of partnership projects, we 

co-hosted a conference about Extension-assisted research projects (Spoth, 1998) that 

led to the design for the third generation of community partnerships. A salient, 

somewhat unique feature of the third generation is the relatively small size of the 

community partnerships, compared with so-called ‘‘big tent’’ community coalitions. 

These teams are designed to be very strategic, with focused intervention goals, and 

38

the responsibility to select interventions to implement locally (both family-focused 

and school-based) from an intervention menu. 

The organizational structure for the third generation partnership model is outlined in Figure 1. Three teams form the model. 

a. Local Strategic Teams: 

• Are comprised of Extension System staff who serve as linking agents between 

public school system and other service or resource systems, such as health and social service provider organizations, as well as other local community stakeholders, 

including parent groups, and youth groups; • Meet regularly to plan activities/review progress; • Select interventions from an intervention menu; • Recruit participants for family-focused interventions; • Hire and supervise program implementers; • Handle all logistics involved with program implementation; • Market the partnership model in their communities; and • Locate resources for sustaining programs after grant funding ends. 

A Prevention Coordinator Team: 

• Includes prevention coordinators based in university outreach or Extension system; • Provides support to local teams; and • Provides ongoing, hands-on technical assistance, as well as documentation of 

ongoing partnership processes. 

A University Prevention Team: 

• Includes prevention scientists and Extension Program Directors; 

• Provides resources and support to both local and prevention coordinating teams; 

and 

• Provides administrative oversight, offers input on data collection and analyses, 

and drafts project reports. 

There are three phases of team development. During the first phase, team members are selected, regular meetings are scheduled, and the team begins to plan 

intervention work. While in the second ‘‘operations’’ phase, the teams learn about 

evidence-based interventions on the menu, consider their local community needs, select family-focused and school-based interventions, recruit for the family interventions, and implement both types of interventions. During the third phase, teams develop plans for sustaining their team and their selected interventions; subsequently 

the team implements sustainability plans (including marketing their efforts and 

generating resources) and monitors its progress. 

Organizational Structure for Community–School–University Partnership Model 

(Across three phases of organization, operations, and sustainability)

Currently, we are implementing this model on a project called PROSPER (PROmoting School-community-university Partnerships to Enhance Resilience) conducted 

in collaboration with our colleagues at Pennsylvania State University. 

3. Evidence-based interventions for positive outcomes and economic benefits. 

The Society for Prevention Research has summarized standards for classifying 

interventions as evidence-based. By those standards, evidence-based interventions, 

or EBIs, are those interventions that: (a) emphasize a strong theory base; (b) clearly 

specify target populations and outcomes; (c) use psychometrically sound measurement of outcomes; and (d) are supported by rigorous evaluation of outcomes, preferably randomized, controlled studies. The advantages of EBIs are: 


spoth2.eps
39

a. Positive outcomes and economic benefits more likely for youth, families and others; 

b. Better accountability—resources not used for ineffective programs; 

c. Potentially better access to funding that is increasingly restricted to EBIs; and 

d. Availability of materials, training and technical assistance. 

Our focus has been on the partnership-based implementation of EBIs designed for 

general community populations. These EBIs aim to positively influence the two 

most important socializing environments for youth; namely, family and school. Extensive research has shown that key causal factors for substance abuse originate in 

the family and/or school environments, including parenting skills (e.g., parent-child 

communication, warmth, consistent discipline, and monitoring of child activities) 

and youth skills (e.g., social competence, decision-making, assertiveness, and substance refusal skills). EBIs included in Institute projects aim to influence these 

causal factors. Two examples follow. 

A family-focused EBI we have evaluated extensively, the Strengthening Families 

Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 (formerly the Iowa Strengthening Families 

Program), is based upon theory and empirical research (DeMarsh & Kumpfer, 1986; 

Kumpfer, Molgaard, & Spoth, 1996; Molgaard, Spoth, & Redmond, 2000). Goals include the enhancement of parental skills in nurturing, limit-setting, and communication, as well as a range of youth competencies, including peer resistance skills. 

Skills are taught to both parents and their young adolescent by trained facilitators 

during seven consecutive weekly sessions. Each session includes a separate, concurrent one-hour parent and youth skills-building curriculum, followed by a one-hour 

family curriculum during which parents and youth practice skills learned in their 

separate sessions. Sessions use discussions, skill-building activities, videotapes that 

model positive behavior, and games designed to build skills and strengthen positive 

interactions among family members. 

A school-based EBI we have evaluated, the Life Skills Training Program, was developed at Cornell University by Gilbert Botvin and his colleagues (Botvin, 1996, 

2000), and is theory-based (Bandura, 1977; Jessor & Jessor, 1977). It consists of several lessons taught to adolescents during middle school. The primary programmatic 

goals are to promote skill development (e.g., social resistance, self-management, and 

general social skills) and to provide a knowledge base concerning the avoidance of 

substance use. Students are trained in the various skills through the use of interactive teaching techniques, including coaching, facilitating, role modeling, feedback, 

and reinforcement, plus homework exercises and out-of-class behavioral rehearsal. 

It is very important to note that all of the EBIs we have implemented and evaluated aim to prevent all substance use and do not focus on any one substance in particular; however, we do subscribe to the idea that if there is a delay in initiation 

of alcohol use (the substance of choice among rural youth), that delay will help prevent the use or abuse of more serious substances, like methamphetamines. 

4. Quality Implementation of evidence-based interventions for positive outcomes 

and economic benefits. 

