United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 11:00 a.m.

Tuesday, June 24, 1997

SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND

VIOLENCE PREVENTION

Multiple Youth Programs

Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

Statement of Carlotta C. Joyner, Director

Education and Employment Issues

Health, Education, and Human Services Division

GAO/T-HEHS-97-166

Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on federal

substance-abuse and violence-prevention programs for youths.

Drug and alcohol abuse (substance abuse) and violence by youths are

serious problems confronting our nation. After declining in the eighties,

drug use rates among school-age youths increased between 1992 and 1995

for more than 10 different types of drugs. For example, one study reported

that the rate of marijuana use by eighth grade students more than

doubled—from about 7 to about 16 percent—and the rate for twelfth

graders rose from about 22 to about 35 percent. During this period, the

rate of alcohol use remained above 70 percent for twelfth graders.1

 The

Congress found in 1994 that about 3 million thefts and violent crimes took

place on or near school campuses each year—more than 16,000 incidents

per school day.2

 About one in five high school students regularly carried a

firearm, knife, razor, club, or other weapon. The federal government, state

and local governments, and private organizations have all responded to

these problems by establishing and funding a wide range of programs and

activities intended to reduce or prevent youth substance abuse and

violence.

My testimony today, based on a number of studies we have issued, will

focus on (1) the information available about substance-abuse and

violence-prevention programs and the federal investment in them,

(2) what is known about the effectiveness of federally funded programs in

reducing youth substance abuse and violence, and (3) improving the

federal effort by focusing more on accountability and results. (A list of

related GAO products appears at the end of this testimony.) Although some

of the data we present—for example, on programs and their funding—are

from 1994 and 1995, the issues we are addressing have changed little since

our work was done.

In summary, our reviews have raised questions about the efficiency and

effectiveness of the federal effort in this area. The system that has

developed—of multiple federal programs dispursed among several

agencies—has created the potential for inefficient service as well as

difficulty for those trying to access the most appropriate services and

funding sources. For example, we identified 70 federal programs that

1

Monitoring the Future, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse (Rockville, Md.:

1996).

2

20 U.S.C. 7102 (3).

Page 1 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

could have been used in fiscal year 1995 to provide substance-abuse

and/or violence-prevention services for youths. These programs were

located in 13 federal departments or other federal entities and had

appropriations of about $2.4 billion. In addition, state, county, and local

governments, as well as private sources provided billions of dollars for

substance-abuse prevention and treatment efforts for adults and youths.

Often, insufficient information exists on these programs’ performance.

Although we identified some promising approaches for preventing

substance abuse and violence, our work suggests that additional research

is needed to further test these approaches’ effectiveness and their

applicability to different populations in varied settings. In addition, a

major information gap exists for federal decisionmakers who need to

know the accomplishments of these individual federal programs and the

combination of those programs.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) can move

agencies toward a more integrated approach to meeting common goals

and a greater emphasis on accountability and assessment of program

results. This emphasis will require agencies not only to better document

federal programs’ progress toward achieving their goals of preventing

substance abuse and violence, but also to identify which service delivery

approaches have been effective and encourage greater use of more

effective models.

Background Stemming the tide of youth drug use and violence is a high priority on the

national policy agenda. For example, one of the five goals of the Office of

National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), created by the Congress in 1988 to

lead the nation’s war on drugs, is to “educate and enable America’s youth

to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco.”3

 In addition, one of

the National Education Goals, adopted by the Congress in 1994, is that “by

the year 2000, all schools in America will be free of drugs, violence, and

the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol, and will offer a

disciplined environment that is conducive to learning.”4

 In fiscal year 1994,

$1.8 billion, 40 percent of the $4.4 billion federal budget authority for

3

National Drug Control Strategy, 1997, ONDCP (Washington, D.C.).

4

20 U.S.C. 5812 (7).

Page 2 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

substance-abuse prevention and treatment, was targeted to prevention

activities for adults and youths.5

Preventing Substance

Abuse

The major goals of substance-abuse prevention programs are preventing

or eliminating drug and alcohol abuse and averting substance abuserelated problems. Prevention activities vary and are directed at different

groups and delivered in multiple settings. For example, activities may

include

• providing information and education to increase knowledge of substance

abuse and alternative drug-free lifestyles;

• teaching skills to resist drug and alcohol influences, solve problems, and

make decisions;

• developing interventions to control the sale and distribution of illegal

drugs; and

• encouraging communities to implement responses to drug and alcohol

use.

