Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Obama's First Budget Supports Drug Courts, Eliminates Drug-Free Schools
May 10, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Feature

The first budget plan submitted to Congress by President Barack Obama includes an overall increase in funding for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) but calls for elimination of the Department of Education's Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFS) state grants program as part of $17 billion in cuts to programs deemed wasteful or ineffective.

The budget also calls for modest additions to the budgets of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), which would increase $13 million and $5 million respectively.

In justifying the SAMHSA spending plan (PDF) to Congress, the administration said the budget "continues federal support for state and local efforts to increase the availability of quality prevention and treatment services for substance abuse and mental illness ... [and] invests in evidence-based prevention, early intervention, treatment, and recovery services to respond to these preventable and treatable public-health problems."

Addiction-field experts noted that the plan does not include any fundamental reordering of drug-war priorities in favor of treatment and prevention -- action that many expect to see, but perhaps not until the next budget cycle. The administration's budget now goes to Congress, where the House and Senate budget committees will begin drafting their own budget plans and advocates will have a chance to weigh in on the pros and cons of Obama's approach.

"The FY2010 budget shows we continue to have our work cut out for us," said Rob Morrison, interim executive director of the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD). "On the positive side for SAMHSA, at least we are not facing the severe proposed cuts that have been a staple of budgets for the past four or five years. However, the proposed elimination of the SDFSC state grants program would reduce the funding available to states for much-needed prevention services. Reduced funding at the federal level is a difficult prospect given the tough shape state budgets are in."

Most programs within SAMHSA, including the cornerstone, $1.778-billion Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant to states, would be level-funded compared to FY2009 if Obama's budget recommendations are adopted by Congress.

However, SAMHSA -- which received $3.5 billion under Obama's plan, up $59 million from the FY2009 appropriation -- was one of the few federal agencies to receive an overall funding increase. This was largely due to a $35-million boost for drug treatment courts (including $5 million earmarked for families of methamphetamine users) and an additional $15 million for offender-reentry programs managed by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). Residential treatment programs for pregnant and postpartum women also received a small increase.

On the other hand, as a budget analysis from NASADAD noted, SAMHSA was also one of the few federal agencies that did not get a share of the federal stimulus package passed by Congress earlier this year.

"We're encouraged by the proposed increase for CSAT and that people in the criminal-justice system are getting the help they need," said Gabrielle de la Gueronniere, deputy director of public policy for the Legal Action Center, who pointed out that Obama's Justice Department budget plan also calls for a $75-million increase in funding for the Second Chance Act and an additional $10 million for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program, both of which benefit addicted offenders in prison and post-release.

Obama and former President George W. Bush may not have much in common, but one goal they share is finally killing off the $295-million SDFS program, tagged for years as too diluted to make a real impact on youth.

"While reducing violence and drug use in and around schools is a compelling goal, reviews by an independent evaluator and by a statutory advisory committee have demonstrated that this program is poorly matched to achieving that goal," according to the Obama budget document. "A 2001 study from the RAND Drug Policy Research Center concluded that the structure of the program is 'profoundly flawed.' The program does not focus on the schools most in need and the thin distribution of funding prevents many local administrators from designing and implementing meaningful interventions."

The Obama administration did propose an increase of more than $110 million in funding for the SDFS national grant program, which it said is "better structured to support targeted, high-quality interventions" than the formula-based state grants program. The budget request includes $100 million for a "major new initiative of grant assistance to support new approaches designed to change school culture and climate and thereby improve character and discipline and reduce drug use, crime, and violence," according to the Education Department budget summary.

De la Gueronniere said that while the treatment and prevention community recognizes the need to evaluate programs, "in a lot of communities SDFS is the only source of school-based funding" for youth drug prevention.

"We know this is a tough funding environment, but we also know that our people need care, and that cuts in state funding are continuing and devastating," she said.

SHARE   

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by cathy golas on 11 May 09 10:11 AM EDT
Cuts in SDFS will have a devastating effect on the proramming we do in our schools. SDFS is about 1/3 of our current budget. We provide prevention education to over 25 schools in our diocese, and receive no funding from the diocese. We just received our survey results back and have seen decreases in use in many areas. To loose SDFS funds places those gains at risk, as well as negatively impacting our staffing levels.

