Program Evaluation. Substance abuse prevention strategies / prepared for the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee

PROGRAM EVALUATION
Prepared For The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies September 2002

Performance Audit Operations Division 254 Washington St. S.W.

Russell W. Hinton, State Auditor Department of Audits and Accounts

Atlanta, GA 30334-8400

Purpose of Substance Abuse Prevention
Substance abuse prevention programs are intended to provide individuals with the education, skills, and/or support systems necessary to decrease their likelihood of abusing alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy, prescription drugs, etc. Prevention programs may also target the community as a whole, resulting in an environment that is less favorable to substance abuse.

Background
Substance abuse prevention programs are aimed at the general population and groups at risk for abusing alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. They are intended to reduce the likelihood of individuals using various substances. Prevention programs differ from intervention and treatment programs in that intervention and treatment programs are targeted to individuals that have begun to use substances and exhibited some type of negative behavior.

Substance Abuse in Georgia
Substance abuse has a wide-ranging impact on society, playing a significant role in crimes, suicides, traffic accidents, and economic costs. According to the Georgia Council on Substance Abuse report titled, "The Courage to Change: A Report on Substance Abuse in Georgia," 50% of all homicides, 33% of all suicides, 62% of all assaults, 50% of all head injuries, and nearly 41% of all traffic accidents in Georgia involved someone under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. "The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States: 1992-1998," a publication of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, reported that societal drug abuse cost the nation more than $143.4 billion in 1998. This amount included costs to health care, productivity, and other areas, such as the criminal justice system and social welfare programs.
The Georgia Council on Substance Abuse report also addressed the number and percentage of individuals using

Substance Abuse Programs
PREVENTION Designed for general population groups at various risk levels for substance abuse who do
not require treatment Examples include information on the dangers of drug use and drug education programs in
schools
INTERVENTION Designed for early detection of substance abuse problems in individuals where the use
has not progressed to a disease state
Examples include crisis intervention and mandatory classes for DUI offenders
TREATMENT Designed to prevent further damage through abstinence for individuals whose substance
abuse has progressed into a disease Examples include detoxification and residential
recovery programs Source: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

1

illegal drugs and alcohol. It stated that Americans consume 60% of the illegal drugs produced in
the world, with users spending $63.2 billion annually to purchase drugs. In 1999, 10.3 million people were estimated to be dependent upon alcohol or illicit drugs, and 50% of 12th graders had
tried drugs.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) 1999 National Household Survey on Substance Abuse, Georgia's substance abuse rates were lower than the national averages in several categories. When considering substance abuse within the 30 days prior to the survey, the percentage of all Georgians and the percentage of those between 12 and 17 years old were lower than the national rates for use of illicit drugs, marijuana, and binge drinking (see Exhibits 1 and 2). Georgia did have tobacco use rates slightly higher than the national rate.

Exhibit 1 30-Day Prevalence of Substance Use - Total Population

Georgia

United States

Illicit Drug Use

5.7% 6.3%

Marijuana

4.2% 4.7%

Alcohol Binge Drinking

17.9% 20.2%

Tobacco Use

30.9% 30.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Percent

Source: SAMHSA's 1999 National Household Survey on Substance Abuse Note: Binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks on one occasion.

In a comparison of nine Southeastern states, Georgia's total population had the third highest rates of illicit drug and marijuana use, fourth highest alcohol binge drinking rate, and seventh highest tobacco use rate. Georgia's rankings were similar for the 12 to 17-year-old age group fourth highest illicit drug and marijuana use, third highest binge drinking rate, and seventh highest tobacco use rate. For a detailed comparison of Georgia's rates to the other Southeastern states, see Appendices A and B on pages 28 and 29.

Type of Substance

2

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

Illicit Drug Use

Exhibit 2 30-Day Prevalence of Substance Use - 12 to 17-Year-Olds

Georgia

United States

8.8% 9.8%

Type of Substance

Marijuana

6.4% 7.2%

Alcohol Binge Drinking

8.9% 10.1%

Tobacco Use

17.7% 17.3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Percent

Source: SAMHSA's 1999 National Household Survey on Substance Abuse Note: Binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks on one occasion.

Substance Abuse Prevention Framework
The process for developing a prevention system with the appropriate programs generally contains four components development of goals and objectives, assessment of needs and resources, implementation of selected programs, and evaluation of the programs.

Development of Goals and Objectives Prevention systems and individual programs should have goals and objectives, both short and long-term. Short-term goals and objectives at the programmatic level will identify the changes in the risk and protective factors that have been targeted. Short-term goals and objectives at the system level will identify progress of strategy implementation (i.e., evaluating all programs). The longterm goals and objectives will identify the impact of the program(s) on alcohol, tobacco, or other substance use.

Needs/Resource Assessment Prevention personnel should determine the substance use and the risk/protective factors within the region to be served, as well as an appraisal of the resources currently in place. The risk and protective factors, and possibly substances to be targeted, are then prioritized.

Selection/Implementation of Programs Programs are selected and implemented based on the results of the needs/resource assessment.

Evaluation of Programs Programs are evaluated to assess progress towards goals, to make improvements, and to refine objectives.

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

3

Substance abuse prevention systems contain programs that do not simply focus on educating individuals about the dangers of drug abuse. Instead, the theoretical framework on which many substance abuse prevention programs rely is that of risk and protective factors (see Exhibit 3). Prevention programs attempt to decrease the risk factors that are associated with substance abuse and increase the protective factors that reduce the probability of substance abuse. Evidence has shown that there are a number of risk factors that increase the chances of individuals developing health and behavioral problems. There is also evidence that certain protective factors can help shield individuals from problems. If a program can reduce an individual's exposure to risk factors while increasing exposure to protective factors, the likelihood of numerous problem behaviors including substance abuse can be lessened. It should be noted that exposure to risk factors does not necessarily guarantee adverse behaviors; it only increases their likelihood.
Risk and protective factors exist in several domains, or areas of a person's life. The level of influence of these domains on an individual's perceptions and interactions varies as a person goes through life's developmental stages. Each domain contains a collection of risk and protective factors that have been shown to relate to drug abuse.

Exhibit 3

Substance Abuse Related Risk and Protective Factors

Domain

Risk Factors

Protective Factors

Positive personal characteristics, including social skills

Inadequate life skills

and social responsiveness, emotional stability, and a

Individual

Emotional and psychological problems

positive sense of self Bonding to societal institutions and values

Rejection of commonly held values and religion

Social and emotional competence

Family conflict and domestic violence

Positive bonding among family members

Parenting that includes high levels of warmth and

Family

Heightened family stress

avoidance of severe criticism; a sense of basic trust; high parental expectations that are clear and consistent,

encouraging of children's participation in family

decisions and assignment of responsibilities

Poor child supervision and discipline

Emotional supportive parental/family environment

Association with delinquent peers who use or

Peer

value dangerous substances Association with peers who reject mainstream activities or pursuits

Association with peers who are involved in school, recreation, service, religion, or other organized activities

Strong external point of control

Harsh or arbitrary student management Caring and support, sense of "community" in classroom

practices

and school

School

Availability of dangerous substances on school premises

High expectations from school personnel

General lack of school bonding by the student body

Clear standards and rules for appropriate behavior

Lack of community bonding

Caring and support

Community Community attitudes favorable to drug use Ready availability of dangerous substances

High expectations of youth Opportunities for youth participation in community
activities

Impoverishment

Media literacy (resistance to pro-use messages)

Society

Unemployment and underemployment

Decreased accessibility to alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs

Discrimination

Raised purchasing age and enforcement

Source: Florida Prevention System: A Vision for the Prevention Component of the Florida Drug Control Strategy

4

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

The risk and protective factors related to substance abuse overlap the factors for other negative behaviors such as teen pregnancy, violence, and school failure. Therefore, a substance abuse prevention program may be linked to and impact multiple negative behaviors.
Georgia's Prevention System
The Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the Department of Education (DOE) are the state agencies primarily responsible for comprehensive substance abuse prevention programs. Other state agencies offer significantly smaller programs, programs to limited groups of individuals (i.e., Department of Corrections' programs for prisoners), or programs focused on tobacco or alcohol only. Georgia's substance abuse prevention system also involves numerous entities outside of state government, including local governments, schools, community coalitions, and non-profit organizations.
Many entities in Georgia's substance abuse prevention system operate programs that address risk and protective factors, but DHR is the only state agency that indicated it reports the risk and protective factors addressed by its programs.
Department of Human Resources
During the period covered by the program evaluation, DHR's comprehensive substance abuse prevention initiatives were primarily managed through the Division of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse (MHMRSA) Regional Boards. However, House Bill 498, passed during the 2002 legislative session, gave DHR the authority to contract directly with providers for the provision of services and changed the functions of the regional boards to act as planning boards as of July 1, 2002.
Under the regional system, DHR allocated funds to each regional board. Local board members, appointed by each of the region's counties, decided what type of programs and services were needed within their region. The regional boards contracted with organizations (non-profits, schools, community service boards, and others) for the provision of services. Programs offered by the providers varied significantly and included youth after-school programs, tutoring, or parenting classes. Each regional board had a prevention specialist position responsible for the oversight of the region's substance abuse prevention programs. The prevention specialists also provided training and technical assistance to providers. Exhibit 4 on page 7 shows the DHR regions and substance abuse rate information.
Within the state office of the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Addictive Diseases (known as MHMRSA prior to July 1, 2002), DHR has a staff of two prevention professionals supporting the regional system: the state Prevention Chief and a prevention specialist. They are responsible for reviewing regional board annual plans, completing federal grant applications and reports, providing training to the regional board staff, coordinating prevention with other agencies, and overseeing statewide prevention contracts. In fiscal year 2001, the state office administered three contracts, including:
Helpline Georgia Program operated by private contractor to provide confidential, telephone crisis intervention, information, and referral resources to Georgia individuals