Many prevention efforts fail because of the common misperception that effective 

EBIs can be easily implemented, but the relevant literature indicates this is seldom 

the case (Backer, 2003; Fixen et al., 2005; Greenberg et al., 2000). Furthermore, numerous studies have shown that program implementation tends to drift away from 

the quality necessary to produce positive program outcomes. Implementing effective 

programs is difficult work, and requires careful, ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the implementation process. Our school-community-university partnerships 

work hard to maintain a high quality of program implementation. To accomplish 

this goal, our partnerships engage in problem-solving, resource generation, and applying research findings to increase implementation effectiveness. Our data, from 

trained observers of the implementation process, consistently show high-quality implementation. 

5. Sustainability planning model for long-term local buy-in and funding. 

Research suggests that one of the major barriers to public health impact of EBIs 

is the failure to sustain programmatic efforts, particularly when the activities are 

initially funded through time-limited grants. Central to our partnership approach is 

a strategic sustainability planning model that begins early in the process. Our partnerships emphasize sustainability of both a well-functioning community team and 

of continued, quality implementation of EBIs, with emphasis on the generation of 

local financial and human resources. We are pleased that by the fourth year of our 

PROSPER project, sustainability planning has resulted in 100% of communities obtaining at least partial funding to continue programming. 

III. What is the evidence that our approach works in general? A. Short answer: 

Six randomized, controlled studies and 11 supplemental studies over 15 years have 

shown effective partnership processes and positive long-term outcomes on substance 

40

use, problem behaviors, positive youth development, and family functioning. Again, 

we are grateful for our funding for this research from the National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National 

Institute on Mental Health, and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

B. More detailed answer: As noted, over the past 15 years we have amassed substantial positive findings from a number of studies, in pursuit of our mission to promote healthy youth and families through school-community-university partnerships. 

The school-based and family-focused EBIs implemented have primarily focused on 

reduction of substance- and conduct-related problems. Benefits of EBI implementation extend beyond that, however, including positive effects on other mental health 

outcomes and mental health promotion (for example, enhanced parenting skills). 

To illustrate positive longitudinal outcomes, in addition to those concerning methamphetamine use, in one of our studies we examined rates of substance initiation 

from 6th grade through 12th grade. The pattern of growth in initiation of substances of choice (for example, alcohol) follows a specific type of pattern, with an 

initially slow growth rate that rapidly increases and then returns to a slower growth 

rate in the latter years of high school. The estimated growth curves demonstrated 

statistically significant differences in the rate of growth for substance use for our 

family-focused EBI and control groups (see Figure below illustrating lifetime drunkenness). Other alcohol-related initiation measures (such as lifetime alcohol use) 

showed similar growth patterns (Spoth, Redmond, Shin, & Azevedo, 2004).

Other analyses have focused on the average age at which students in each experimental condition reach a certain rate of use on a range of lifetime use measures. 

Such analyses allow for a comparison between the family-focused EBI group and the 

control group on the age at which a certain percentage of students (often 50%) have 

progressed from ‘‘no use’’ to initiation (e.g., begin smoking cigarettes). For example, 

if we look at when 50% of the students report ever being drunk, this occurred more 

than two years later in the EBI group than the control group (at age 17.8 vs. 15.5) 

(Spoth et al., 2004).


spoth3.eps
41

To determine whether EBIs are effective for high-risk students, effects on substance use for higher- versus lower-risk adolescents also are important to consider. 

Typically our interventions show that higher-risk youth and families benefit as 

much as lower-risk youth and families. In other cases, higher-risk youth benefit 

more. In the following example, youth are defined as higher risk if they already 

have used two or more substances—alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana—prior to implementation of the EBIs. The following graph illustrates strong intervention effects on 

yearly marijuana use for higher risk youth (Spoth, Guyll, & Day, 2002).

Note: ISFP is the Iowa Strengthening Families Program; SFP + LST is the 

Strengthening Families Program (revised ISFP) plus Life Skills Training. 

Importantly, research at PPSI and that of others has demonstrated the economic 

benefits of these positive substance prevention outcomes. For example, to estimate 

benefit-cost ratios we used data on intervention effects on the delay of onset in alcohol use along with data on (a) the relation between delayed onset of alcohol use in 

adolescence and alcohol use disorders in adulthood, and (b) the societal costs avoided by preventing adult alcohol use disorders. The next figure shows the estimated 

return for each dollar invested in the family-focused EBI under actual study conditions—an estimated return of $9.60 for each dollar invested. If additional positive 

outcomes, such as those on meth use, were factored into the equation, the return 

would be even greater. The next figure also shows the expected changes in the dolVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK

spoth4.eps spoth5.eps
42

lars returned when the number of adult alcohol use disorders prevented per 100 

participants is increased and decreased by 1. The fact that the estimates remain 

well above zero suggests the robustness of the conclusion that the preventive intervention constituted a fiscally sound investment (Spoth, Guyll, & Day, 2002).

Also, the principal conclusion of an exhaustive analysis conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that some EBI youth programs are excellent investments. This report suggests that whether funds are federal, state, or 

local government, corporate or private, investing resources in proven, ‘‘blue chip’’ 

prevention stock is fiscally sound. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy 

(Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001) estimated the comparative costs and taxpayer 

benefits for over 60 prevention programs. PPSI’s PROSPER project has successfully 

implemented several of the programs reviewed in this report. Each program shows 

a net savings per child attending and a positive return on investment (see table 

below).