Activities may be directed toward

• the general population to alter social, psychological, and environmental

factors that may inflence the prevalence and outcomes at the community

level;

• individuals or subgroups at risk of developing substance abuse behaviors

to reduce risk factors6

 and enhance protective factors7 related to the onset

of use and the progression to abuse and dependence; or

5

In our report, Drug and Alcohol Abuse: Billions Spent Annually for Treatment and Prevention

Activities (GAO/HEHS-97-12, Oct. 8, 1996), we noted that ONDCP estimated total budget authority of

$4.7 billion for fiscal year 1996, but we did not analyze the percentage that was authorized for

treatment compared with prevention.

6

Reducing risk factors focuses on trying to lessen the negative effect of factors that impinge on one’s

life that have been shown or theorized to relate to drug and alcohol use. These factors include

availability of drugs and alcohol, community norms favorable to drug and alcohol use, extreme

economic deprivation, family history of problems with use, favorable parental attitudes and

involvement in problem use, early and persistent antisocial behavior, academic failure, alienation and

rebellion, and friends who engage in problem behavior.

7

Enhancement of protective factors focuses on increasing an individual’s resilience in dealing with

potentially high-risk situations (such as dysfunctional families, schools, and communities).

Researchers in substance abuse prevention have hypothesized that more resilient individuals are less

likely to engage in drug use. Optimism, empathy, insight, intellectual competence, self-esteem,

direction or mission, and determination and perseverance are seven major factors affecting youths’

resilience. The coping or life skills associated with these seven factors are emotional management

skills, interpersonal social skills, intrapersonal reflective skills, academic and job skills, ability to

restore self-esteem, planning and life skills, and problem-solving ability.

Page 3 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

• individuals who use one or more drugs but who do not yet meet diagnostic

criteria for a substance abuse disorder to interrupt the progression from

use to abuse, addiction, and social dysfunction.

Service delivery settings may include the classroom, peer support groups,

the home, and the community, or a combination of these.

Preventing Violence Schools use a wide variety of educational and noneducational approaches

and programs to address violence. Many school-based violence-prevention

programs operate under the premise that violence is a learned behavior. In

general, these programs focus on primary prevention; that is, they seek to

prevent violence before it occurs. Although school-based violenceprevention programs and strategies vary, most fall within three broad

categories:

• Educational and curricula-based programs: These programs seek to teach

students the skills to manage their behavior and resolve conflict

nonviolently. Examples are programs that focus on conflict resolution or

gang aversion.

• Environmental modification: These programs focus on either the social or

physical environment. Examples include after-school recreational and

academic activities and metal detectors and gates limiting access to

building entrances and exits.

• School organization and management: These programs focus on

establishing school discipline policies and procedures governing student

behavior, creating alternative schools, and developing cooperative

relationships with police and other government agencies.

Prevention Efforts

Span Many Agencies

and Programs

Multiple sources currently fund a wide variety of substance-abuse

prevention and violence-prevention programs. The federal government,

while a major investor in prevention programs, is just one of several

contributors. State and local governments, as well as the private sector,

also contribute to the billions spent annually on prevention efforts. The

current array of prevention services, however, does not constitute an

integrated approach to substance abuse and violence problems, raising

questions about overlapping services and duplication created by these

many programs.

Multiple Federal Programs

With Many Similar Services

The federal government funds a wide array of programs to prevent

substance abuse and violence. For youths, many of these services are

Page 4 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

provided through programs targeted to delinquent youths or youths

considered at risk for delinquency or drug use.8

 In our 1996 report on

delinquent and at-risk youths, we identified more than 131 programs

administered by 16 federal departments and other agencies.9

 At that time,

we estimated that the amount of the federal appropriations for these

programs dedicated to at-risk and delinquent youths exceeded more than

$4 billion in fiscal year 1995.