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

5

on a number of topics, including substance abuse prevention. The contract totaled $180,000 in fiscal year 2001.
Drugs Don't Work Program operated by Georgia Chamber of Commerce to help employers and employees develop employee assistance programs that result in drug-free work environments. O.C.G.A. 34-9-412 allows workplaces that are certified drug-free to receive discounted worker's compensation premiums. DHR officials state that more than 7,000 Georgia businesses have been certified as Drug Free Workplaces. The contract totaled $175,000 in fiscal year 2001.
Maternal Substance Abuse and Child Development Project Project at Emory University that works to prevent negative consequences of maternal substance abuse. The contract totaled $284,363 in fiscal year 2001.
MHDDAD's state office also has prevention responsibilities related to Red Ribbon Week and federal requirements related to tobacco availability. MHDDAD has one employee that helps to organize Red Ribbon Week, which is an initiative to mobilize individuals to make a personal and public commitment for a drug-free Georgia that culminates in a drug-free awareness week each October. Red Ribbon Week incurred expenses and contracts of $65,000 in fiscal year 2001. Finally, a fourth MHDDAD state office employee serves as a coordinator to fulfill federal funding requirements that the state decrease the availability of tobacco to youth under 18.
HB498 introduced several changes to DHR's prevention programming. In addition to transferring contract authority from the regional boards to the DHR state office, the legislation:
Provided DHR state office with clear authority over regional office staff;
Abolished the regional boards and creates regional planning boards that will serve to communicate the areas' needs to the regional and state office staff; and
Changed the Division of MHMRSA to the Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities, and Addictive Diseases.
DHR officials stated that the regional offices would maintain their prevention specialist positions. DHR officials do not expect the implementation of HB498 to result in an increase of state office staff; however, the state office will begin to work toward standardizing the regional prevention specialist position requirements and training. They added that while provisions of HB498 will go into effect on July 1, 2002 and January 1, 2003, implementation of day-to-day operational changes would occur gradually.
Department of Education
DOE's substance abuse prevention efforts are delivered through local school systems. DOE distributes an allocation of federal funds to each school system for substance abuse and violence prevention. The systems are provided assistance by the Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs), each of which has at least one position responsible for providing prevention assistance. Eighty-five (47%) of 180 school systems have joined RESA consortiums, allowing their

6

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

allocation to be sent directly to the RESA in exchange for additional services, such as the provision of prevention programs and additional training workshops.
Exhibit 4 Department of Human Resources MHDDAD Regions

1 3
456 7 2
8 9

12 13

10 11

Percent Using Marijuana
(Past 30 days)

Percent Binge Drinking
(Past 30 Days)

Percent Smoking Cigarettes
(Past 30 days)

Region 1

5.9

3.6

16.1

Region 2

6.6

5.2

13.9

Region 3

11.7

13

18.8

Region 4

6.3

6.8

12.3

Region 5

10.7

6.9

11

Region 6

7.3

4

9.8

Region 7

6.5

7.7

13.9

Region 8

8.2

4.2

12

Region 9

5.2

4.8

14.8

Region 10

4

4.6

12.6

Region 11

7.3

7.3

14.6

Region 12

6

5.1

14.2

Region 13

6

5.9

14.7

Source: DHR's 2000 Georgia Needs Assessment and MHDDAD website

Note: Substance abuse rates are for youth age 12 to 18.

Percent Using Smokeless Tobacco
(Past 30 days) 5.3 7.1 5 2.6 1.2 0 1.8 6.6 3.3 4.6 8.1 3.6 5.3

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

7

Substance abuse prevention programs vary significantly from one school to the next and one grade to the next. O.C.G.A. 20-2-142(c) requires that the health and physical education class in all grades include an alcohol, tobacco, and other drug abuse prevention component and that DOE develop the related Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) standards. The QCC standards do not mandate the amount of time that the schools devote to substance abuse prevention. The schools' requirement may be met through the incorporation of substance abuse awareness subject matter into the existing curriculum or the creation or use of specific courses, such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) or Botvin Life Skills Training.

DOE's state office has two positions responsible for reviewing annual plans and progress reports that are submitted by the school systems and RESAs each year. The state office is also responsible for completing federal grant applications and reports, as well as coordinating the administration of an annual student survey of drug use and violence.

Other State Agencies
There are eight other state agencies that also have some level of involvement with substance abuse prevention. For example, the Board of Pardons and Paroles has two employees that give presentations to students on issues including drug abuse, and the Department of Corrections (DOC) has a Substance Abuse 101 program for all inmates. State agencies identified by the evaluation team that have substance abuse prevention activities are shown in Appendix C on pages 30 and 31.

DARE Program
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) is a police officer-led series of classroom lessons meant to teach youth how to avoid drugs and violence. According to DARE officials, the program has been implemented in 80% of U.S. school districts, all states, and 52 countries. Curricula exist for elementary, middle school, and high school age groups. DARE America, a non-profit organization, provides DARE materials for local school systems for a fee.

Georgia DARE Facts
300 active officers (March 2002) 120 public school systems, 58
private schools 87,882 total students during
2000-01 school year Elementary - 76,126 Middle School - 10,699 High School 1,057

The DARE curriculum for elementary students is the most Source: Georgia Bureau of Investigations common in Georgia. Usually delivered during the fifth grade, the program is a 17-lesson course with an officer teaching one lesson per week. The middle and high school courses each contain 10 lessons.

Whether or not a school has a DARE program is a decision of the local school system and a local
law enforcement agency providing the officer(s). Other entities involved in the program, and
their roles, include: DARE America Determines the DARE curricula and minimum standards for DARE officers. Georgia DARE Board Approves an officer for training once a local law enforcement agency nominates the officer. Georgia Bureau of Investigations DARE Unit Provides training to officers approved by the Georgia DARE Board.

8

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

Funding of Substance Abuse Prevention
Funding for the substance abuse prevention activities of DHR and DOE is primarily provided through two federal grants the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools grant. In addition, DHR receives state funds. See Exhibit 5 for fiscal year 2001 expenditures.

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPT) Annual grant provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to DHR. At least 20% of the grant must be spent on substance abuse prevention programs.

Safe and Drug-Free Schools (SDFS) Annual grant provided by the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) to both the Georgia DOE and DHR. DOE administers 80% of the total SDFS block grant, and MHDDAD administers the remaining 20% (referred to as the Governor's Portion). SDFS funds are used for substance abuse and violence prevention programs.

As well as the two federal grants, smaller amounts of state and federal funds are used for prevention programs in other agencies. However, the funding amounts were significantly less than the two federal grants listed above. See Appendix C on pages 30 and 31 for state agencies and program funding.

Exhibit 5 Funding for State Prevention Programs
Fiscal Year 2001

Department of Human Resources State Office Regional Boards
Total DHR

SAPT -

Other

Federal SDFS - Federal Federal

State Funds Total Funds

$1,002,961 $7,336,487 $8,339,448

$123,945 $2,192,272 $2,316,217

$0 $130,105 $1,257,011 $0 $910,963 $10,439,722 $0 $1,041,068 $11,696,733

Department of Education State Office RESAs/School Systems
Total DOE

$0

$169,994

$0

$0 $9,324,909

$0

$0 $9,494,903

$0

$0 $169,994 $0 $9,324,909 $0 $9,494,903

Other State Agencies(1)

$0

$0 $320,111 $906,000 $1,226,111

Grand Total

$8,339,448 $11,811,120 $320,111 $1,947,068 $22,417,747

Source: Agency Records

(1) Amounts include the Board of Pardons and Paroles, Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, Department of Defense,

Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and the Georgia State Patrol. Figures were not available for the Department of

Corrections or the Drugs and Narcotics Agency.

In addition to the federal and state funds used for prevention programs, counties and municipalities expended local funds to support prevention efforts. Due to the numerous local entities, the evaluation team was unable to determine the total amount of local funds expended. The evaluation team did identify a state law intended to provide local governments with funds that can be used for substance abuse prevention. O.C.G.A. 15-21-100 requires that all courts in

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

9

the state collect a 50% surcharge on fines related to illegal drug felonies and misdemeanors and remit the surcharge to the county government. The county is required to use the Drug Abuse Treatment and Education Fund (DATE) for drug prevention or treatment programs. Based on a review of the collections of 15 random counties, the evaluation team estimates that local governments, as a whole, should be collecting several million dollars in DATE funding each year. It should be noted that some counties and municipalities expend other local funds for prevention programs. Local funds expended for prevention programs were not included in this program evaluation.
Exhibit 6 Georgia's Substance Abuse Prevention System

Federal Funds
The federal government provides more than $20 million in prevention funding
to Georgia, primarily through two grants.

State Funds
The state government provides approximately $1 million for DHR's prevention activities. Other state agencies use state funds for their
activities.

Drug Abuse Treatment
and Education Fee
Courts collect a 50% surcharge on fines in drug-related offenses. The DATE funds are remitted to the county
government.

