President Bush's flagship education bill, H.R. 1 (dubbed the "No Child Left Behind" act), calls for combining the Education Department's SDFS program with the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which funds after-school programs for youth. The House version of the legislation also would eliminate the 20 percent of SDFS' currently set aside to be spent at the discretion of state governors.

In the Senate, the companion Better Education for Students and Teachers (BEST) legislation -- which, like H.R. 1, reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act -- does not call for combining SDFS and the after-school program, and maintains the 20 percent set-aside. Floor amendments or changes during a House/Senate conference committee are still possible, however.

Led by House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner (R-OH), supporters of combining the two grant programs said the change would give state and local officials more flexibility in funding anti-drug, anti-violence, and after-school programs. But Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) says that combining the programs would have a "devastating impact" on community-based anti-violence and alcohol and other drug prevention programs.

"School-based drug and violence prevention and before- and after-school programs are both important components of effective, comprehensive community prevention systems, and should not be combined or pitted against each other," CADCA asserted in a recent policy alert.

The City of Vallejo (Calif.) Fighting Back Partnership, a CADCA member, works with both SDFS programs and after-school programs funded through the 21st Century Community Learning Initiative. Jane Callahan, executive director of Vallejo Fighting Back, says that both are critical, yet distinct, components of her community web of youth services.

"21st Century Community Learning is a wonderful program used to fund after-school programs with a focus on improving academic performance, particularly for the most needy schools. We all agree the it would be nice to have the program at as many schools as possible," says Callahan. "But if you mix them up with Safe and Drug-Free Schools, it's like apples and oranges."

However, Education Secretary Rod Paige recently told the House Budget Committee, "The new, streamlined grants would reduce administrative burdens, give school districts greater flexibility in developing programs that address school safety -- a major concern of parents and students alike -- and support improved academic achievement."

"Participating states would be required to develop a definition of a 'persistently dangerous school,' to report on school safety on a school-by-school basis, and to offer both victims of school-based crimes and students attending unsafe schools options for transferring to safer schools," said Paige. "The President also would expand the role of faith-based and community organizations in after-school programs."

In his March 13 remarks before Congress, Paige referred to the creation of "separate State formula grants" for SDFS and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Field experts tell Join Together that this may indicate a compromise by the administration whereby both programs would fall under one funding umbrella, but still exist as separate budget line-items.

Sue Thau, public-policy consultant for CADCA, says that such a scenario would be better than simply merging the two programs, but would still force school-based prevention programs and after-school programs to compete for funding.

Thau notes that while some after-school programs include prevention services, they are not interchangeable with the universal prevention programming funded under the current SDFS program. Advocates also fear that, given the opportunity, schools might shift funds away from substance-abuse programs whether they are needed or not. "Local school districts are in great denial when it comes to drug issues," says Thau.

Thau also points out that the anti-drug focus of SDFS already has been diluted by the Clinton administration's decision to allow anti-violence programs to compete for funding. Throwing SDFS into the same pot as after-school programs would just water anti-drug funding down further, she said.

As for the Governor's set-aside, CADCA points out that this money is used to fund community mobilization efforts and community coalitions, as opposed to the formula portion of the SDFS program, which is devoted to school-based programs. More than 2,000 community anti-drug coalitions are presently funded with the governor's set-aside, CADCA said.

Callahan agrees that one danger of mixing the funds is that schools might choose to throw all of their money at after-school programs. Another is that, with fewer restrictions on spending, districts may be even more tempted than they are now to use the money to fill holes in their budget, rather than tailoring services to achieve the goal of raising drug-free kids, she said.

The Bush administration's proposal would hurt current 21st Century recipients as well as SDFS recipients, adds Callahan. By changing the competitive 21st Century grant program to a formula grant, the administration likely would end up taking money away from more needy schools and increase the funding available to more well-off districts. One of the major complaints about the formula-based SDFS program, she notes, is that the money is spread so thin. "Just as people argue that most districts don't get enough SDFS money to do anything much with, you'll have the same thing on the 21st Century side," Callahan predicts.

There's nothing wrong with increasing local control over government spending, Callahan stresses; in fact, she goes as far as saying that community coalitions like Fighting Back can play a critical role in local decision-making on funding.

But Callahan says that truly decentralizing government spending should entail all government programs, not just a handful, and keep local money in local communities rather than funneling it through the federal government.

Short of that, she says, the advantage of categorical funding programs like SDFS is that it "increases the likelihood that the money will be spent on prevention."