Further analysis showed that 70 of the 131 programs were authorized to

provide either substance-abuse prevention or violence-prevention services

or both to the youths they served (see app. I).10 For example, 34 of these

programs may provide both types of prevention services. The 70

prevention programs we identified are administered by 10 federal

agencies, one presidential council, and a federal foundation. The

Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Justice, and Education

administer 48 of these programs—nearly 70 percent of all the programs.

The fiscal year 1995 appropriations for the prevention programs for youths

in these three departments totaled about $1 billion, about 42 percent of the

total federal appropriation of about $2.4 billion for all 70 programs.11

Although we have not fully examined these multiple programs, the

implications of having multiple, unintegrated substance-abuse and

violence-prevention programs might be similar to those for employment

training programs—an area we have examined. In fiscal year 1995, we

identified 163 federal employment training programs disbursed among 15

departments and agencies. We recently concluded that consolidating these

programs could probably reduce the cost of providing job training services

because of the efficiencies achieved by eliminating duplicative

8

The term “at risk” can have different meanings in different contexts. We are using the term in a broad

sense to refer to youths who, due to certain characteristics or experiences, are statistically more likely

than other youths to encounter certain problems—legal, social, financial, educational, emotional, and

health—in the future.

9

At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions

(GAO/HEHS-96-34, Mar. 6, 1996).

10Our original analysis focused on 17 types of services or activities that programs could provide to

at-risk or delinquent youths. Of those, we identified five that focused on substance-abuse prevention or

violence prevention: conflict resolution, crime/violence intervention, focused activities (activities for

preventing juvenile delinquency by offering positive, alternative ways for youths to spend their time,

such as recreation and sports), gang intervention, and substance-abuse intervention. For the analysis

presented in this testimony, we did not update information about the appropriations.

11This is a conservative estimate because it is based on information for only 61 of the 70 programs; for

the remaining 9 programs, officials were unable to estimate the portion of total appropriations that

was dedicated to youths (ages 5 through 24).

Page 5 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

administrative activities. Furthermore, consolidating similar programs

could improve opportunities to increase service delivery effectiveness.12

Contributions From

Nonfederal Sources

State, county, and local governments also help fund substance-abuse and

violence-prevention programs. In fiscal year 1994, they reported spending

$1.6 billion in addition to the $4.4 billion federal budget authority for

substance-abuse prevention and treatment for adults and youths. Forty

percent of the federal funds and 12 percent of the state, county, and local

funds were targeted to prevention services. Total spending by state and

local governments, however, probably does exceed these reported

expenditures.13

Comprehensive data on private funding of substance-abuse prevention

activities over time are sparse. For example, the National Drug and

Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS), which compiled private

contributions from various sources, focused on treatment only.14 Data on

private donations from foundations, however, show that the top 25

contributors awarded $39.4 million in grants for substance-abuse

treatment and prevention programs for adults and youths during 1993 and

1994, the latest years for which grant data were available at the time of our

report. The grants ranged from $306,342 to about $18.5 million. These

grants were provided to nonprofit organizations in the United States and

abroad for substance-abuse treatment and prevention programs, including

counseling, education, residential care facilities, halfway houses, support

groups, family services, community programs, and services for children of

drug-dependent parents. Grants were also awarded for medical research

on substance abuse and media projects on substance-abuse prevention.

Population groups receiving the largest grant amounts were alcohol or

drug abusers, children and youths, women and girls, economically

disadvantaged individuals, offenders or ex-offenders, and minorities.

Effectiveness of

Prevention Programs

Our previous work has identified promising approaches for both

substance-abuse prevention and violence prevention. Evaluation research

provides some information about effective program models and their

12Department of Labor: Challenges in Ensuring Workforce Development and Worker Protection

(GAO/T-HEHS-97-85, Mar. 6, 1997).

13GAO/HEHS-97-12, Oct. 8, 1996.

14Sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Office of

Applied Studies, NDATUS is a census of substance-abuse treatment units in the United States and the

U.S. territories.

Page 6 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

outcomes. But often less information is available on the effectiveness of

individual programs funded at the national, state, and local levels by the

federal government or by sets of such programs addressing similar goals.