Department of Education Distributes most of its funds to RESAs and local school
systems

Department of Human Resources
Prior to July 1, 2002, distributed most of its funds
to regional boards; state office had three contracts

Other State Agencies Other state agencies either provide services themselves
or distribute funds to providers

County Governments County board of
commissioners may distribute funds to existing county personnel or hire
providers

Local School Systems Programs delivered by teachers or other providers, such as DARE officers

Regional Boards Prior to July 1, 2002,
contracted with prevention providers (1)

Prevention Providers Various types of organizations provide prevention programs, including educational programs, information dissemination, working to change
community norms, parenting classes, etc.

General and At-Risk Population Many programs offered by all agencies target youth and/or their parents; however, there are prevention programs
addressing the general population

(1) MHMRSA Regional Boards were abolished on July 1, 2002. Contracts with providers are now made by DHR. However, regional prevention specialists remain and the former regional boards now serve as planning units.

10

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

Issues Addressed and Evaluation Methodology
This program evaluation was conducted in compliance with O.C.G.A. 45-12-178 enacted in 1993 and was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards for performance audits. The evaluation was conducted under the Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee's calendar year 2002 theme, "Drug Enforcement and Prevention." Specific objectives of the program evaluation, as determined by the BROC, include the following:
To evaluate the substance abuse prevention strategies of the state; and
To determine the extent to which the state's initiatives and programs are coordinated.
Many topics within the BROC theme related to illegal drugs. However, many comprehensive prevention programs discuss alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs, making it impossible to separate illegal drug prevention from alcohol and tobacco prevention. In an attempt to focus on programs that include illegal drug prevention, this program evaluation generally centered on the activities of state agency programs that are not solely directed at alcohol or tobacco prevention. For this reason, programs such as the Tobacco Use Prevention Program are not included in the program evaluation. Also, programs funded by local governments were not included in the program evaluation.
The evaluation methodology included interviews of officials with the Department of Human Resources (DHR), Department of Education (DOE), Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Corrections, Drugs and Narcotics Agency, State Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Georgia State Patrol, Department of Juvenile Justice, and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. Interviews were also conducted with officials from the court system, county governing authorities, prevention professionals in other states, and officials with non-profit organizations in Georgia. The evaluation team also reviewed records of DHR, DOE, GBI, DOD, and county governments.
The entire report was discussed with appropriate personnel at DHR, DOE, and GBI, and a draft copy was provided to each agency. Personnel from each agency were invited to provide a written response to the report and to indicate areas in which they planned to take corrective action. DHR responses are included at the end of most findings, while GBI responded to only one finding (page 24-26). In its written response, DOE stated that it disputed none of the findings.

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

11

Coordination of Prevention System Components
Georgia's substance abuse prevention system is fragmented. The state should adopt a comprehensive substance abuse prevention strategy and corresponding plan containing statewide goals and accountability measures related to reducing substance abuse.
In a December 2000 report, a research firm hired by DHR to perform a statewide needs assessment stated that Georgia's "prevention `network' is fragmented and that providers have limited information about what other providers are doing." The evaluation team also noted the fragmentation of Georgia's substance abuse prevention system.
The fragmentation of the prevention system can be attributed to the lack of a comprehensive substance abuse prevention strategy and corresponding plan, the numerous agencies involved in prevention, and the structure of the two leading state agencies DHR and DOE.
The state does not have an entity with the authority to develop and implement a unified substance abuse prevention strategy. Although the state administers a variety of prevention programs, it has not developed a comprehensive plan for identifying how these programs work together to reduce substance abuse. Substance abuse prevention programs are currently administered by at least 10 state agencies, and some of those agencies have multiple prevention programs. This diffusion of prevention programs is due to agencies targeting specific populations, federal prevention funds being designated to multiple state agencies, state agencies offering prevention programs due to their unique perspective on substance abuse, and requirements by state law.
The organizational structure of the prevention programs within DHR and DOE make coordination more difficult within those agencies. Both agencies' delivery systems have been organized to allow for regional or local control, with the state offices having limited authority over the entities that make decisions related to programs to be used and populations to be targeted. Prior to passage of HB498 in 2002, DHR's prevention services were delivered through MHMRSA regional boards, over which the state office exercised limited oversight. The programs funded through DOE's Safe and Drug-Free School grants are chosen by the school systems. While there are broad federal grant guidelines, DOE does not have state guidelines that require that school systems use specific programs.
The evaluation team contacted substance abuse prevention officials in eight other Southeastern states and found that four had statewide prevention plans and a fifth was in the process of plan development. Florida's substance abuse prevention plan outlines goals and long- and short-term objectives for the state's substance abuse prevention system. The plan emphasized the need for collaboration and sharing of information between the various agencies. In an attempt to enhance coordination before the plan's development, Florida officials created a Governor's Office of Drug Control, which oversees the state's substance abuse prevention and drug enforcement efforts.

12

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

In order to create a more effective, comprehensive substance abuse prevention system, the state should either designate an existing entity or create a new entity with the authority to develop and implement a unified prevention strategy. The state should develop an overall plan for identifying how the substance abuse prevention programs will work together to reduce substance abuse rates. The plan should detail the responsibilities of each agency, including whether or not the appropriate state agencies are involved in substance abuse prevention and whether the programs being undertaken are the most effective use of current resources. In addition, the plan should include a common goal, common definition of prevention, agreed-upon performance indicators, and a means for reporting annually the composite accomplishments and progress in substance abuse prevention.
In response to the finding, DHR acknowledged that there is limited collaboration among agencies that provide prevention services. MHDDAD has set an operational goal in fiscal year 2003 to "enhance and improve communication, collaboration and partnership." DHR added that agencies are "charged with state and federal law, regulations and fund sources to carry out particular activities, with a specified population, and to accomplish specific goals, and a statewide plan cannot change the requirements on each agency.
Evaluation Team's Response: The laws, rules, and regulations are not so restrictive that agencies are unable to alter strategies or programs based on the activities of one another. In fact, at least 35 other states have developed, or are developing, state plans to coordinate the efforts of their agencies working with substance abuse prevention.

In order to determine whether the substance abuse prevention system is effective, the state should develop goals and measurable objectives targeting a specific reduction in substance abuse rates within a particular time frame.

Despite the fact that the goal of a substance abuse prevention program is to prevent individuals from abusing substances, no state entity has goals and measurable objectives related to reducing substance abuse rates.

Goals and measurable objectives appropriate for the prevention system are different from those for individual prevention programs. In order to impact substance abuse rates, individual prevention programs should decrease risk factors and/or increase protective factors. As a result, an individual prevention program's outcome measures should relate to its impact on risk and protective factors. The cumulative impact of a community's, region's, or state's prevention programs should lead to a decrease in substance abuse rates. Therefore, the prevention system's outcome measures should measure the reduction in substance abuse rates.

While there is not a statewide measure to determine if the prevention system is reducing substance abuse, DHR and DOE have goals and objectives at various levels of the prevention system. The two agencies' goals and objectives are detailed below.
Department of Human Resources
Within DHR, there are goals and/or objectives at the state agency, regional board, and provider levels. Some of the measures include indicators of substance abuse (risk and protective factors),

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

13

but at no level is the ultimate reason for the programs' existence, a reduction in substance use rates, ever measured.
DHR The agency's 1998 State Substance Abuse Prevention Plan includes a single goal and seven sub-goals, none of which is directly related to reducing substance abuse rates by a certain amount. The goal is to "develop and maintain a statewide comprehensive framework and support system for regional planning, implementation, and evaluation that will result in healthy individuals and communities." The first sub-goal "support regions to develop, maintain, and promote a full continuum of comprehensive prevention services that reduces the incidence and prevalence of substance abuse" does not contain a baseline or target for substance abuse reduction.
Regional Boards The regional boards' prevention goals and objectives, as stated in their annual plans, generally focus on improving community relations, increasing the use of research-based programs, or targeting a part of the region with a program. The annual plans include substance abuse rate information that is not related to regional boards' goals and objectives, but rather to the description of the regions and their needs.
Prevention Providers While the performance measures for the providers may relate to risk and protective factors, they do not address substance abuse rates. For instance, a provider may be required to increase participants' knowledge through pre- and post-tests or measure individual improvements in school grades. As stated above, it is appropriate for individual programs offered by providers to measure success in addressing risk and protective factors.
Department of Education
DOE's prevention efforts have goals and objectives at the state and local level.
DOE The agency has a substance abuse prevention goal "to help ensure that all schools are drug-free by promoting implementation of high quality alcohol, tobacco, and other drug prevention programs." DOE does not measure the state's progress to determine whether the school systems, as a group, are reducing substance abuse rates.
School Systems Systems are required to adopt DOE's substance abuse prevention goal as their own. The systems then adopt their own measurable objectives in order to measure the performance of their programs. Most systems use the substance abuse rate information from their Statewide Needs Assessment Survey of students to determine initial use rates and set performance targets.
DOE officials stated that systems are given two years to reach their performance objectives before they are required to use another program. However, the officials said that no system has been forced to change programs and that they have not reviewed the progress reports to determine which systems did not meet their objectives. DOE officials said that they had been anticipating new federal legislation directing the program and did not want to require school systems to change programs until the new legislation was adopted.