Project ALERT All Stars Life Skills Train- ing 

Strengthening Families 

Program: For Parents 

and Youth 10–14

SAVINGS per child attending ................................. $54 $120 $717 $5,805

RETURN on every $1 invested ............................... $18.02 $3.43 $25.61 $7.82

Information on other outcomes, including those on youth skills, parenting skills, 

family functioning, and mental health outcomes can be found on our website 

(ppsi.iastate.edu). 

IV. How can our approach help to address the challenges of larger-scale prevention impact? 

A. Short answer: Achieving larger-scale impact requires confrontation with some 

major challenges; infrastructure support and resources to expand the partnership 

network are needed. 

B. More detailed answer: Two of the major challenges to achieving communitylevel impact of preventive interventions on a large scale concern EBIs. First, we 

need to increase the number of EBIs to serve youth and their families in a culturally-competent way, across all settings and all stages of youth development. Second, and most importantly, we need effective delivery systems that sustain largescale, quality implementation of these EBIs. 

As concerns the first need, over the past two decades the field of prevention 

science has been successful in greatly expanding the number of EBIs. Nonetheless, 

although many reviews of EBIs have catalogued a large number of relevant interventions for youth, families and communities (e.g., Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, 

Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; Durlak & Wells, 1997; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; 


spoth6.eps
43

Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002; Greenberg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2000), 

most interventions implemented in real-world settings are not evidence-based. Further, more EBIs are required to meet the demands of all youth and families across 

rural, suburban, and urban settings. 

Although noteworthy progress has been made in the development and testing of 

EBIs, limited headway has been made with the second challenge of sustained, largescale, quality delivery of EBIs. The EBIs that exist are not widely disseminated, and 

those that are disseminated are often not implemented with quality, nor sustained 

over time (Ennett et al., 2003; Hallfors et al., 2002). Community partnerships are 

increasingly seen as a means of addressing this issue; however, we clearly need 

more research on the process of disseminating EBIs and scaling them up for greater 

public health impact. We also need capacity-building for sustained quality implementation both within and across networks of communities (Spoth & Greenberg, 

2005). 

Addressing the challenge of effective, large-scale delivery will require some difficult systems-level changes in our primary EBI delivery system. As an example, 

some needed changes were highlighted in a survey of Extension staff. Survey results 

suggested five key areas in need of attention: (1) changing countervailing organizational values or beliefs, such as the belief that existing resources should primarily 

sustain traditional programming (e.g., traditional 4H youth programs); (2) competing reward structures for Extension staff, such as rewards for reporting high 

numbers of people attending meetings or those reached through newsletters, rather 

than for EBI results; (3) competing programmatic resource demands for already-existing programs, plus the need to see new sources of funding for existing programs, 

(i.e., as described by Extension staff: ‘‘I’m always dealing with what makes the 

phone ring and the door swing’’); (4) increasing administrative support for collaboration on EBI implementation; and (5) increasing the number of champions for EBIs. 

It is expected that following the model diffusion process described subsequently 

would greatly facilitate these types of changes, over time. 

Our partnership model is designed for dissemination to states across the entire 

U.S. Indeed, a large number of states already have expressed interest in adopting 

our partnership model. Scaling up for widespread dissemination requires: • A set of state-focused replication plans to bring our partnership model to additional states, to address a range of youth development and problem-behavior areas 

where EBIs could help. • The development of infrastructure to support a network for new partnerships, 

including informational materials, technical assistance, and a structure for partnership networking. 

We believe that it will be important to follow a diffusion of innovation approach 

(Rogers, 1995), starting with ‘‘early adopter’’ states that demonstrate readiness for 

successful model implementation, as capacity is built for supporting additional 

states and communities that subsequently adopt the partnership model. As the 

early adopter states show positive results from their pilot projects, the level of interest in adopting the model, and in developing the capacity to respond to that interest, 

would allow the partnership model to spread and the partnership network to develop. 

In other words, a sequence would unfold in which, first, the model will be expanded to additional communities beyond the pilot communities within the early 

adopter states. Then, the dissemination model will be expanded into additional 

states, involving gradually increasing numbers of communities beyond the pilot communities. In addition, the model will be applied to positive youth development and 

reduction of problem behaviors beyond substance abuse and conduct problem prevention. For example, we are working with obesity prevention researchers to adapt 

the model to that area. The partnership model is a general framework that is not 

restricted to substance prevention interventions—although, to date, the evidence for 

model effectiveness has been focused on substance abuse and conduct problem prevention. 

1. State-focused replication and expansion plans. 

To start, replication efforts in additional states will focus on implementing and 

testing EBIs preventing substance abuse and conduct problems, along with related 

positive youth development for middle school youth. In all cases, replication projects 

will build upon existing partnership-related efforts within the state (such as Community Anti–Drug Coalitions of America, Communities that Care Coalitions). To ensure success of the replication effort we will consider the readiness of states and 

communities to implement the partnership model. This will include readiness assessments that evaluate interest in the project among opinion leaders within Extension and public education, as well as possibilities of partnering with prevention scientists and evaluators in the state. In addition, prospective communities that might 

44

be involved would need to demonstrate commitment to prevention, the resources 

available for the community effort, and evidence of relevant past collaboration. 

Each statewide replication effort will begin with the formation of a steering committee, with representation from Extension, prevention research scientists, the state 

Department of Education, and other stakeholders or potential funders. The steering 

committee will review interest in replication at the state and community levels; subsequently, the committee will make a decision concerning the level of interest and 

the presence of funding to drive a replication effort under their guidance, with support from the national partnership network infrastructure. 