Promising Program Models

Identified

Research on the effectiveness of substance-abuse and violence-prevention

programs has identified promising approaches in both areas. Our recent

review of the literature on the effectiveness of substance-abuse prevention

programs identified two promising approaches for school-age youths.15

The first approach—referred to as the psychosocial approach—

emphasizes improving individuals’ drug-resistance skills and generic

problem-solving/decision-making skills and modifying attitudes and norms

that encourage drug use. The second approach—the comprehensive

approach—involves the coordinated use of multiple societal institutions,

such as family, community, and schools, for delivering prevention

programs. Both approaches have reduced student drug use as well as

strengthened individuals’ ability to resist drugs in both short- and longer

term programs.16 Although other approaches, such as information

dissemination, affective education, and alternatives to drug use, have been

used in previous programs, they have not shown consistent effectiveness

when used individually. They have been included, however, in promising

comprehensive approaches to prevention.

In our 1995 report on school safety, we described the characteristics of

promising school-based violence-prevention programs.17 These

characteristics are (1) a comprehensive approach, (2) an early start and

long-term commitment, (3) strong leadership and disciplinary policies,

(4) staff development, (5) parental involvement, (6) interagency

partnerships and community linkages, and (7) a culturally sensitive and

developmentally appropriate approach. For example, teaching students

early about making positive choices and linking school-based programs to

community groups, such as law enforcement or service agencies, are

approaches used by promising programs.

15Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug Control Strategy (GAO/GGD-97-42,

Mar. 14, 1997).

16Some of the most notable programs include (1) the Life Skills Training Prevention Program (using a

psychosocial approach), which showed that 44 percent less intervention participants reported use of

three drugs over a specified period of time, as compared with control group participants, and (2) the

Midwestern Prevention Project (using a comprehensive approach), also known as Project Star or

I-Star, which showed a 20- to 40-percent net reduction in the use of two drugs by school-age youths

over a 3-year period.

17School Safety: Promising Initiatives for Addressing School Violence (GAO/HEHS-95-106, Apr. 25,

1995).

Page 7 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

We also identified four programs that have received national recognition

for their innovative approach to addressing school violence: the Anaheim

Union School District program in California, which stresses school

management and order issues; the Paramount, California, program in

which schools use an anti-gang curriculum to reduce gang membership

among students who participated in the program; a Dayton, Ohio, program

that provides students with social skills and anger-management training;

and a New York City program that uses conflict-resolution and peermediation training to reduce student fighting.

Preliminary evaluations of these programs concluded that they showed

initial signs of success because student participants’ attitudes and

behaviors had changed. Reported participant changes included (1) new

attitudes toward violence and gang membership; (2) less disruptive

behavior, including fewer fights; and (3) less contact with the criminal

justice system. For example, public health officials have regarded New

York City’s Resolving Conflict Creatively Program as one of the most

promising violence-prevention programs. Early evaluation results of this

program showed that teachers observed less student name calling and

fewer verbal put-downs by students. Teachers also agreed that the

mediation program has helped students take more responsibility for

solving their own problems.

Additional Research

Needed on Effectiveness of

Program Approaches

While our work has identified promising approaches, more and better

evaluation research is needed on program effectiveness. For example,

regardless of the early positive results of certain substance-abuse

prevention approaches, experts suggest that additional research is needed

to better identify and understand the elements of effective prevention.

They say substantiating early program results through further research

and evaluation is important to advancing promising substance-abuse

prevention approaches. Examples of useful initiatives for future research

include determining the combination of approaches that yields the most

significant outcome results and assessing the approaches that work best

for different population groups.

We reached similar conclusions about violence-prevention programs.

While the early results of violence-prevention programs proved a useful

starting point, a general consensus exists that the methodological rigor of

these studies must be improved to determine program effectiveness. To

improve the usefulness of future evaluations, designing stronger impact or

effectiveness studies should be emphasized. Design issues requiring

Page 8 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

particular attention include sampling techniques, longitudinal assessment,

random assignment, and collection of data on impact and outcome

measures.

Conducting such evaluations, according to officials we interviewed,

depends on obtaining grants or private funds specifically for that purpose.

Fortunately, some agencies have now begun funding impact evaluations to

study the effectiveness of specific school-based interventions. For

example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National

Institute of Justice, and the National Institute of Mental Health awarded 26

grants totaling approximately $28 million for this purpose during fiscal

years 1993 and 1994.