14

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

Exhibit 7
Examples of Measurable Objectives for Substance Abuse Prevention
Long-Term (State Prevention System) By 2007, reduce the past 30 days overall drug use rates in Georgia by X%, as measured by the National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse. By 2007, reduce past 30 days drug use for 12 to 17 year-olds in Georgia by X%, as measured by the
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. By 2007, increase the average age of the first-time user in Georgia by X months, as measured by the
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Short-Term (State Agencies)
Increase agency prevention funding from government and non-government sources by at least X% a year. Ensure that all prevention programs within the agency undergo a comprehensive evaluation every X
year(s). Increase the use of science-based programs (as listed by CSAP or USDOE) to cover an additional X% of
the 12 to 17 year-old population during the next fiscal year.
The state should adopt measurable goals and objectives that measure the substance abuse prevention system's success at reducing substance abuse rates. If statewide goals, objectives, and a comprehensive plan are developed, DHR and DOE should adopt agency goals and objectives related to the strategies for which they are responsible. If statewide goals and objectives related to substance abuse rates are not adopted, the two agencies should jointly adopt substance abuse rate measures so that the two state agencies with the largest portion of prevention programs are monitoring the state's progress in reducing substance abuse. In this situation, DHR and DOE would jointly decide what measurement instrument to use and what the short- and long-term reduction goals should be. In addition, the agencies could develop separate goals and objectives related to specific agency strategies. Exhibit 7 provides examples of measurable objectives for substance abuse systems and related agencies.
In response to the finding, DHR acknowledged that a reduction of substance abuse rates is the ultimate goal of the substance abuse prevention system. However, the agency believes that rate changes are long-term and that it would be difficult to use them as a measure of the system's success. DHR added that it would consult with the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention in order to develop meaningful performance measures.
Evaluation Team's Response: A reduction in substance abuse rates is one goal of the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy. In addition, states that receive the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention's State Incentive Grant (see next finding) must use at least one of six measures as indicators of their state's prevention system's success. Four of the six measures are related to substance abuse rates.

Georgia is one of 14 states that have not received the federal State Incentive Grant (SIG). The state should apply for the SIG since the grant is intended to improve the coordination of agencies involved in substance abuse prevention and to increase the use of science-based prevention programs.
The State Incentive Grant (SIG) is a federal grant to governors for the development and implementation of a statewide strategy to improve how state and federal funds are spent for

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

15

substance abuse prevention. The grant averages $3 million per year for three years and is awarded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). The SIG's goals are to coordinate all substance abuse prevention resources in the state and to fill identified gaps in the prevention system with science-based programs. At least 85% of the SIG funds must be used for awards to local community entities to implement science-based prevention programs. Georgia's science-based prevention programs are discussed in the finding on page 24.
The SIG requires the governor to appoint a SIG Advisory Committee to develop a comprehensive state prevention plan and coordinate the efforts of the involved state agencies. The SIG Advisory Committee also establishes prevention workgroups and the procedures for awards to local community entities. The committee would represent the Office of the Governor, the state agencies involved in substance abuse prevention, program providers, anti-drug coalitions, local family groups, and others.
As of August 2002, 36 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have received the SIG. Georgia applied for but did not receive the SIG in 1997 and 1998. Neither CSAP nor DHR was able to locate the application review notes that would indicate the reason for the 1997 and 1998 denials. Although the grant was available, Georgia did not apply for the grant in subsequent years. DHR officials said that the state did not apply in 2002 because of the conflict between the time necessary to prepare the application and the legislative session. The officials said that they intend to apply for the SIG if given the opportunity again.
In order to determine the grant's impact on prevention systems, the evaluation team contacted prevention staff in five Southeastern states that have received the SIG before 2001. They said that the SIG has definitely led to an increase in the use of science-based prevention programs but its impact on coordination has been less discernable. The SIG provided a foundation for coordination of agencies involved in prevention through its requirement for creation of an advisory council. However, the officials added that coordination remains a challenge and that successful coordination is partly dependent on the support given by the governor and legislature. It should be noted that few states had developed evidence of reduced substance abuse rates because most evaluations are not complete.
Georgia should apply for the SIG. A SIG Advisory Committee would provide Georgia with a statewide prevention plan, involve members of the different prevention programs, and establish a formal setting for coordination. At the very least, the grant would provide approximately $3 million a year for three years and increase the use of science-based programs.
In response to the finding, DHR stated that it is prepared to request that the Governor apply for the SIG at the next opportunity.

16

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

Prevention System
The needs assessments process could be improved if DHR and DOE coordinated their efforts.
Needs assessments are intended to provide an understanding of the nature and extent of substance abuse and the related risk and protective factors. Programs that target the problem substances, the risk and protective factors, and the highest at-risk population can then be developed and implemented. The amount and type of information used in a needs assessment varies. Generally, the creation of a needs assessment begins by gathering data to assess the problem. Information is then obtained to further pinpoint the population and location of the substance abuse problem and the reasons for the abuse. Information is gathered from numerous sources, which may include federal, state, and local governments.
DHR and DOE officials currently compile needs assessments largely independent of one another. Most DHR prevention specialists use the 2000 Georgia Needs Assessment as the starting point for their region's needs assessment. The 2000 Georgia Needs Assessment, completed by a DHR vendor, contains information related to each region's substance abuse rates and indicators, such as homicides, arrest rates and percentage of individuals receiving free or reduced school lunches. The prevention specialists then gather information from other sources to complete their needs assessments. According to the RESA Safe and Drug-Free Schools coordinators, school systems primarily rely on DOE's annual Statewide Needs Assessment Survey for information on a school system's need. In 2001, all but 10 school systems used the DOE survey as a tool to determine need and progress related to substance abuse and violence prevention. The survey is of fifth, eighth, and tenth grade students whose parents give the school permission to survey their children, and it covers topics such as recent drug use and school violence.
The evaluation team identified two areas in which the needs assessment process could be improved: coordination of data collection and the DOE Statewide Needs Assessment Survey.
Coordination of Data Collection Since DHR's and DOE's needs assessments largely focus on the same youth population, the two agencies should coordinate the collection of needs assessment data. Current coordination is random and largely dependent on the school system and/or DHR regional prevention specialist. Specific examples of a lack of coordination include some school systems' unwillingness to share results of the DOE Statewide Needs Assessment Survey and the fact that only five of 16 RESA SDFS coordinators were even aware of DHR's 2000 Georgia Needs Assessment (only one had a copy).
DOE Statewide Needs Assessment Survey Eight of 16 RESA SDFS coordinators stated that the current school-based survey instrument's usefulness is limited by its design and low student participation rates. Coordinators indicated that the survey is detailed enough only to identify problem substances, which is just one component of a needs assessment. The survey does not identify the factors that lead to substance abuse. Additionally, in the spring of 2001, 65 of 170 (38%) school systems using the survey had participation rates lower than 40%. RESA SDFS coordinators partly attribute participation rates to the emphasis placed on the survey by the school system. The participation rates varied from 11% to 84%.

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

17

While it may be necessary for regional prevention specialists, RESAs, and school systems to conduct their own needs assessments, other states have found ways to coordinate the collection of information. Officials from several Florida agencies worked together to compile a schoolbased survey that included not only substance abuse information but also information related to the factors that contribute to substance abuse. The survey is administered in the schools each spring, with results used by several state agencies to complete their needs assessments. The survey is one instrument by which the state can measure the progress of its entire prevention system.
DHR and DOE should take the following steps to improve the needs assessment process:
Better coordinate the dissemination of needs assessment information, specifically DHR's 2000 Georgia Needs Assessment and DOE's Statewide Needs Assessment Survey.
Consider working together to ensure that the school-based survey is adequate, in terms of content and participation, to gauge the extent of the substance usage and the reasons for the substance abuse. While the current survey is primarily used for DOE's SDFS program, it could be used to provide needs assessment and performance information for the entire substance abuse prevention system.
In response to the finding, DHR acknowledged that additional coordination could improve the needs assessment process and stated that the MHDDAD operational plan for fiscal year 2003 calls for improved collaboration, communication, and partnership.
DHR disagreed that the distribution of the DHR 2000 Georgia Needs Assessment was inadequate. It said that the document was placed on the agency's website and letters sent across the state advising people of the document's availability. DHR said that regional offices received boxes of the document and that copies were provided to several DHR divisions, as well as the Departments of Community Health and Juvenile Justice.