If the decision is made to proceed in prospective replication states, plans will be 

made for state team development, supportive infrastructure, and community pilot 

studies (ideally, three or four communities in each state). State leadership will be 

provided by the steering committee and a prevention coordinator, along with local 

leadership supervising a community team. Each community pilot will include funding for an evaluation component to inform project improvements as it proceeds and 

to contribute to a knowledge-base about the partnership model. 

2. Partnerships Infrastructure Development and Research. 

Necessary national infrastructure to support the network of partnerships will include: 

a. an information dissemination component including a website; 

b. technical assistance for each replication state; 

c. partnership manuals and handbooks; 

d. an information management system; and 

e. a national-level steering committee, including representatives from both the 

replication states and the initiating states. 

The partnership model in each replication state will be patterned after the existing PROSPER model currently being implemented in Iowa and Pennsylvania. 

There are limited financial resources and capacity for partnership model diffusion 

and network development. With the probable reduction to the U.S. DOE Safe and 

Drug Free Schools funding, the pool of resources for substance prevention programming by community partnerships will be diminished. Given the increasing emphasis 

placed on demonstrating program effectiveness, it is worth restating that, based on 

15 years of PPSI research, a high return on investment for substance abuse prevention would likely result when community partnerships implement EBIs with high 

quality, in conjunction with university partners that have the capacity to provide 

ongoing technical assistance and program evaluation. 

From the perspective of the above described approach, the most effective use of 

federal dollars for substance abuse prevention requires: (1) effective linkages among 

key intervention delivery and evaluation systems; (2) strategic school-communityuniversity partnerships; (3) the use of EBIs; (4) implementation with fidelity; and 

(5) sustainability planning. As an example of legislation that supports this type of 

approach, the HeLP America Act (HAA) is designed to have a positive impact on 

public mental health and well-being. To accomplish this goal, the HAA emphasizes 

the aforementioned key elements, including the highest caliber of programs, delivered with high quality by community-based partnerships. The HAA also recommends that strong emphases be placed on both sustaining the program after initial funding ends and on the importance of a high-quality programmatic evaluation 

to accomplish this goal. In other words, the HAA is one step in the direction of what 

clearly is needed in a steady and substantial long-term stream of funding. 

In short, we believe an investment in the type of partnership approach outlined 

above would: (a) save money; (b) reduce substance use-related problems; and (c) improve youth and family health and well-being, making a ‘‘real world’’ difference. 

Again, I thank you for this opportunity and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

REFERENCES

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of programs to reduce crime. Version 4.0 (Research Report No. WSIPP–1–05–1201, Clearinghouse No. 

UD 034 215). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453340) Available [On-line]: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/

costbenefit.pdf or http://www.eric.ed.gov/

Backer, T. E. (2003). Evaluating community collaborations. New York: Springer. 

Botvin, G. J. (1996). Substance abuse prevention through Life Skills Training. In R. DeV. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency (pp. 215–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Botvin, G. J. (2000). Life Skills Training. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Health Press 

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). 

Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive 

45

youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 15. Retrieved November 17, 

2003, from: http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050015a.html 

DeMarsh, J. P., & Kumpfer, K. L. (1986). Family-oriented interventions for the prevention of 

chemical dependency in children and adolescents. In S. Griswold–Ezekoye, K. L. Kumpfer, & 

W. J. Bukowski (Eds.), Childhood and chemical abuse: Prevention and intervention (pp. 117–

151). New York: Haworth Press. 

Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children 

and adolescents: A meta-analytic review [Special issue: Meta-analysis of primary prevention programs]. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25(2), 115–152. 

Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs: The future 

is exciting [Special issue: Meta-analysis of primary prevention programs]. American Journal of 

Community Psychology, 25(2), 233–243. 

Ennett, S. T., Ringwalt, C. L., Thorne, J., Rohrbach, L. A., Vincus, A., Simons–Rudolph, A., 

et al. (2003). A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prevention Science, 4(1), 1–14. 

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C. Retrieved November 17, 2003, (The report is available as an ‘‘open book’’ online) 

from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10022.html 

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication 231). 

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Zins, J. E. (2001). The study of implementation in school-based prevention research: Theory, research and practice. Report submitted 

to the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: 

Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 3–35. 

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., & Bumbarger, B. (2000). Preventing mental disorders 

in school-aged children: A review of the effectiveness of prevention programs. Retrieved November 17, 2003, from: http://www.prevention.psu.edu/resources.html 

Hall, J. N., & Broderick, P. M. (1991). Community networks for response to abuse outbreaks 

of methamphetamine and its analogs. In M. A. Miller & N. J. Kozel (Eds.), Methamphetamine 

abuse: Epidemiologic issues and implications [Electronic version] (National Institute on Drug 

Abuse Research Monograph Series, NIDA Research Monograph No. 115, DHHS Publication No. 

ADM 91–1836, pp. 109–120). 1991: Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; Alcohol, 

Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Hallfors, D., Cho, H., Livert, D., & Kadushin, C. (2002). Fighting back against substance 

abuse: Are community coalitions winning? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 237–

245. 

Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press. 

Johnston, L. D., O Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2001). The Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2002. Publication NIH 02–5105. 

Johnston, L. D., O Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2004). Monitoring 

the future national results on adolescent drug use: Overview of key findings. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse (2005). Available online at http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/

monographs/overview2004.pdf 

Kumpfer, K. L., Molgaard, V., & Spoth, R. (1996). The Strengthening Families Program for 

the prevention of delinquency and drug use. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing 

childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 241–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Molgaard, V. M., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2000). Competency training: The Strengthening 

Families Program for Parents and Youth 10–14. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin (NCJ 182208). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

The National Clearinghouse on Drug and Alcohol Information (NCADI). The methamphetamine challenge: Threatening communities coast-to-coast (telecast Downlink), June 19, 1997. 