Posted by Greg Fox, Jr. on 11 May 09 10:49 AM EDT
Unbelievable. Drug use is down across the board in young people as compared to 20 years ago. Is that an accident? What more proof does Washington need to know that SDFS works? "Oh. Drug use is down? Let's gut the program." Change? Change I find unbelievable.

Posted by ccoscar on 11 May 09 11:21 AM EDT
I am so happy about the cuts to sdfs. Substance abuse is a community issue not only a school issue. Cure a community and our children will have less opportuinties to use. Give people the help cure thier addition. So many want to get help but have no money to pay the high price of treatment. My loved one was able to get funding for treatment and has now helped 5 other friends get clean.

Posted by tweep on 11 May 09 11:29 AM EDT
Obviously there is not a large voting block to contend with here. It would seem a community organizer would understand the importance of SDFS funding at the local level. Oh well, politics as usual. Help the theves, cut off those who want to contribute to a better society.

Posted by Laurey Jaros on 11 May 09 11:34 AM EDT
Eliminate the SDFS program? It's about time. Perhaps in other states, but not in the 2 I've worked has this funding produced programs that motivated kids to stay clean and sober ...

Posted by Jean on 11 May 09 11:44 AM EDT
It is true that SDFS grant has not provided a large amount of funds. However, once again, even substance abuse people have their heads in the sand when thinking about how drug abuse interferes with academic success and school climate, behavior and discipline problems. With the ""little" money we got, 3 certified substance abuse counselors intervented and helped numerous kids get either in recovery or back on the road to finishing school. Now there will be no one in our schools to facilitate this.

Posted by stopthehate on 11 May 09 12:04 PM EDT
SAMHSA uses evidence-based prevention, which is the only way money should be spent. Research showed the Drug-Free Schools and Communities grants to be wasteful or ineffective. This change may not feel good, but it is the right thing to do.

Posted by vicky hardiman on 11 May 09 12:08 PM EDT
Personally I am glad to see the funding increased for drug courts and treatment, perhaps now we can treat more of those teens that the Drug-free schools and neighborhoods programs that were never helped by those programs. Those programs did not work the drug traffic was not reduced anywhere and programs that might have helped couldn't be started. The education community had blinders on when I spoke to several school districts about a 6 week program that kids who had drug problems themself=ves or problems within their families could be referred into so they could be educated about addiction and recovery I was told that the teens there were not ready for such a thing. They seemed to think the kids were still in the experimental stage. The truth was most of the ones affected already knew what their drug of choice was and were well on thier way to jails, instutions or the grave. I am glad to see the new focus it will perhaps hurt some communities that were doing a better job at prevention however I think treating the disease and developing recovery outreach programs is going to be even better. I say HOORAY!!

Posted by anonymous in Washington state on 11 May 09 12:23 PM EDT
I campaigned for Obama and have worked in school-based prevention for twenty years. I have seen kids lives turned around by caring adults, mentors and during conversations held in the halls, on the playground, in offices, afterschool. I have visited kids at juvie, in the hospital, at their homes. SDFS has not been about poor, non-measurable outcomes - it's been about connections made between hard working, low paid professionals who have sacrificed to do what have known needs to be done and kids, mostly impoverished minority kids who knew they were being treated with respect and caring. Now, we, the prevention community, will be out of work, stripped of the possibility to make a difference in these kids lives. It is unbelievable. The kids seeking help will have no one to turn to in my District and mental health counselors don't make the immediate connection between ATOD and mental health. We are looking to take a big slide back. I am so disappointed in the Administration's decision, in light of my personal support of Barack Obabma as a candididate. Someone missed the boat here to explain that it isn't all about numbers.

Posted by Marley on 11 May 09 03:08 PM EDT
Yes, prevention is difficult to measure, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. People continue to speed, so should we take away speed limits. People still get cavities, so should we stop using floride. If we eliminate speed limits, stop brushing with floride, or discontinue substance abuse prevention programs, there will be consequences. If we think there are problems with teen substance abuse now, see what happens when we stop the prevention efforts. And, just like brushing your teeth is cheaper than repairing cavities, so too drug prevention is much cheaper than drug courts or addiction treatment. Why is it that with every other health concern (eg. heart, cancer, diabetes), prevention is valued but with addiction it's not? Eliminating SDFS will be a huge mistake.

