(Pub. L. 100–690, title I, § 1021, as added Pub. L. 105–20, § 2(a)(2),June 27, 1997, 111 Stat. 224.)
Five-Year Extension of Drug-Free Communities Support Program
Pub. L. 107–82
, § 1(a),Dec. 14, 2001, 115 Stat. 814
, provided that: “Congress makes the following findings:
“(1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the United States will grow by 21 percent, adding 6,500,000 youth to the population of the United States. Even if drug use rates remain constant, there will be a huge surge in drug-related problems, such as academic failure, drug-related violence, and HIV incidence, simply due to this population increase.
“(2) According to the 1994–1996 National Household Survey, 60 percent of students age 12 to 17 who frequently cut classes and who reported delinquent behavior in the past 6 months used marijuana 52 days or more in the previous year.
“(3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey conducted by the University of Washington reported that students whose peers have little or no involvement with drinking and drugs have higher math and reading scores than students whose peers had low level drinking or drug use.
“(4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10 percent of teens saw marijuana users as popular, compared to 17 percent in 1998 and 19 percent in 1997. The rate of past-month use of any drug among 12- to 17-year-olds declined 26 percent between 1997 and 1999. Marijuana use for sixth through eighth graders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as is use of cocaine, inhalants, and hallucinogens.
“(5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United States are successfully developing and implementing comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse among youth on a sustained basis. For example:
“(A) The Boston Coalition brought college and university presidents together to create the Cooperative Agreement on Underage Drinking. This agreement represents the first coordinated effort of Boston’s many institutions of higher education to address issues such as binge drinking, underage drinking, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol abuse that exist on college and university campuses.
“(B) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local students in grades 7 through 12. The results provided evidence that the Coalition’s initiatives are working. For the first time in a decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati appears to be leveling off. The data collected from the survey has served as a tool to strengthen relationships between schools and communities, as well as facilitate the growth of anti-drug coalitions in communities where such coalitions had not existed.
“(C) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strategy to decrease the percentage of high school seniors who reported using marijuana at least once during the most recent 30-day period. The development of a media strategy, the creation of a network of prevention agencies, and discussions with high school students about the dangers of marijuana all contributed to a decrease in the percentage of seniors who reported using marijuana from over 22 percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 1997. The Miami Coalition was able to achieve these results while national rates of marijuana use were increasing.
“(D) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with elementary and middle school children in an attempt to influence them toward positive life goals and discourage them from using substances. The Partnership targeted an area in East Nashville and created after school programs, mentoring opportunities, attendance initiatives, and safe passages to and from school. Attendance and test scores increased as a result of the program.
“(E) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the Bering Strait Community Partnership in Nome, Alaska, youth identified a need for a safe, substance-free space. With help from a variety of community partners, the Partnership staff and youth members created the Java Hut, a substance-free coffeehouse designed for youth. The Java Hut is helping to change norms in the community by providing a fun, youth-friendly atmosphere and activities that are not centered around alcohol or marijuana.
“(F) Portland’s Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) has promoted the establishment of drug-free workplaces among the city’s large and small employers. Over 3,000 employers have attended an RDI training session, and of those, 92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace policies. As a result, there has been a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace drug tests.
“(G) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to increase the age at which youth first used illegal substances. Research suggests that the later the age of first use, the lower the risk that a young person will become a regular substance abuser. As a result, the age of first illegal drug use increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in 1997.
“(H) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend of increased alcohol use by teenagers in the Troy community. Using its ‘multiple strategies over multiple sectors’ approach, the Troy Coalition worked with parents, physicians, students, coaches, and others to address this problem from several angles. As a result, the rate of twelfth grade students who had consumed alcohol in the past month decreased from 62.1 percent to 53.3 percent between 1991 and 1998, and the rate of eighth grade students decreased from 26.3 percent to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition believes that this decline represents not only a change in behavior on the part of students, but also a change in the norms of the community.