The state should improve the evaluations of prevention programs in order to determine if the programs are successful components of the prevention system.
Evaluations of prevention programs are intended to determine if programs are effective at impacting the factors that result in substance abuse or at impacting substance abuse itself. Both DHR and DOE acknowledge the importance of evaluating prevention programs; however, significant differences exist in evaluation methods, if evaluations are even conducted. Detailed information on the agencies' evaluation methods is discussed below.
Department of Human Resources
Within DHR's system, there are no program evaluations at the state level and no consistency in the evaluations between the regional boards. In fiscal year 2002, 10 of the 13 regional boards had contracts for evaluators to provide a variety of services. Three regional boards chose not to contract with evaluators, opting for either the regional prevention specialist to evaluate the

18

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

programs or for the programs to do their own evaluation. Of the nine that did contract with evaluators, six only required the evaluators to teach the providers how to evaluate themselves, while three required an evaluation of the providers and the production of an evaluation report. The inconsistency between the region's evaluation services is also reflected in the amount of their contracts, ranging from $15,000 to approximately $189,000. The regions expended between two and 30 percent of their prevention funds for evaluation services.
Department of Education
According to DOE officials, evaluations of prevention programs are limited to the school system and RESA annual progress reports that contain program objectives and performance measures. While the performance data is one portion of an evaluation, the reports do not contain the level of analysis necessary for programming decisions. If program objectives are not met, the progress reports provide no insight into the reasons why or what action should be taken, such as changes to the program or selection of a new program.
In its consolidated performance report to the USDOE, DOE reported that difficulties for the local school systems included a lack of time and expertise to perform program evaluations. DOE has received several requests from local schools for assistance with evaluating programs that are not science-based. DOE officials have said that they are considering a state-level committee to help evaluate school programs.
DHR and DOE should consider, either independently or jointly, increasing their role in evaluating local prevention programs. The two agencies' state offices could consider working with evaluators to conduct evaluations of a cross-section of programs throughout the state each year. At a minimum, the agencies should increase direction and set standards for local program evaluations. Whether programs need to be evaluated should be clearly indicated to the providers or schools and the components of effective evaluations should be outlined.
It should be noted that officials of both DHR and DOE acknowledged the need to improve evaluations. They also mentioned the possibility of working with state university faculty and students experienced in evaluating prevention programs.
In response to the finding, DHR stated that it has approved the release of a Request for Proposal for a statewide, cross-site evaluation in the fall of 2002.
Prevention Funding
DHR should allocate a greater percentage of prevention funds to regions based on its riskbased methodology, instead of simply continuing prior year funding. DOE allocated SDFS funds to school systems and RESAs in a reasonable manner.
Since prevention programs offered through DHR and DOE are primarily delivered at the regional or local level, both agencies allocate a majority of their prevention funding to regional offices or school systems. The allocation methodologies of DHR and DOE are discussed below.

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

19

Department of Human Resources
When created in the early 1990s, the regional boards were allocated the funds previously given to providers in their geographic area. Each year, DHR provides each region with an initial allocation equal to its prior year funding. DHR officials then decide how to allocate any increases in federal funds. A portion of the increase is allocated based on a formula that considers each region's risk for substance abuse. The additional amount that DHR officials allocate to a region in one year then becomes part of its base allocation the following year.

The majority of the $10.2 million allocated to the regional boards for prevention programs in fiscal year 2001 was not based on a current assessment of regional need but was simply a continuation of funding from the prior year. Less than $400,000 (approximately 4% of total) was allocated based on DHR's Weighted Risk Estimate.

The vendor that conducted DHR's 2000 Georgia Needs Assessment developed the Weighted Risk Estimate in order to assist in the allocation of prevention resources. The Weighted Risk Estimate includes numerous factors related to risk for substance abuse, including unemployment, free and reduced lunch program participants, single parent households, homicides, teen suicides, and other factors. DHR officials stated that they do not use the Weighted Risk Estimate to allocate all prevention funds because the estimate does not consider the geographic size of the regions, which impacts the number of programs necessary to reach the population. DHR officials stated that since some sparsely populated regions have more than 20 counties, it is necessary to have numerous programs to reach the same number of individuals that a more densely populated region can reach with a single program.

DHR's method of allocating funds does not consider whether or not the past allocations to the regions are consistent with the current needs in the regions. Instead, the primary goal of the

$1,400,000

Exhibit 8 Fiscal Year 2001 Allocation of Funds to Regional Boards

$1,200,000

$1,150,577

$1,013,451 $1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000

$996,116

$961,688

$805,689

$716,080

$672,152

$529,232

$448,037

$710,461 $631,130

$833,993 $692,529

$200,000

$0

Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 Region 6 Region 7 Region 8 Region 9 Region 10 Region 11 Region 12 Region 13

Source: DHR records
20

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

method is to ensure that funding is not reallocated from one region to another, even if the latter region is at a higher risk for substance abuse. As shown in Exhibit 8, fiscal year 2001 prevention funding allocated for services ranged from $448,037 for Region 6 to $1,150,577 for Region 2. When compared to the Weighted Risk Estimates, which does not consider geographic size as a factor, there is a disparity between a region's relative risk of substance abuse and its funding level.
Given the fact that budgeting most prevention funds as a continuation does not adequately address the potentially changing needs of a region, DHR officials should allocate a greater percentage of prevention funds according to a region's need. DHR officials should determine an appropriate amount of funds per a unit of geographic size (county or square miles) and allocate the remaining funds according to the Weighted Risk Estimate. In order to ensure that no region suffers a significant, abrupt decline in funding, DHR could limit the annual amount or percentage of funding decreases to a region.
Department of Education
DOE's allocation of SDFS funds is primarily determined by federal guidelines. Prior to July 1, 2002, the guidelines required that DOE allocate no more than nine percent of the state's annual award for administrative expenses, state-level programs, and training/technical assistance. The guidelines also stated that, of the remaining funds, 70% be divided between all school systems based on student enrollment (regular allotment) and 30% be divided between the school systems exhibiting the greatest need (supplemental allotment).
For the 2001-2002 school year, the regular allotment to school systems totaled approximately $6.1 million. Systems received $3.97 per student enrolled within the public and private schools located within their district.
Approximately $2.6 million in supplemental funds were allocated to 18 systems based on guidelines created by the State Board of Education. The guidelines required that funds be awarded to four urban systems, seven suburban systems, and seven rural systems. For the 200102 school year, the 11 urban and suburban systems received $8.40 per student. Due to minimum award amounts that affected the amount per student, rural systems received between $10.69 and $37.36 per student. The total supplemental awards ranged from $30,000 to $853,556. (See Appendix D on pages 32-35 for regular and supplemental allocations for the 2001-02 year.)
The No Child Left Behind Act is federal legislation signed in 2002 that will dictate future allocations for SDFS funds. Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, 93% of the funds given to DOE must be allocated to the local school systems or RESA consortiums. Instead of using a supplemental formula for schools with the greatest need, all funds will be allocated according to the following formula:
60% of the grant amount will be based on the school system's share of the state's Title 1, Part A funds in the previous fiscal year
40% of the grant amount will be based on the enrollment of public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools within the school system's boundaries.

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

21

In response to the finding, DHR stated the recommendations are "worth further review and consideration for Fiscal Year 2004 allocations."

The impact of the Drug Abuse Treatment and Education (DATE) fee on the state's prevention system could be improved if courts collected the full amount due and counties coordinated their prevention efforts with the existing prevention system.

According to O.C.G.A. 15-21-100 and 15-21-101, any court that imposes a fine for a drug conviction will assess an additional penalty equal to 50% of the original fine. The 50% fee is collected by the clerk or court officer and remitted to the county government. The county must spend Drug Abuse Treatment and Education (DATE) funds on drug abuse treatment and education programs. No state agency is involved in the collection, remittance, or expenditure of DATE funds.

Collection An April 2001 Department of Audits survey of the state's courts found that 29 of 91 (32%) were collecting the DATE fee. The current evaluation team contacted 16 courts that did not collect the fee to determine why it was not assessed. The courts reported several causes, with the most common responses being that the fees either were not applicable to their cases (44%) or that they were not aware of the fee (38%).

Previous Reports on The evaluation team contacted 15 counties that collect DATE Fees Imposed by Courts fees in order to determine the amount of funds collected in

Court Fees (October 2001)

fiscal year 2001. The counties collected a total of $1.3 million,

Audit of the assessment, collection, and remittance of all fees imposed by courts

with six counties collecting less than $25,000, seven collecting between $25,000 and $100,000, and two collecting more than $100,000.

Peace Officer and Prosecutor

Training Fund (August 2001) Audit of the assessment, collection, and remittance of

Expenditure The evaluation team also reviewed how 15 counties expended their DATE funds. Five did not expend any

one court fee and the state's expenditure of peace officer and prosecutor training funds

of the funds in fiscal year 2001 and collectively had approximately $371,000 in DATE fund balances. County finance personnel in three of the five counties said that their

board of commissioners had recently decided to fund a prevention program. Of the 10 counties

expending DATE funds, five fund DARE programs, four fund other prevention programs, and

one funds a treatment program rather than a prevention program. Eight of the 10 counties also

maintained fund balances, totaling approximately $1.65 million.

County personnel indicated that the decision to fund particular programs is made by the board of commissioners and is not based on a formal needs assessment. The independence of county funding decisions is evident in the fact that few DHR regional prevention specialists were knowledgeable of the DATE fee. Despite the fact that DHR regional prevention specialists should be aware of programs and funding sources within their region, only two of eight asked about DATE were aware of the fee and neither worked with counties in targeting its expenditure. When asked why they do not work with the counties, one regional prevention specialist responded that counties are "very protective of their funds." Since counties do not routinely work

22

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

with other entities involved in substance abuse prevention, opportunities to leverage resources within a county are missed. Additionally, there is a greater likelihood for program overlap or unnecessary gaps in services.
As the recipients of DATE funds, counties should ensure that the courts are aware of the DATE fee and the requirement that the fee be collected and remitted to the county. Additionally, counties should fund substance abuse prevention programs that are consistent and coordinated with other programs already offered by other entities within the county. Requiring these prevention programs to meet the same standards (needs assessments, goals, and evaluation) applied elsewhere would help to ensure that the funds are effectively spent. Having the regional prevention specialist or a representative of DHR review plans for spending DATE funds should be considered. The counties could also make use of existing needs assessment data to better target what types of programs should be funded and make use of resources already available in the communities.
In response to the finding, DHR agreed with the recommendation to communicate with the county governments about the DATE fee and to advocate for the use of the fee in the state's substance abuse prevention services. DHR stated that it would consider how to address the issue.

Prevention Programs
In fiscal year 2002, an estimated 24% of the individuals served by DHR's regional board substance abuse prevention programs participated in programs with a science-based component. It is not known how many individuals receive science-based programs through DOE-funded programs.

Science-based prevention programs (also known as research-based or evidence-based) are those

programs that research has shown to be effective, with results clearly linked to the program.

Science-based programs are designed to be duplicated and should achieve similar results in similar settings. An additional benefit of these

Characteristics of a ScienceBased Prevention Program

programs is the limited type of evaluation needed, Clear and well-articulated theory

because the program is already known to be effective within particular criteria and with specified target

Evidence of a high degree of consistency in program implementation

groups. Evaluations are necessary only to determine whether the program is being properly implemented.
A prevention program may be designated sciencebased by numerous federal and non-governmental agencies, including the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. Department of Education, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Centers for Disease Control, Drug Strategies, and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). All of the entities have different standards and may have different classifications within the broader science-

High quality sampling design and implementation
Relevant and high quality outcome measures
Timely and consistent data collection Statistical analysis that is appropriate and
technically adequate
Findings with a high degree of validity High overall confidence in program design
and implementation
Source: Florida Prevention System: A Vision for the Prevention Component of the Florida Drug Control Strategy

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

23

based category. Not all agencies endorse the same programs as effective.
DHR and DOE officials encourage the use of science-based programs. However, while collecting the number of individuals served by their programs, they do not track the number and percentage served by science-based programs. DHR and DOE officials also noted that there are effective programs that are not on a science-based list because the program has not been submitted for review. Additionally, science-based programs are generally costlier than those that have not been proven effective.
Based on a review of fiscal year 2002 prevention programs, the evaluation team estimates that approximately 24% of the individuals served by DHR were in programs containing a sciencebased program component. Some DHR programs contain multiple components, one of which may be a curriculum or program designated as science-based.
DOE does not collect the number of students served by prevention programs in school systems; therefore, the number of individuals served by science-based prevention programs in school systems could not be obtained. While DOE staff stated that the school systems are encouraged to use science-based programs, whether or not a program is classified as "science-based" is inconsistent and determined solely by the school system.
It should be noted that the SAPT does not require that programs be science-based, but State Incentive Grant (SIG) recipients must spend 85% of the grant on science-based programs at the local level. Interviews with the recipients of the SAPT in the states of Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia indicated that they are all increasing their use of science-based programs.
In response to the finding, DHR emphasized that it does collect prevention data such as a list of programs and the number of individuals participating in each. Additionally, DHR stated that it is committed to expanding the use of science-based programs identified by the federal Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. DHR said that CSAP Model Programs have been or are being implemented in regions across the state, with each region having implemented at least one. DHR added that should Georgia apply for and receive the State Incentive Grant, there would be more opportunity to increase the use of science-based programs.

As part of the state's comprehensive prevention strategy, the state should evaluate the effectiveness of DARE in Georgia to determine whether the state should continue to support the program.
During the 2000-01 school year, the DARE curriculum was delivered to approximately 88,000 Georgia youth. Although DARE is essentially a local program, the state does have a role in the program, which includes the following:
The Georgia Bureau of Investigations (GBI) trains DARE officers through its DARE Unit at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center. Expenditures totaled approximately $344,000 in fiscal year 2001.

24

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) provides funding to local law enforcement agencies for the support of DARE officers. The funds are a portion of the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Grant. Grants for DARE officers totaled $75,111 in fiscal year 2001.
Two DHR regional boards allocated approximately $79,000 for DARE programs in fiscal year 2002.
The Governor appoints members of the Georgia DARE Board. The board sets DARE policy within national guidelines and approves officer candidates nominated by a local law enforcement agency.
Safe and Drug-Free School grant funds provided to school systems by DOE may be used to fund any costs of DARE borne by the school.
Despite the fact that the state supports the DARE program, personnel from some state agencies (even those providing funding for DARE programs) and private entities involved with the prevention system indicated that many do not believe that DARE is effective at reducing longterm substance abuse rates. For example,
Eleven of 13 DHR regional prevention specialists, as well as the DHR prevention chief, stated that they did not believe that DARE was effective.
A Criminal Justice Coordinating Council official said that he believed that research existed showing that DARE was ineffective but was not aware of any research to show that DARE was effective.
An official with the Georgia Council on Substance Abuse also stated that DARE was not effective at reducing substance abuse rates.
Comments made by officials in Georgia centered on the lack of follow-up within the DARE program. This occurs because schools predominately offer the fifth grade course, opting for no middle school or high school DARE course. This is evident by the fact that 76,126 of the 87,882 (87%) completing DARE during the 2000-01 school year were elementary school students. All of the officials stated that their opinions were based on research or articles that they had reviewed concerning DARE, not their own research.
In February 2001, the Arizona Office of the Auditor General released a performance audit of the state's DARE program. The performance audit included a review of peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of DARE's "core curriculum," or elementary curriculum. The conclusion was that DARE "has had virtually no impact on students' drug use behaviors." It further stated that "some of the articles found that DARE had a small short-term effect, none of the articles reported that DARE had any appreciable effect over the longer period."

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

25

It should be noted that the DARE curricula for the elementary, middle, and high school programs has recently been revised by DARE America, though it is not yet available in Georgia. GBI officials stated that they expect to offer training for the new curricula in the summer of 2003 for use in the following school year. DARE officials are emphasizing the middle school and high school programs, which would address the issue of the lack of follow-up to the elementary curriculum. However, local law enforcement agencies and school systems will still be able to offer only the elementary program if they choose.
As stated in the finding of page 12, the state should have a prevention strategy and accompanying plan. In devising its plan to address substance abuse, the state should consider whether state funding for DARE should be continued. The factors that should be considered include DARE's effectiveness, the new curriculum and need for additional training, the likelihood that school systems and local law enforcement agencies will offer middle and high school curricula, and the popularity of the program.
In response to the finding, GBI stated that revisions to the DARE program would take advantage of its strengths and address the weaknesses identified in research. Given the revisions, GBI feels that "it is far too early to begin making a determination that the entire DARE program will, or will not, be a success in reducing substance abuse over the long term." GBI also noted that more than 80% of U.S. school districts have implemented DARE, showing that local school systems and law enforcement agencies feel that DARE has a "positive impact."
In response to the finding, DHR agreed that the DARE program should be evaluated to determine whether or not it is effective.

Although Drug Abuse Resistance Education officers and School Resource Officers both work in schools, there does not appear to be a need for coordination. The officers generally serve different purposes, perform different duties, and work in different types of schools.
Interviews of officials with law enforcement agencies and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) DARE Training Unit indicated that the School Resource Officers (SROs) and DARE officers generally serve different purposes. In addition to often working in different schools, SROs tend to focus on security while DARE officers focus on delivering a specific substance abuse prevention course.
The primary duty of SROs is to provide security, typically at the high school and middle school level. SROs may provide limited classroom instruction, when requested by the school, usually in either criminal law or drug awareness/recognition. Special certification is not required of an SRO, but the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council requires SROs funded through the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant to complete an 80-hour SRO certification course through the Georgia Police Academy. The course curriculum is designed to prepare the officer for interacting with students, including identifying signs of drug abuse and delivering classroom lessons.
The primary duty of DARE officers is to teach the DARE curriculum. DARE officers are not meant to serve as security and are discouraged from wearing their weapons at school. Most

26

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

DARE officers are teaching the 17-week DARE class for 5th grade students. More than 76,000 of the approximately 88,000 students who received DARE during the 2000-2001 school year were elementary students. In order to become a DARE officer, a certified police officer must have two years of experience and complete an 80-hour certification course provided by the GBI DARE Training Unit.
The decision to place SROs or DARE officers is made between local law enforcement agencies and the school systems. There is no entity with oversight over the SROs. GBI exercises oversight over the DARE officers.

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

27

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

28

4.0% 4.5%
3.6% 5.2%
3.8% 5.1%
4.7% 5.8%
3.3% 5.3%
3.6% 5.6%
5.0% 6.2%
3.3% 4.9%
4.2% 5.7%

45.0%

Appendix A Substance Abuse in Prior 30 Days - Total Population
Any Illicit Drug Marijuana Only Alcohol "Binge"(1) Any Tobacco(2)

38.2%

40.0%

35.2%

34.5%

34.9%

31.1%

29.6%

30.9%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

17.2%

17.3%

16.3%

17.3%

18.3%

18.0%

16.8%

17.9%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Georgia

Alabama

Florida

Kentucky

Source: SAMSHA's 1999 National Household Survey on Substance Abuse

(1) Five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days. (2) Includes cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, or pipe tobacco.

Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee

35.2%

Virginia

18.5%

27.1%

29

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

Appendix B Substance Abuse in Prior 30 Days - 12 to 17-Year-Olds

45.0%

Any Illicit Drug

Marijuana

Alcohol "Binge"(1)

Any Tobacco(2)

40.0%

35.0%

27.7%

30.0%

21.5%

23.3%

21.1%

25.0%

19.6%

17.7%

20.0%

14.7%

15.0%

8.0% 5.2%
7.8%

8.5% 7.4%
10.0%

8.3% 6.8%
9.4%

9.3% 6.7%
10.2%

9.5% 5.3%
8.4%

7.9% 6.2%
8.0%

8.5% 5.6%
8.7%

8.9% 6.4%
8.8%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%

Georgia

Alabama

Florida

Kentucky

Source: SAMSHA's 1999 National Household Survey on Substance Abuse

(1) Five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days. (2) Includes cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, or pipe tobacco.

Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee

20.0%

7.4% 5.9%
7.4%

Virginia

16.7%

Appendix C State Agencies Involved in Substance Abuse Prevention
Board of Pardons and Paroles (BPP)
BPP has a Drug and Violence Prevention Unit that delivers presentations to schools when requested. The topics include drug awareness and prevention, as well as character-building, school violence, peer pressure, and other issues related to school-aged youth. The Prevention Unit is an agency initiative. During fiscal year 2001, the Unit delivered presentations to 56,106 students. The Unit has two full-time employees and expended approximately $161,000 in state funds during fiscal year 2001.
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC)
CJCC distributes federal Edward Byrne Memorial Grant funds to local law enforcement agencies. In fiscal year 2001, five grants were awarded to pay (partially or fully) for Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) officers for five local law enforcement agencies. The grants paid for DARE officers to deliver the drug prevention program to fifth grade students. The grants totaled $75,111.
Department of Corrections (DOC)
DOC's Substance Abuse 101 (SA101) is a substance abuse prevention program delivered to all incoming inmates. The program is a result of a legislative mandate. In calendar year 2001, approximately 8,300 prisoners completed the SA101 program. DOC has 210 trained instructors in its prisons and centers, but it does not track expenditures related to the SA101 program.
Department of Defense (DOD)
DOD operates the Georgia National Guard Counterdrug Task Force (CDTF), which includes enforcement and prevention activities. The CDTF's prevention activities include classes and presentations to schools, mentoring programs, and support for substance abuse prevention conferences. The federal National Guard Bureau requires the program. The CDTF expended approximately $245,000 in federal funds for prevention activities in federal fiscal year 2001.
Department of Education (DOE)
DOE is involved in substance abuse prevention in two ways: Alcohol and Drug Education QCC Standards DOE was required by O.C.G.A. 20-2-142 to develop QCC standards related to alcohol and drug education for grades kindergarten through 12. The standards allow the school systems to determine the amount of time to devote to the subject and the manner in which the instruction will be delivered. Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program The SDFS program distributes SDFS federal funds to each of the state's 181 school systems. In addition to fulfilling reporting requirements for the U.S. Department of Education, the SDFS program reviews school systems' annual plans and performance reports related to their programs funded with SDFS funds. The program also contracts with the University of Georgia for the administration and compilation of the Statewide Needs Assessment Survey that most schools use to measure substance abuse and school violence rates. $9.5 million in SDFS funds was expended in fiscal year 2001.

30

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

Appendix C Continued
Department of Human Resources (DHR)
DHR oversees comprehensive substance abuse prevention programs operated by more than 200 contracted providers throughout the state. Prior to July 1, 2002, 13 regional boards contracted for these prevention services. Passage of House Bill 498 during the 2002 legislative session transferred contract oversight to DHR's state office, though the regional boards executed the FY03 contracts prior to dissolution. DHR employs a statewide prevention chief, a statewide prevention specialist, and 13 regional specialists to support its comprehensive, regional substance abuse prevention programs. DHR expended $11.7 million in fiscal year 2001.
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
DJJ operates prevention programs in its capacity as a school system. Like other school systems in Georgia, the department is required to adopt alcohol and drug education to fulfill QCC requirements. DJJ has prevention components within its fifth through 12th grade curriculum. DJJ received a SDFS allocation of $14,383 in fiscal year 2002.
Drugs and Narcotics Agency (DNA)
DNA officials offer periodic presentations about legal and street drugs to doctors, pharmacists, police officers, and schools. Presentations are delivered to 2,000 to 3,000 individuals per year. DNA officials do not budget funds specifically for these activities but estimated that three to five staff members spend approximately five to 10 percent of their time on presentations.
Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI)
Once a local law enforcement agency nominates an officer for DARE training and Georgia's DARE Board approves the officer, training is provided by the GBI DARE Unit. Fifty-four officers were completed training in fiscal year 2001. As of March 2002, GBI reported that there were 300 actively certified DARE officers in Georgia. The DARE Unit has six full-time employees and expended $344,000 in fiscal year 2001.
Georgia State Patrol (GSP)
GSP has two substance abuse prevention programs: Alcohol and Drug Awareness Program (ADAP) The main responsibility of the GSP Safety Education Unit is ADAP, a legislative-mandated course normally taught in the ninth grade to educate individuals about drugs and alcohol. Youth under 18 must complete the course in order to obtain a driver's license. GSP provides the classroom materials for the course and reported providing approximately 190,000 workbooks in fiscal year 2001. While teachers deliver the course in schools, GSP contracts with approximately 200 local and GSP officers to teach "make-up" classes for students that miss the school-based class. The Safety Education Unit has 13 employees and expended approximately $400,000 in fiscal year 2001 for ADAP. Governor's Task Force on Drug Suppression (GTF) GTF is primarily a drug enforcement unit transferred from GBI to GSP during fiscal year 2002. GTF also delivers drug awareness presentations in schools upon request. As part of GBI in fiscal year 2001, GTF delivered one school presentation. Officials estimated drug prevention expenses of less than $1,000.

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

31

School System Appling County Atkinson County Bacon County Baker County Baldwin County Banks County Barrow County Bartow County Ben Hill County Berrien County Bibb County Bleckley County Brantley County Brooks County Bryan County Bulloch County Burke County Butts County Calhoun County Camden County Candler County Carroll County Catoosa County Charlton County Chatham County Chattahoochee Chattooga County Cherokee County Clarke County Clay County Clayton County Clinch County Cobb County Coffee County Colquitt County Columbia County Cook County Coweta County Crawford Co Crisp County Dade County Dawson County Decatur County Dekalb County Dodge County Dooly County Dougherty Co Douglas County Early County Echols County Effingham Co Elbert County Emanuel County Evans County Fannin County Fayette County

Appendix D Safe and Drug-Free Schools Allocation, 2001-02

RESA Coalition First District Okefenokee Okefenokee Southwest Pioneer Northwest
Heart of GA Okefenokee First District First District
Southwest First District First District West GA Northwest Okefenokee Chattahoochee Northwest
Okefenokee
Southwest
Middle GA Northwest Pioneer Southwest GA
Chattahoochee
Southwest GA First District
First District

Public

Private

Total

Initial Supplemental Total

Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Allotment Allotment Allotment

3,281

98

3,379 $13,426

$13,426

1,550

1,550

$6,159

$6,159

1,920

1,920

$7,629

$7,629

416

416

$1,653

$1,653

6,336

967

7,303 $29,017

$61,320 $90,337

2,326

2,326

$9,242

$9,242

8,666

157

8,823 $35,057

$35,057

12,359

386

12,745 $50,640

$50,640

3,472

39

3,511 $13,950

$13,950

3,131

4

3,135 $12,456

$12,456

24,739

6,259

30,998 $123,165

$260,275 $383,440

2,387

2,387

$9,484

$9,484

3,137

4

3,141 $12,480

$12,480

2,707

91

2,798 $11,117

$11,117

5,308

77

5,385 $21,396

$21,396

8,334

598

8,932 $35,490

$35,490

4,890

545

5,435 $21,595

$45,635 $67,230

3,235

3,235 $12,854

$12,854

758

758 $3,012

$3,012

9,712

146

9,858 $39,169

$82,773 $121,942

1,893

31

1,924 $7,645

$7,645

12,321

444

12,765 $50,719

$50,719

9,588

44

9,632 $38,271

$38,271

2,027

31

2,058

$8,177

$8,177

35,344

7,681

43,025 $170,952

$361,260 $532,212

493

493 $1,959

$1,959

2,810

2,810 $11,165

$11,165

26,043

589

26,632 $105,817

$105,817

11,423

2,374

13,797 $54,820

$54,820

405

405

$1,609

$1,609

46,930

879

47,809 $189,960

$189,960

1,458

1,458

$5,793

$5,793

95,781

4,891 100,672 $400,001

$400,001

7,707

328

8,035 $31,926

$31,926

8,373

8,373 $33,269

$33,269

18,756

971

19,727 $78,381

$78,381

3,256

3,256 $12,937

$12,937

16,766

740

17,506 $69,557

$69,557

2,149

2,149

$8,539

$8,539

4,541

283

4,824 $19,167

$19,167

2,668

2,668 $10,601

$10,601

2,773

46

2,819 $11,201

$11,201

5,838

177

6,015 $23,899

$23,899

95,958

5,698 101,656 $403,911

$853,556 $1,257,467

3,558

3,558 $14,137

$14,137

1,726

381

2,107

$8,372

$8,372

16,799

1,414

18,213 $72,366

$72,366

17,489

1,166

18,655 $74,122

$74,122

2,812

321

3,133 $12,448

$12,448

732

732

$2,908

$2,908

8,458

8,458 $33,606

$33,606

3,782

3,782 $15,027

$15,027

4,750

237

4,987 $19,815

$19,815

2,027

469

2,496 $9,917

$9,917

3,112

75

3,187 $12,663

$12,663

19,590

908

20,498 $81,445

$81,445

32

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

School System Floyd County Forsyth County Franklin County Fulton County Gilmer County Glascock Co Glynn County Gordon County Grady County Greene County Griffin-Spalding Gwinnett County Habersham Co Hall County Hancock County Haralson County Harris County Hart County Heard County Henry County Houston County Irwin County Jackson County Jasper County Jeff Davis Co Jefferson County Jenkins County Johnson County Jones County Lamar County Lanier County Laurens County Lee County Liberty County Lincoln County Long County Lowndes County Lumpkin County Macon County Madison County Marion County Mcduffie Co Mcintosh County Meriwether Co Miller County Mitchell County Monroe County Montgomery Co Morgan County Murray County Muscogee County Newton County Oconee County Oglethorpe County Paulding County Peach County Pickens County

RESA Coalition Northwest GA Pioneer
Northwest GA Southwest GA
Pioneer
Northwest GA West GA Pioneer West GA
First District
Middle GA
Southwest GA
First District Pioneer Chattahoochee Chattahoochee First District Southwest GA Southwest GA Middle GA Heart of GA
Middle GA

Appendix D Continued

Public

Private

Total

Initial Supplemental Total

Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Allotment Allotment Allotment

10,374

195

10,569 $41,994

$41,994

17,131

361

17,492 $69,501

$69,501

3,584

3,584 $14,240

$14,240

68,583

10,819

79,402 $315,489

$315,489

3,723

96

3,819 $15,174

$15,174

558

558

$2,217

$2,217

12,048

1,095

13,143 $52,221

$52,221

6,074

56

6,130 $24,356

$24,356

4,559

2

4,561 $18,122

$18,122

2,374

337

2,711 $10,772

$10,772

10,340

636

10,976 $43,611

$43,611

110,075

5,461 115,536 $459,060

$459,060

5,653

191

5,844 $23,220

$23,220

20,330

20,330 $80,777

$80,777

1,742

1,742 $6,922

$6,922

3,708

23

3,731 $14,824

$14,824

4,264

165

4,429 $17,598

$17,598

3,440

3,440 $13,668

$13,668

2,112

31

2,143

$8,515

$8,515

23,601

754

24,355 $96,770

$96,770

21,529

1,077

22,606 $89,821

$89,821

1,897

29

1,926

$7,653

$7,653

5,173

5,173 $20,554

$20,554

2,083

281

2,364

$9,393

$9,393

2,650

2

2,652 $10,537

$10,537

3,680

267

3,947 $15,683

$15,683

1,794

1,794

$7,128

$30,000 $37,128

1,400

1,400

$5,563

$5,563

4,790

4,790 $19,032

$19,032

2,647

159

2,806 $11,149

$30,000 $41,149

1,337

34

1,371

$5,447

$5,447

5,923

20

5,943 $23,613

$23,613

5,392

5,392 $21,424

$21,424

11,467

194

11,661 $46,333

$46,333

1,465

19

1,484

$5,896

$5,896

1,979

163

2,142 $8,511

$30,000 $38,511

9,021

385

9,406 $37,373

$37,373

3,260

21

3,281 $13,036

$13,036

2,284

67

2,351

$9,341

$9,341

4,561

4,561 $18,122

$18,122

1,754

1,754

$6,969

$30,000 $36,969

4,443

37

4,480 $17,800

$17,800

1,965

91

2,056 $8,169

$30,000 $38,169

4,074

291

4,365 $17,343

$17,343

1,237

12

1,249

$4,963

$4,963

2,854

335

3,189 $12,671

$12,671

3,759

313

4,072 $16,179

$16,179

1,323

1,323

$5,257

$5,257

2,997

2,997 $11,908

$11,908

6,910

42

6,952 $27,622

$27,622

32,916

2,610

35,526 $141,156

$298,295 $439,451

11,734

45

11,779 $46,802

$46,802

5,427

287

5,714 $22,703

$22,703

2,149

2,149

$8,539

$8,539

16,587

26

16,613 $66,009

$66,009

4,183

15

4,198 $16,680

$16,680

3,760

6

3,766 $14,963

$14,963

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

33

School System Pierce County Pike County Polk County Pulaski County Putnam County Quitman County Rabun County Randolph County Richmond County Rockdale County Schley County Screven County Seminole County Stephens County Stewart County Sumter County Talbot County Taliaferro County Tattnall County Taylor County Telfair County Terrell County Thomas County Tift County Toombs County Towns County Treutlen County Troup County Turner County Twiggs County Union County Upson County Walker County Walton County Ware County Warren County Washington County Wayne County Webster County Wheeler County White County Whitfield County Wilcox County Wilkes County Wilkinson County Worth County Atlanta City Bremen City Buford City Calhoun City Carrollton City Cartersville City Chickamauga City Commerce City Dalton City Decatur City Dublin City

RESA Coalition Okefenokee
Chattahoochee Pioneer
Chattahoochee First District Southwest GA Pioneer Chattahoochee
Chattahoochee
First District Chattahoochee Heart of GA Southwest GA Southwest GA
First District Pioneer Heart of GA
Middle GA Pioneer
Okefenokee
First District Chattahoochee Heart of GA Pioneer w/ DALTON Heart of GA
Southwest GA
Northwest GA
Northwest GA West GA Northwest GA Northwest GA
w/ Whitfield

Appendix D Continued

Public

Private

Total

Initial Supplemental Total

Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Allotment Allotment Allotment

3,232

14

3,246 $12,897

$12,897

2,658

63

2,721 $10,811

$10,811

6,842

82

6,924 $27,511

$27,511

1,627

1,627

$6,465

$6,465

2,521

401

2,922 $11,610

$11,610

267

267

$1,061

$1,061

2,134

71

2,205

$8,761

$8,761

1,631

265

1,896

$7,533

$7,533

35,424

2,598

38,022 $151,073

$319,252 $470,325

13,519

757

14,276 $56,723

$56,723

961

961

$3,818

$3,818

3,160

105

3,265 $12,973

$12,973

1,883

1,883

$7,482

$7,482

4,359

4,359 $17,320

$17,320

803

803

$3,191

$30,000 $33,191

5,708

1,105

6,813 $27,070

$57,205 $84,275

846

19

865

$3,437

$3,437

186

186

$739

$739

3,325

138

3,463 $13,760

$13,760

1,782

1,782

$7,080

$7,080

1,845

31

1,876

$7,454

$7,454

1,835

248

2,083

$8,276

$30,000 $38,276

5,369

228

5,597 $22,239

$22,239

7,446

432

7,878 $31,302

$31,302

2,798

419

3,217 $12,782

$12,782

1,066

1,066

$4,236

$4,236

1,211

15

1,226

$4,871

$4,871

11,623

958

12,581 $49,988

$49,988

2,000

2,000

$7,947

$7,947

1,727

190

1,917

$7,617

$7,617

2,699

24

2,723 $10,819

$10,819

4,976

236

5,212 $20,709

$20,709

8,901

84

8,985 $35,700

$35,700

9,698

1,729

11,427 $45,403

$45,403

6,429

112

6,541 $25,989

$25,989

966

317

1,283

$5,098

$5,098

3,918

393

4,311 $17,129

$36,197 $53,326

5,190

5,190 $20,621

$20,621

379

379

$1,506

$1,506

1,120

1,120

$4,450

$4,450

3,490

120

3,610 $14,344

$14,344

11,659

45

11,704 $46,504

$46,504

1,383

33

1,416

$5,626

$5,626

1,924

1,924

$7,645

$7,645

1,732

31

1,763

$7,005

$7,005

4,410

19

4,429 $17,598

$17,598

58,230

4,249

62,479 $248,248

$248,248

1,501

1,501

$5,964

$5,964

2,153

2,153

$8,555

$8,555

2,520

2,520 $10,013

$10,013

3,618

3,618 $14,375

$14,375

3,640

3,640 $14,463

$14,463

1,261

1,261

$5,010

$5,010

1,300

1,300

$5,165

$5,165

5,344

444

5,788 $22,998

$22,998

2,662

9

2,671 $10,613

$10,613

3,167

466

3,633 $14,435

$30,505 $44,940

34

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

School System Gainesville City Jefferson City Marietta City Pelham City Rome City Social Circle City Thomasville City Trion City Valdosta City Vidalia City

RESA Coalition
Southwest GA
Southwest GA Northwest GA First District

Appendix D Continued

Public

Private

Total

Initial Supplemental

Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Allotment Allotment

3,982

1,349

5,331 $21,182

1,462

29

1,491 $5,924

7,368

1,065

8,433 $33,507

1,652

1,652 $6,564

5,250

776

6,026 $23,943

1,449

1,449 $5,757

3,345

3,345 $13,291

1,320

1,320 $5,245

7,185

1,196

8,381 $33,300

2,389

2,389 $9,492

Total Allotment
$21,182 $5,924
$33,507 $6,564
$23,943 $5,757
$13,291 $5,245
$33,300 $9,492

Atlanta School/Deaf Georgia School/Blind Georgia School/Deaf Dept. of Juvenile Justice Source: Georgia Department of Education

179 103 108 3,620

179 $711.00 103 $410.00 108 $429.00 3,620 $14,383.00

$711.00 $410.00 $429.00 $14,383.00

For additional information, please contact Paul E. Bernard, Director, Performance Audit Operations Division, at 404-657-5220.

Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies

35