Posted by carl on 11 May 09 03:31 PM EDT
nice overreaction marley, the difference is that there is actual evidence that says speed limits save lives, real science supports the idea that tooth brushing prevents cavities. and real statistical evidence proves that the SDFS is completely ineffective in preventing drug use and wasteful in it's use of recources. a better analogy would be to say that your car has a bad fuel pump, which in turn makes you loose gas mileage. do you hold on to the old pump and continue to get only 12 mpg, or do you replace it and get the 28 mpg your car was designed to acheive. Obama isn't saying that everyone who ran a SDFS program is ineffective, he's saying that the program was not set up in a manner that allowed it to be really effective. that's why the program got cut at the same time as SAMSA's overall budget went up. Prevention is still a priority, but we can get more actual prevention for as many resources if they used efficiently

Posted by swick on 11 May 09 04:03 PM EDT
Well put carl. By eliminating SDFS, and putting more emphasis on provenly effective SAMHSA, there will be more sense of accountability of the community rather than just relying on the latest prevention program through schools. Through SAMHSA, coalitions made up of community leaders (schools, healthcare workers, ngos, politicians, relgion,etc) will come together and identify and assess the roots of the cause and start prevention practices on individual community basis rather than just a broad, unspecific approaches. It is through personal connections, but not through personal connections paid for by SDFS. Accountability should be spread out throughout a community not just in the school systems. Furthermore, youth should be taught at an early age how to make good decisions and develop good personal awareness. This strategy doesn't require high budgeted SDFS programs.

Posted by Dick Dillon on 11 May 09 06:05 PM EDT
Tom McClellan, nominated to be the assistant to Gil Kerlikowske (himself just confirmed) has spoken long and vocally about the failure of the treatment system to catch people early in the cycle of addiction, in favor of spending our money on the small percentage of folks who are most seriously affected. Drug Courts are wonderful, but the are still catching people after a lot of damage has been done, not before. If the current SDFS initiatives are not proving to be efficient, it would seem wise to change the approach(es) rather than just do away with the program budgets. I hope McClellan's knowledge, experience and wisdom might help bring this about.

Posted by Frank Winkler on 12 May 09 10:19 AM EDT
With over 24 years in law enforcement, two as a treatment counselor, and 17 more in prevention, I can speak from a balanced and seasoned perspective. Enforcement/ interdiction is certainly important and has its place, as does treatment- no argument; but let's not ignore or minimize the importance of prevention. The old axiom that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure was never more appropriate or applicable. One need only look at recidivism rates to properly appreciate the importance of prevention. Don't know about other states, but in Alabama, prevention is the almost forgotten red-headed step-child when it comes to State funding vis-a-vis treatment. As already noted, prevention is at best difficult to measure finitely- not withstanding SAMHSA's list of science/ research/outcome-based programs- and that appears to be the crux of the argument against it and in favor of axing funding for it. None the less, prevention- in whatever form- is equally most important, not withstanding the obvious biases expressed by the treatment community and others. Unfortunately, it would appear this is a lesson that must be (re)learned the hard way. How sad.

Posted by Research Reader on 12 May 09 10:29 AM EDT
Schools are part of communities, too. Drug Free Communities Coalitions are working very well in states that are using that system as it was designed. Who will the Drug Free Communities Coalitions interact with if states and districts have no SDFS designated coordinators? Already over-extended school teachers, administrators and counselors? Probably not. The SDFS program evaluation deemed it ineffective due to being underfunded. So the solution is to cut it? How about increasing funding to a level that supports the interfacing of schools with community prevention efforts and is effective? As it is, the US has the highest level of incarceration in the world. Dealing with kids through law enforcement, court and treatment systems after the damage is done is expensive. Prevention needs to be funded adequately: each dollar spent on evidence based prevention is shown by research to save society up to 10 dollars. Read the research: it is all out there.