Information Generally

Lacking About Overall

Results of Federal

Programs

From a decision-making standpoint, what is needed—but often not

available—is information about the overall effectiveness of a particular

program. That is, to what extent are individual programs, such as the Safe

and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 program, achieving

the expected results? Information is needed about such programs because

decisions about appropriate funding levels and sources are made at the

program level. In addition, with accurate information about the overall

results of the federal programs addressing similar goals, such as

preventing substance abuse and violence, more effective use could be

made of those funds. First, inefficiencies in the use of funds, such as those

resulting from overlapping and duplicative programs, could be reduced

through retargeting or combining programs. Second, policymakers could

better ensure that the activities funded—in this case, the individual

program models used—are the ones most likely to achieve program goals.

Increasing Emphasis

on Accountability and

Program Results

GPRA can be a useful mechanism for the Congress and federal agencies to

improve the combined federal effort against substance abuse and violence

among youths. GPRA requires agencies to ask fundamental questions about

their missions, their goals and objectives for achieving those missions,

how they will measure their performance, and how they will use

performance measurement information to improve their efforts. It forces

federal agencies to shift the focus from such traditional concerns as

staffing and activity levels to a single, overriding issue: results.

Specifically, GPRA directs agencies to consult with the Congress, obtain the

views of other stakeholders, and clearly define their missions. It also

requires agencies to establish long-term strategic goals as well as annual

Page 9 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

performance goals linked to the strategic goals. Agencies must then

measure their performance according to their goals and report to the

President and the Congress on their success. In addition to ongoing

performance monitoring, agencies are expected to identify performance

gaps in their programs and to use information from evaluation studies to

improve programs.

GPRA requires that federal agencies develop strategic plans covering at

least 5 years and submit them to the Congress and the Office of

Management and Budget no later than September 30, 1997. These plans

must identify the agencies’ long-term strategic goals and describe how the

agencies intend to meet these goals through their activities and resources.

The plans are expected to reflect coordination with other federal agencies

that are trying to achieve similar strategic goals or have activities or

functions similar to theirs. Beginning with fiscal year 1999, federal

agencies are to use their strategic plans to prepare annual performance

plans. These performance plans are to include annual goals linked to the

activities described in budget presentations as well as the indicators the

agency will use to measure performance according to the results-oriented

goals. Agencies are subsequently to report each year on the extent to

which they meet their goals, provide an explanation regarding any goals

they did not meet, and describe the actions needed to meet any unmet

goals.

For substance-abuse and violence-prevention programs, this shift to a

focus on results can help bridge the gap between accurate data about

effective program models and the performance of individual federal

programs. For example, current research has identified aspects of

effective substance-abuse prevention programs and characteristics of

promising approaches for violence-prevention programs. This research,

however, often consists of one-time efforts, and the extent to which these

studies influence other programs’ design and service delivery is uncertain.

GPRA, on the other hand, provides an incentive for agency and program

personnel to systematically assess what is working in their programs and

expand or replicate those practices. GPRA also provides an early warning

system for identifying goals and objectives that are not being met so that

agency and program staff can replace ineffective practices with effective

ones.

Measuring how well programs are working can present a major challenge,

however, especially when funds are distributed through block grants—as

is the case with many of the programs we identified. For example, most of

Page 10 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention:

Multiple Youth Programs Raise Questions of

Efficiency and Effectiveness

the dollars distributed by HHS’ SAMHSA in fiscal year 1996—including the

$1.2 billion to states for substance-abuse prevention and treatment

services—was distributed through block grants.18 The agency faces the

challenge of balancing the flexibility it affords states to set priorities on

the basis of local need with its own need to hold the states accountable for

achieving SAMHSA’s goals. Recognizing this challenge, HHS is transforming

its SAMHSA block grants into Performance Partnership Grants (PPG). Under

PPGs, the states and federal governments will negotiate an arrangement

that identifies specific objectives and performance measures regarding

outcomes, processes, and these outcomes’ capacity to be reached in 3 to 5

years. This appears to be a promising strategy because it gives states more

control over their funding decisions while encouraging them to accept

greater accountability for results.

Conclusions The federal investment in youth substance-abuse and violence-prevention

programs is intended to help America’s youths avoid the harmful

consequences, to themselves and society, of substance abuse and violent

behavior. Although some of these individual federally funded efforts have

shown value, concern still exists about the overall efficient use of federal

funds and the effectiveness of the services they provide. An integrated,

coordinated federal effort is lacking. Such an effort would consider the

substantial investment by other levels of government and the private

sector and have clear accountability for results. Better information is

needed about which program approaches are most effective with which

groups of youths in preventing substance abuse and violence. We also

need such information to better link results to overall federal funding for

programs. GPRA is an important tool for bridging this gap between

knowledge about individual program approaches and federal funding for

programs because it provides the needed accountability and an incentive

for agencies to set measurable goals for their programs and to periodically

assess progress toward those goals.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to respond to any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may

have.

18Substance Abuse and Mental Health: Reauthorization Issues Facing the Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration (GAO/T-HEHS-97-135, May 22, 1997).

Page 11 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Appendix I 

Federal Substance-Abuse Prevention and

Violence-Prevention Programs for Youths

Type of prevention assistance for which funds are

available

Dollars in millions

Agency and program

Estimate of federal

funding for youths

during FY 1995

Substanceabuse

prevention Violence prevention Both

Corporation for National and Community Service (three programs)

Foster Grandparent Program $67.8 X

Retired and Senior Volunteer Program 35.7 X

Volunteers in Service to America 13.7 X

Subtotal $117.2

Department of Agriculture (four programs)

4-H Youth Development

Education—Cooperative Extension System

63.0 X

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk

Initiative—Cooperative Extension System

10.0 X

Partnerships Against Violence Network Not available X

Youth Conservation Corps 3.0 X

Subtotal $76.0

Department of Defense (two programs)

Child Development and Youth

Programs—“At-Risk” Youth Program

8.0 X

Community Outreach Pilot Program 8.0 X

Subtotal $16.0

Department of Education (five programs)

Civic Education Program 4.5 X

Drug-Free Schools and

Communities—National Programs

25.0 X

Family and Community Endeavor Schools

Grant Program

0.0 X

Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Part A, Subpart

1, State Grants for Drug and Violence

Prevention

441.0 X

School Dropout Demonstration Assistance

Program

12.0 X

Subtotal $482.5

Department of Health and Human Services (29 programs)

Center for Substance Abuse

Prevention—Public Education/Dissemination

2.3 X

Community Prevention Coalitions

Demonstration Grant Program

Not available X

Community Schools Youth Services and

Supervision Program

10.0 X

(continued)

Page 12 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Appendix I 

Federal Substance-Abuse Prevention and

Violence-Prevention Programs for Youths

Type of prevention assistance for which funds are

available

Dollars in millions

Agency and program

Estimate of federal

funding for youths

during FY 1995

Substanceabuse

prevention Violence prevention Both

Demonstration Grant Program for Residential

Treatment for Women and Their Children

2.0 X

Demonstration Partnership Program 0.0 X

Demonstration Programs for High Risk Youth 65.2 X

Drug Abuse Prevention for Runaway and

Homeless Youth

14.5 X

Emergency Community Services Homeless

Grant Program

Not available X

Family and Community Violence Prevention

Program

5.9 X

Family Support Center and Gateway

Demonstration Programs

7.3 X

Health Care for the Homeless Program Not available X

Health Services for Residents of Public

Housing

9.5 X

Indian Health Service—Alcohol and

Substance Abuse Programs

66.1 X

Indian Youth Grant Program 0.5 X

Injury Prevention and Control Research and

State Grant Projects

22.2 X

Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

Services Program

Not available X

Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

Services Program—Special Projects of

Regional and National Significance

3.4 X

Migrant Health Centers Not available X

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and

Alcoholism—Research Programs

20.3 X

National Institute on Drug Abuse—Research

Programs

6.0 X

National Youth Sports Program 12.0 X

Native American Programs Not available X

Runaway and Homeless Youth

Programs—Basic Centers

40.5 X

Service Grant Program for Residential

Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum

Women

1.3 X

Social Services Block Grant Not available X

(continued)

Page 13 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Appendix I 

Federal Substance-Abuse Prevention and

Violence-Prevention Programs for Youths

Type of prevention assistance for which funds are

available

Dollars in millions

Agency and program

Estimate of federal

funding for youths

during FY 1995

Substanceabuse

prevention Violence prevention Both

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment

Block Grant

Not available X

Urban Indian Health Program 5.8 X

Youth Initiatives/Youth Gangs 10.5 X

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System 1.4 X

Subtotal $306.7

Department of Housing and Urban Development (four programs)

4-H After-School Program/Demonstration 3.5 X

Youth Apprenticeship 0.4 X

Youth Development Initiative 10.0 X

Youth Sports/Public and Indian Housing

Drug Elimination Program

13.9 X

Subtotal $27.8

Department of the Interior (one program)

Indian Child Welfare Act (Title II Grants) 23.8 X

Subtotal $23.8

Department of Justice (14 programs)

Boot Camps, Part H 0.0 X

Children’s Justice Act Discretionary Grants

for Native American Indian Tribes

0.0 X

Community Outreach Program 0.3 X

Community Relations Service Initiatives 10.0 X

Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law

Enforcement Assistance

Programs—Discretionary Grant

28.8 X

Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law

Enforcement Assistance Programs—Formula

Grant

48.5 X

Gang-Free Schools and

Communities—Community-Based Gang

Prevention

10.0 X

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention—Allocation to States (State

Formula Grants) Part B

70.0 X

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention—Juvenile Mentoring, Part G

4.0 X

(continued)

Page 14 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Appendix I 

Federal Substance-Abuse Prevention and

Violence-Prevention Programs for Youths

Type of prevention assistance for which funds are

available

Dollars in millions

Agency and program

Estimate of federal

funding for youths

during FY 1995

Substanceabuse

prevention Violence prevention Both

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

National Programs—Discretionary Grants,

Part C

25.0 X

Public Education on Drug Abuse 0.7 X

Title II: Part A—Concentration of Federal

Efforts

0.2 X

Title V—Incentive Grants for Local

Delinquency Prevention Programs

20.0 X

Weed and Seed Program Fund Not available X

Subtotal $217.5

Department of Labor (one program)

Job Training Partnership Act—Job Corps 1,099.5 X

Subtotal $1,099.5

Department of Transportation (one program)

Youth Impaired Driving Projects 1.4 X

Subtotal $1.4

Department of Treasury (one program)

Gang Resistance Education and Training

Projects

16.2 X

Subtotal $16.2

National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities (four programs)

Promotion of the Arts—Arts for Youth 0.4 X

Promotion of the Arts—Arts in Education-Art

Corps

5.8 X

Promotion of the Arts—Expansion Arts—Arts

Education Initiative

0.3 X

Promotion of the Arts—State and Regional

Program

2.7 X

Subtotal $9.2

President’s Crime Prevention Council (one program)

President’s Crime Prevention Council 1.5 X

Subtotal $1.5

Total $2,395.3

Page 15 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Related GAO Products

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide

Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997).

Substance Abuse and Mental Health: Reauthorization Issues Facing the

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(GAO/T-HEHS-97-135, May 22, 1997).

Agencies’ Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate

Congressional Review (GAO/GGD-10.1.16, May 1997).

Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug Control

Strategy (GAO/GGD-97-42, Mar. 14, 1997).

Drug and Alcohol Abuse: Billions Spent Annually for Treatment and

Prevention Activities (GAO/HEHS-97-12, Oct. 8, 1996).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1, 1996).

At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency

Questions (GAO/HEHS-96-34, Mar. 6, 1996).

Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong

Congressional Role (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).

School Safety: Promising Initiatives for Addressing School Violence

(GAO/HEHS-95-106, Apr. 25, 1995).

Drug Use Among Youth: No Simple Answers to Guide Prevention

(GAO/HRD-94-24, Dec. 29, 1993).

Adolescent Drug Use Prevention: Common Features of Promising

Community Programs (GAO/PEMD-92-2, Jan. 16, 1992).

Drug Education: School-Based Programs Seen as Useful but Impact

Unknown (GAO/HRD-91-27, Nov. 28, 1990).

(104894) Page 16 GAO/T-HEHS-97-166
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100