Oetting, E. R., Deffenbacher, J. L., Taylor, M. J., Luther, N., Beauvais, F., & Edwards, R. 

W. (2000). Methamphetamine use by high school students: Recent trends, gender and ethnicity 

differences, and use of other drugs. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 10(1), 33–

50. 

Rawson, R. A., Anglin, M. D., & Ling, W. (2002). Will the methamphetamine problem go 

away? Journal of Addition Disorders, 21, 5–19. 

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press 

Spoth, R., Clair, S., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2005). Two randomized studies of the long-term 

effects of brief, partnership-based universal interventions on prevention of methamphetamine 

use. Manuscript under review. 

Spoth, R. L., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). Toward a comprehensive strategy for effective practitioner-scientist partnerships and larger-scale community benefits. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3/4), 107–126. 

Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., Bierman, K., & Redmond, C. (2004). PROSPER Community-university partnership model for public education systems: Capacity-building for evidence-based, competence-building prevention. Prevention Science [Invited article for Special issue], 5(1), 31–39. 

46

Spoth, R., Guyll, M., & Day, S. X. (2002). Universal family-focused interventions in alcoholuse disorder prevention: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(2), 219–228. 

Spoth, R., Randall, G. K., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (in press). Randomized study of combined 

universal family and school preventive interventions: Patterns of long-term effects on initiation, 

regular use, and weekly drunkenness. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 

Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., & Azevedo, K. (2004). Brief family intervention effects on 

adolescent substance initiation: School-level curvilinear growth curve analyses six years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 535–542. 

Wermuth, Laurie. (2000). Methamphetamine use: Hazards and social influences. Journal of 

Drug Education, 30(4), 423–433. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Okay. Thank you. 

I think we have a vote coming up, so, Ms. Cain, we will be able 

to take your testimony. Since a couple of people have to catch airplanes, we probably will not come back. 

So we really appreciate it. I wish we had more time to ask questions, but why don’t you go ahead with your testimony, Ms. Cain, 

at this point? 

STATEMENT OF MS. CRISTI CAIN, STATE COORDINATOR, KANSAS METHAMPHETAMINE PREVENTION PROJECT, TOPEKA, 

KS 

Ms. CAIN. Chairman Osborne and other distinguished members 

of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

behalf of the Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention Project. I am 

pleased to be able to provide information today about prevention efforts in Kansas and across the United States. 

Methamphetamine production and use results in tremendous economic and social costs to communities across the nation, which includes property crimes and health care costs. 

One major concern is for the children affected by their parents’ 

methamphetamine use and manufacture, including children prenatally exposed. The cost of one meth-exposed infant can total over 

$1.7 million during their life span. 

The statewide Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention Project was 

implemented in October 2002. KMPP provides training and technical assistance on comprehensive, community-wide strategies for 

addressing the methamphetamine problem that focus on both reducing the supply of and the demand for meth. 

Two-thirds of Kansas counties have implemented efforts to address methamphetamine, and we have assisted 38 states by providing training, technical assistance and resources. 

Key components of what was implemented in communities across 

the state include training key community leaders, assessing the 

level of the meth problem at the community level, building public 

awareness by targeting specific community sectors with education, 

including retailers, farmers, property owners, hotel employees, first 

responders, and chance encounter occupations, including home visitation professionals, and through media campaigns. 

Another key component focuses on changing specific features of 

the environment through efforts including Meth Watch, which is a 

program designed to engage retail stores, to address the sale and 

theft of meth precursor products, and also anhydrous ammonia control strategies. 

Providing targeted education and skills building are also key 

components. We partner with Safe and Drug-Free Schools proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
47

grams to ensure that effective drug prevention curricula and programming are implemented in the schools. 

Our efforts include youth involvement and training for school 

staff. Working to change policies and practices at both the state 

and local level is another key component. 

Kansas passed a Schedule 5 law which significantly reduces access to cold medications containing pseudoephedrine. Another law 

passed was an increase in the penalty for meth-related activity in 

the presence of a child. 

Other changes in policies and practices have included policy 

changes in how community agencies provide services for children 

born meth exposed or found in meth environments. 

Other strategies implemented include the development of drugendangered children programs which have momentum nationally. 

Kansas has state and local efforts to assist children who have been 

affected by their parents’ meth use and manufacture. 

Counties implementing efforts reported decreases in thefts of 

precursor products, reduced usage by youth, reductions in perceived availability by youth, improved collaboration and increased 

public awareness. 

A case study evaluation completed in July 2004 demonstrates 

positive results in counties that fully implemented four key components. What they found was that three of the four fully implementing counties saw an all-time low in the perceived availability 

of meth among high school seniors, which were counter to both 

state-wide trends and trends of comparison counties. 

All counties with available data saw improvement in reported 

rates of friends who used meth in the past year, and use of meth 

among high school seniors in the past 30 days decreased by as 

much as 24 percent from levels reported before project implementation. 

In the course of doing this work in Kansas and throughout the 

nation, we have gained significant knowledge. I wanted to share 

some key lessons for effective meth prevention. 

One is that meth is a multidimensional problem that demands 

comprehensive, coordinated solutions involving the collaboration of 

multiple community sectors. It cannot be solved by law enforcement alone, which is a common belief in many communities. 