Posted by jrzshor on 12 May 09 11:17 AM EDT
regardless of the "new" money flow, I can attest to the fact the those seeking and/or receive said money will waste it on outdated, ineffective revolving door treatment. clients don't fail, tx programs fail clients!

Posted by Parents are the Anti-Drug, Not Govt on 12 May 09 03:12 PM EDT
Great, get rid of those useless programs. Remember when we use to say "Parents are the Anti-Drug." We need to start empowering parents to keep their own kids off drugs, not bypassing them with Dept. of Education govt bureaucracies. I went to meeting one time to educate parents on drug testing and only ten parents showed up out of a school of 5,000 students, because the "Drug Free" programs were trying to rush through mandatory drug testing before any parents had a say. That's your govt for you.

Posted by Steve on 12 May 09 03:57 PM EDT
I find this strategy very frustrating. I and my staff have worked from the prevention perspective in the setting where outside of home, youth spend most of their time. For years we have implemented programs and strategies research shows are effective. We are partially funded by the Safe and Drug-Free school grant. The reductions over the years to that funding left so little money that without additional money you couldn't provide any meaningful services. I don't want to take full credit but the surveys clearly document a decline in substance abuse among youth. This didn't happen by accident. With budget problems in the education sector I hope they don't find they threw away the baby with the bath water with this piece of their budget proposal...

Posted by Joe Wiese on 12 May 09 04:17 PM EDT
SDFSC has lost its focus. Having worked directly, or indirectly with SDFS since 1989, it is discouraging to see SDFS slowly erode. Development of strong school/community prevention was the original mission. Over time, many "political plums" were hung on the SDFS tree, diverting it from its mission. DOE's unwillingess to collect data and outcomes related to SDFS' effectiveness has doomed its existence. Unreported, comprehensive SDFS school data has been collected by some states. When Congress inserted the "transferrability clause" into SDFS, whereby school districts were allowed to use SDFS funds for other academic/safety purposes, the program was doomed to "mediocrity". DOE and SDFS lost it's focus and thus CANNOT provide data and evidence for continuation. Current funding levels are almost laughable when one considers SDFS is supposed to serve EVERY child in school. A sure method for "killing" any program or strategy is to "load it with irrelevant add-ons", and concurrently reduce investment, resulting in the inability to maintain focus and "demonstrate success." If the Obama Admin wants to impact drug use in our Nation's schools and communities, I recommend they reinstitute the program as THE Safe & Drug-Free School AND COMMUNITIES ("Communities" was dropped from the title) Program, invest in new National leadership, and institute an effective data collection and reporting sytem. Schools who effectively utilize SDFS will DEARLY miss it; others will not.

Posted by Joe McNair on 19 Sep 09 03:05 AM EDT
Ive worked with juviniles and with adults in the past ten years both groups with addictions/mental health issues. Drug courts (I am a private treatment provider) work very well and here is why: they hold a carrot infront of the client to push for success. The threat of jail put RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE CLIENT is much more motivating than jail time itself. Also, have we forgot something here? We ARE treating the parents. Both the parents of the offenders and the parents of tomorrow (though most of the clients in my drug court are parents now of several children each). How can one state that treating an adult addict is not prevention. Do you think that these lessons will not be passed down to the client's children? When you focus on the client's ecology you begin to become a life inhancer to communities. When you treat an addict you are giveing them life skills that they then enpart to their children. I will agree, though, that a two pronged approach with mentors in schools and adult treatment would be best.

Posted by Bonnie on 31 Oct 09 03:22 AM EDT
There is no one who can tell me the programs, supported in my district by the Safe and Drug Free Schools grant, are not working. I have seen it first hand, and say the decision to take away this money from schools is a huge mistake. I have seen the money decrease over the years, but never thought it would be taken away totally. Go to the CADCA website and link on to how to contact your State's Senators and Reps, to let them know what a direct and huge loss this will be to our "front-line" in prevention. Schools need to be able to deal with this issue, as it is at school we are often the first to know, and the only place that mahy address it. Without funding, it will get worse out there. They have it backwards, funding needs to increase. The "numbers" will follow, it is impossible to measure outcome that we see and know are taking place.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines