Executive summary: program evaluation, substance abuse prevention strategies

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Program Evaluation
Prepared For The Budgetary Responsibility Oversight Committee
Substance Abuse Prevention Strategies
September 2002

Russell W. Hinton, State Auditor Performance Audit Operations Division 254 Washington St. S.W.

Department of Audits and Accounts

Atlanta, GA 30334-8400

Background
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 less favorable to substance abuse.

DHR and the Department of Education (DOE) are the state agencies primarily responsible for comprehensive substance abuse prevention programs. During the period covered by this 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, which contracted with organizations (schools, community service boards, nonprofit organizations, and others) for the provision of services. DOE's substance abuse prevention efforts were delivered through local school systems. 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.

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 (SAPT) and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools (SDFS) grant.

Funding for State Prevention Programs
Fiscal Year 2001

Department of Human Resources State Office Regional Boards
Total DHR

SAPT Federal

Other 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
Other State Agencies(1)

$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

$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.

Findings and Recommendations
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 order to determine whether the substance abuse prevention system is effective, the state should develop measurable goals and objectives targeting a specific reduction in substance abuse rates within a particular time frame. Georgia is one of 14 states that have not received the federal State Incentive Grant (SIG). The SIG's main purpose is to improve the coordination of agencies involved in substance abuse prevention and to increase the use of science-based prevention programs. Science-based programs are those that have been shown to be effective through research, with results clearly linked to the program. 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. Additionally, the grant provides approximately $3 million a year for three years to help fund coordination and to increase the use of science-based programs.
Prevention System The needs assessments process could be improved if DHR and DOE coordinated their efforts. Agencies involved with prevention programs should improve the evaluations of prevention
programs in order to determine if the programs are successful components of the prevention system. DHR and DOE should 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.
Prevention Funding DHR should allocate a greater percentage of prevention funds to regions based on its risk-based
methodology, instead of simply continuing prior year funding. DOE allocated SDFS funds to school systems and RESAs in a reasonable manner. 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.
Prevention Programs An estimated 24% of the individuals served by DHR regional board substance abuse prevention
programs are participating in programs with a science-based component. It is not known how many individuals are receiving science-based programs through DOE- funded 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.
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.
For additional information or to request a copy of the Program Evaluation, please contact Paul E. Bernard, Director, Performance Audits Operations Division, at 404-657-5220.
Click here for full report