Second, the need to build and sustain effective prevention infrastructures and communities must be instilled as a national, state 

and community value. As funding priorities shift and drug trends 

change, effective prevention efforts are often cut or eliminated. 

A coordinated effort to provide expert technical assistance, resources and training for communities is essential. The Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools and Communities program is the foundation on 

which other school-based prevention efforts are built, and it is critical. 

Effective meth prevention must be data-driven. And we have 

found that small amounts of startup funding can engage communities in comprehensive efforts to combat meth that leverage other 

community resources. 

I wanted to close with a success story from Rice County, Kansas 

which is very rural and has a population of about 10,000 people. 

They implemented comprehensive efforts in early 2003 as a result 

48

of access to training, resources including mini-grant funding, and 

ongoing support from our project. 

Outcomes in the county show significant reductions in perceived 

availability of meth, friends who use meth and lifetime use. It is 

clear that prevention efforts can make a significant difference for 

communities working to address this meth problem. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about our experiences 

gained from working in Kansas and other states throughout the 

nation. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cain follows:]

Statement of Cristi Cain, State Coordinator, Kansas Methamphetamine 

Prevention Project, Topeka, KS

Chairman Castle, Ranking Member Woolsey and other distinguished members of 

the Subcommittee on Education Reform, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of the Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention Project. I am 

pleased to be able to provide information today about prevention efforts to address 

the methamphetamine problem in Kansas and across the United States. 

The Impact of Meth: 

Methamphetamine production and use result in tremendous economic and social 

costs to communities across the nation including: law enforcement and incarceration; clean-up of clandestine lab sites; addiction treatment; domestic violence; theft, 

burglaries, and other property crimes; emergency medical treatment; HIV/AIDS; 

workplace violence; environmental contamination; murders and suicides. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation estimates the percentage of property crimes which are 

meth-related at approximately 50% for many Kansas communities. Meth-related 

health care costs have also increased significantly. It is estimated that the damage 

to the teeth of one meth user costs approximately $7,000 to repair (Lonna Jones, 

Supervisor, Sioux River Valley Community Dental Clinic, 2005). Other associated 

health care costs include treatment of overdoses, burns, and infectious diseases such 

as hepatitis B and C which are very common among injecting meth users. As meth 

users are jailed and incarcerated, many local and state governments must absorb 

these tremendous costs. 

Methamphetamine manufacture and use also lead to child abuse and neglect including exposure to environmental hazards, sexual abuse and other health issues 

(Dr. Wendy Wright, San Diego Drug Endangered Children Team, 2002). Children 

exposed to methamphetamine environments are at great risk for physical, emotional, and developmental harm. These children frequently suffer from respiratory 

conditions, are malnourished and experience developmental delays. Based on information from several Kansas hospitals, it is apparent many communities have a significant number of children born exposed to meth due to their mothers’’ use of the 

drug during pregnancy. These children are six times more likely to have birth defects, and 30% more likely to be born pre-term, and experience neurological conditions. As they grow older, these children are highly likely to be diagnosed as ADHD 

and have impulse and anger control problems (Dr. Rizwan Shah, Blank Children’s 

Hospital, Des Moines, Iowa). The cost of one meth-exposed infant over his or her 

lifespan can total over $1.7 million dollars. This estimate includes the costs to school 

systems for special education and other services for these children estimated at approximately $75,000 per child. (Dr. Dennis Embry, Paxis Institute). 

The Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention Project: 

Efforts to address methamphetamine began in 1999 in Shawnee County, Kansas 

(pop. 169,871) as a pilot project. Using the Shawnee County project as a model, the 

Kansas Methamphetamine Prevention Project (KMPP) was implemented in October 

2002 in response to the devastating consequences Kansas communities were experiencing from methamphetamine production and usage. KMPP provides training and 

technical assistance on comprehensive, community-wide strategies for addressing 

the methamphetamine problem that focus on both reducing the supply of and demand for meth. When efforts began in 2002, four statewide trainings of trainers 

were conducted. The purpose of the trainings was to demonstrate the need for communities to address the problem, provide key background information needed for 

community awareness, and provide resources needed for communities to quickly implement proven strategies. Additionally, participating communities were eligible to 

apply for minigrants which served as start-up funding for the implementation of 

49

methamphetamine prevention efforts. One key aspect of KMPP’s success is that it 

teaches communities to be data driven in dealing with the meth issue. KMPP trains 

communities to collect and analyze baseline data to assess the level of their specific 

meth problem. Participating communities collect and analyze data from various 

sources such as: student surveys, law enforcement, prisons and jails, retail stores, 

treatment and other social service providers. Once they have a clear picture of the 

extent and consequences of the meth issues in their community, KMPP helps them 

implement a comprehensive array of evidence-based strategies and programs to address the meth issue, across the entire spectrum of community institutions and citizens that actually meet their community’s specific needs. KMPP also teaches communities to use an online evaluation and documentation system to track their outcomes over time. 

To date, 66% of Kansas counties have implemented efforts to address methamphetamine through the assistance of KMPP. Additionally, KMPP has assisted 38 

states by providing training, technical assistance and resources. KMPP has also assisted with the implementation of a national model for engaging retail stores, Meth 

Watch. 

KMPP has found that the success of meth prevention efforts is dependent upon 

the extent to which schools, law enforcement, parents, businesses and other community systems and groups work comprehensively and collaboratively to implement a 

full array of education, prevention, enforcement and treatment initiatives. KMPP 

has modeled this comprehensive approach itself, by partnering in the development 

and implementation of its entire program with a wide variety of interdisciplinary 

partners including: Kansas Bureau of Investigation; Kansas Department of Health 

and Environment; Midwest HIDTA; Kansas Regional Prevention Centers; K–State 

Research and Extension; Kansas Social and Rehabilitation Services; Addiction & 

Prevention Services & Children and Family Policy Division; Kansas National Guard; 

Shawnee Regional Prevention and Recovery Services; Kansas Family Partnership/

RADAR Network; Kansas Farm Bureau; Sedgwick County District Attorney’s Office; 

United States Attorney’s Office–Wichita; Community Systems Group; and the University of Kansas. 

The specific array of strategies and programs that have been developed for communities to implement through KMPP are organized into the following four core 

component groups: (1) build public awareness; (2) provide targeted education and 

skills building; (3) change specific features of the environment; and (4) seek relevant 

changes in policies and practices of key local institutions. 

Build Public Awareness: 

Community Awareness: Focus on educating multiple community sectors about 

how to identify and report methamphetamine activity and how to address the meth 

problem in a community. Awareness activities include town hall meetings, trainings, 

community-specific educational materials, and implementation of Neighborhood 

Watch. Sectors targeted include parents, property owners, hotel/motel employees, 

neighborhood residents, chance encounter occupations including realtors, gas service 

employees, and hunters, judges, prosecutors, day care providers, child protective 

service workers, and health care professionals. 

Media: Efforts include public service announcements for television and newspapers, news conferences, billboards, and press releases with subsequent coverage 

of events. The Project has a website which provides access to information about 

strategies and resources. Additionally, a quarterly E-newsletter is distributed to individuals in communities across the state with updated information about resources 

available, legislation, training opportunities, and current trends. 

First Responder Training: Provides emergency personnel current information for 

recognition of methamphetamine activity and appropriate responses. 

Safety Training for Home Visitation Professionals: Training was designed for social workers and other professionals who enter homes where meth activity may take 

place after it was discovered that these employees, who are mostly female and enter 

homes alone, have limited safety training. The training focuses on recognition of 

meth activity and safety information. 

Web-based Training: Two trainings accessible via the Internet have been created. 

One is geared toward social service professionals and one provides general information about methamphetamine. 

Change Specific Features of the Environment: 

Meth Watch: Created in Kansas in 2000, Meth Watch utilizes signage to deter 

theft and purchase of precursor products in retail stores, includes an employee 

training program, educates customers, and encourages reporting of suspicious transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
50

actions to law enforcement. Outcomes include reduced thefts of precursor products 

and increased arrests based on intelligence from retail personnel. 

Rural Strategies: Focus on educating farmers and ranchers about preventing theft 

of anhydrous ammonia by making tanks less accessible and utilizing surveillance 

equipment. One strategy to inform farmers their tanks had been tampered with 

were 18 inch stainless steel tamper tags. 75,000 tamper tags have been distributed 

across Kansas. Additionally, Shawnee County implemented a pilot project placing 

a locking device on every anhydrous ammonia tank in the county. An evaluation 

will be completed to determine the effectiveness of the project. Evaluation results 

from other states have demonstrated reductions in the anhydrous ammonia method 

of manufacturing in communities with locks. 

Provide Targeted Education and Skills Building: 

School and Youth Involvement: Partner with Safe and Drug Free Schools programs to insure that effective drug prevention curricula and programming are implemented in the schools; usage of meth-specific curriculum created by Midwest 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area; presentations to youth in schools; in-service 

trainings for teachers and other school staff; special events in schools; involving existing youth organizations (e.g. SADD, 4–H, Future Farmers of America) 

Relevant Changes in Policies and Practices in Key Institutions: 

Legislation: Kansas passed a Schedule V law which went into effect June 1, 2005. 

All cold medications with ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as the active ingredient in 

starch form are available at pharmacies only. Sales are limited to 3 packages in a 

7 day period. Customers must show identification and sign a pharmacy log. The law 

was passed in response to an increase in activity after Oklahoma passed a similar 

law in 2004. Early indicators suggest a significant reduction in methamphetamine 

lab seizures as a result. Another law passed was an increase in the penalty for 

meth-related activity in the presence of a child from a misdemeanor to a felony. 

Other changes in policies and practices have included utilization of reporting 

forms by law enforcement agencies, gaining cooperation from retail stores in implementation of components of Meth Watch, policy changes in how community agencies 

provide services for children found in methamphetamine environments, and implementation of screening systems to identify use of substances by pregnant women. 

Other Strategies: 

Drug Endangered Children (DEC) Programs: Kansas has state level efforts and 

local efforts to assist children who have been affected by their parents’’ meth use 

and manufacture. The Kansas Alliance for Drug Endangered Children provides 

oversight, training and technical assistance to communities implementing DEC programs. Thirty-one Kansas counties have DEC programs. One county, Shawnee, has 

implemented a pilot project designed to address substance-exposed newborns. 

Minigrants: Start-up funding awarded to communities for implementation of meth 

prevention and education efforts. 

Resource materials: Include a community methamphetamine prevention kit that 

contains a 15 section manual with in-depth information about implementation of 

strategies; a CD-rom with presentations for multiple target audiences, videos, brochures, press releases, statistics, and multiple documents which can be updated 

with community specific information; and other materials; and quick reference cards 

for home visitors. 

Outcomes in Kansas: 

In July 2004, the Community Systems Group completed a case study evaluation 

of KMPP. KMPP showed positive results in the perceived supply of methamphetamine, demand for methamphetamine, and in the use of methamphetamine among 

high school seniors in the October 2002–September 2003 time period. These positive 

results occurred in counties that fully implemented the Project’s four recommended 

components and are based on case studies of intervention and comparison counties. 

More than thirty-five counties in Kansas began implementing the four core components of the KMPP in 2003. Counties implementing efforts reported decreases in 

thefts of precursor products, reduced usage by youth, reductions in perceived availability by youth, improved collaboration, and increased public awareness. 

Four counties were able to achieve ‘‘full implementation’’ in the first twelve 

months. A county is considered to be ‘‘fully implementing’’ when all four of the core 

components are put in place and have widespread/county-wide adoption. Given that 

the only specific financial resources provided to local communities for this comprehensive meth prevention program came in the form of minigrants (most were for 

less than $1,000), it is a testament to how important the meth problem is in these 

counties that key leaders stepped forward and provided the time, resources and assets of their local community to support project implementation. For the fully impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 18:59 May 30, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\DOCS\EWDOCS\ER\11-17-05\24605 HBUD1 PsN: DICK
51

menting communities, the investment of substantial local resources appears to be 

paying off. 

Key findings of the case studies include: 

Three of the four fully implementing counties saw an all time low in the perceived 

availability of meth among high school seniors. 

These improvements in perceived availability ran counter to both statewide trends 

and the trends of comparison counties. 

All counties with available data saw improvement in reported rates of friends who 

used meth in the past year (to rates that were a historical low). 

For counties with available data, use of meth among high school seniors in the 

past thirty days decreased by as much as 24% from levels reported before project 

implementation. 

Ten Lessons for Effective Meth Prevention: 

1. The meth problem will not be solved through law enforcement or any single 

sector alone. Meth is a multi-dimensional problem that demands comprehensive, coordinated solutions involving the collaboration of multiple community sectors including law enforcement and other first responders, health care professionals, social 

service providers, treatment providers, retailers, farmers and ranchers, youth, 

schools, parents, faith communities, court system representatives and media. 

2. The need to build and sustain effective prevention infrastructures in communities must be instilled as a national, state and community value because as funding priorities shift and drug trends change, effective prevention efforts are often cut 

or eliminated. In Kansas, the utilization of a statewide prevention infrastructure 

which includes a Regional Prevention Center system that provides training and 

technical assistance to communities across the state, access to data from the statewide Communities that Care school survey, and utilization of an online evaluation 

and documentation system at the University of Kansas was a key to efficient local 

and state level implementation of meth prevention efforts. 

3. The provision of expert technical assistance, resources and training for communities is essential. Success was related to a coordinated, reliable organization which 

could provide current information relevant to their community about the issue, data 

to demonstrate the need for efforts, and support for ongoing efforts. 

4. The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program is the foundation 

on which other school based prevention efforts are built. The program provides the 

only portal into schools for community anti-drug efforts. This program is a component of any comprehensive strategy to address meth issues in communities around 

the country. 

5. Effective meth prevention must be data driven, from the initial collection of 

baseline data to determine the extent of the problem through program implementation and evaluation of outcomes over time. 

6. Programs and policies can be implemented at the state level but communitylevel involvement and buy-in is essential for meth prevention to work and obtain 

measurable results. 

7. Small amounts of start-up funding can engage communities in comprehensive 

efforts to combat meth that leverage other community resources and major levels 

of citizen involvement. 

8. In communities with existing coalitions to address substance abuse, efforts 

were more quickly implemented and had more success. 

9. To be optimally effective, communities need to pick the specific programs they 

implement, from the four core program components, to fit their local needs, based 

on local data and circumstances. 

10. Establishing a model program in one community that could then be adapted 

and replicated across communities led to faster, efficient implementation. 

A Community Success Story: 

Members of an existing coalition in Rice County (population 10,412 and a land 

area of more than 700 square miles) attended the KMPP training-of-trainers in November 2002. Because of access to training, resources including minigrant funding, 

and ongoing support from KMPP, the coalition was able to quickly implement key 

components. Before working with KMPP, county officials reported that no one had 

the time, money, or expertise to implement methamphetamine prevention efforts. 

Rice County’s efforts included county-wide implementation of Meth Watch, implementation of rural strategies including education and tamper tags, extensive media 

coverage, significant information dissemination which included meth prevention tips 

being distributed to 14,000 people in the region through partnerships with banks, 

prevention efforts in schools, and utilizing community events as a venue for reaching citizens to inform and involve. 

52

Results from the Rice County youth survey appear strong. Perceived availability 

and reported rates of friends who use were both down significantly. The rate of lifetime usage of meth declined from an all-time high of 13.8% in 2003 to 5% in 2004, 

which was below the state average of 6.4%. High implementation paired with a comparatively smaller community may have resulted in a higher ‘‘dose’’ of the intervention for the community. Where comparison counties’’ rates of perceived availability 

either worsened or stayed the same, Rice County’s results improved. Furthermore, 

only Rice County saw results that represented historical lows for all the outcomes.

It is clear that prevention efforts can make a significant difference for communities working to address the methamphetamine problem. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about our experiences gained from working in Kansas and other 

states throughout the nation. 

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you very much. 

I would like to thank the panel. I apologize for the timing of 

these votes, but they never seem to come at a good time. And so 

we will probably go over and name a post office or do something 

really critical today. 

But we do thank you for your written testimony. It will be very 

valuable. We will use this to elevate the issue before Members of 

Congress. Your being here, your presence, is important. And we 

want to thank you for coming very much. 

So since there is no further business, the subcommittee stands 

adjourned. Thank you for being here. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ


cain1.eps cain2.eps