“(6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a serious problem facing communities across the United States. For example:
“(A) According to the Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse Mid-Year 2000 report—
“(i) crack and powder cocaine remains the most serious drug problem;
“(ii) marijuana remains the most widely available illicit drug, and its potency is on the rise;
“(iii) treatment sources report an increase in admissions with marijuana as the primary drug of abuse—and adolescents outnumber other age groups entering treatment for marijuana;
“(iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources reported increased availability of club drugs, with ecstasy (MDMA) and ketamine the most widely cited club drugs and seven sources reporting that powder cocaine is being used as a club drug by young adults;
“(v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is expanding, no longer confined to the ‘rave’ scene;
“(vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown from nightclubs and raves to high schools, the streets, neighborhoods, open venues, and younger ages;
“(vii) ecstasy users often are unknowingly purchasing adulterated tablets or some other substance sold as MDMA; and
“(viii) along with reports of increased heroin snorting as a route of administration for initiates, there is also an increase in injecting initiates and the negative health consequences associated with injection (for example, increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C) suggesting that there is a generational forgetting of the dangers of injection of the drug.
“(B) The 2000 Parent’s Resource Institute for Drug Education study reported that 23.6 percent of children in the sixth through twelfth grades used illicit drugs in the past year. The same study found that monthly usage among this group was 15.3 percent.
“(C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future study, the use of ecstasy among eighth graders increased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in 2000, among tenth graders from 4.4 percent to 5.4 percent, and from 5.6 percent to 8.2 percent among twelfth graders.
“(D) A 1999 Mellman Group study found that—
“(i) 56 percent of the population in the United States believed that drug use was increasing in 1999;
“(ii) 92 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use as a serious problem in the United States; and
“(iii) 73 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use as a serious problem in their communities.
“(7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University entitled ‘Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets’, using the most conservative assumption, in 1998 States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage of substance abuse, only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat the problem and $433,000,000 for alcohol and tobacco regulation and compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was distributed as follows:
“(A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 percent of justice spending).
“(B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of education spending).
“(C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of health spending).
“(D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32 percent of child and family assistance spending).
“(E) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and developmental disabilities (31 percent of mental health spending).
“(F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of public safety spending) and $400,000,000 for the state workforce.
“(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination through national, State, and local or tribal leadership and partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of substance abuse among youth in communities across the United States.
“(9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem nationally than at the community level. According to a 2001 study sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts, between 1994 and 2000—
“(A) there was a 43 percent increase in the percentage of Americans who felt progress was being made in the war on drugs at the community level;
“(B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is a ‘crisis’ in their neighborhood, compared to 27 percent who say this about the nation; and
“(C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground in the war on drugs on a community level fell by more than a quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to 37 percent in 2000.”
Authorization for National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute
Pub. L. 107–82
, § 4,Dec. 14, 2001, 115 Stat. 821
, as amended by Pub. L. 109–469
, title VIII, § 805,Dec. 29, 2006, 120 Stat. 3535
, provided that:
“(a) In General.—The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall, using amounts authorized to be appropriated by subsection (d), make a directed grant to Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America to provide for the continuation of the National Community Anti-drug Coalition Institute.
“(b) Use of Grant Amount.—The organization receiving the grant under subsection (a) shall establish a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute to—
“(1) provide education, training, and technical assistance for coalition leaders and community teams, with emphasis on the development of coalitions serving economically disadvantaged areas;
“(2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and measures to better assess and document coalition performance measures and outcomes; and
“(3) bridge the gap between research and practice by translating knowledge from research into practical information.
“(c) Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated for purposes of activities under this section, including the grant under subsection (a), amounts as follows:
“(1) For each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $2,000,000.
“(2) For each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $1,000,000.
“(3) For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $750,000.
“(4) For each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012, $2,000,000.”
Prohibition Against Duplication of Effort
Pub. L. 107–82
, § 5,Dec. 14, 2001, 115 Stat. 821
, provided that: “The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall ensure that the same or similar activities are not carried out, through the use of funds for administrative costs provided under subchapter II [probably means chapter 2] of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21
et seq.) or funds provided under section 4 of this Act [set out as a note above], by more than one recipient of such funds.”