[Editor's note: This letter was sent to the editor of the Los Angeles Times in response to an article that was recently summarized by Join Together.]

There are major inaccuracies in the LA Times article, "Anti-drug overdose?" dated May 15, 2006, that need to be refuted. Much of the information is outdated and does not accurately reflect what is currently being implemented in most schools around the nation or the growing expertise within schools to implement evidence-based prevention programs and practices. 

Since 2002, when the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) went into effect, new, stringent requirements for the use of Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) funds have been imposed on schools. Since this time there have been major changes in how schools plan, implement and track the progress and measurable outcomes of their drug and alcohol prevention efforts, which the LA Times article ignores. 

The article leaves readers with the impression that the majority of drug and alcohol prevention programs being used in schools are ineffective, when in fact due to the requirements of the Principles of Effectiveness (POE) in the NCLBA, schools must do all of the following: (1) conduct a needs assessment as the basis of their programming; (2) implement research based programs that meet their identified needs; and (3) monitor alcohol and drug use over time to evaluate and measure program effectiveness and outcomes related to changes in student attitudes and behaviors.

We have evidence from many states that the POE are being implemented. For example a recent survey conducted in May 2006 by Dr. Bonnie Hedrick regarding the extent to which the POE were being implemented by schools in Ohio found that: 

86% of respondents had conducted needs assessments as the basis of their programming;

84% of respondents indicated that they used research- based programs; and

88% of respondents indicated they had monitored alcohol and other drug use through surveys and disciplinary referrals.

Ohio is not an anomaly -- these results are indicative of what is actually happening in most schools across the nation.

Many of the examples in the LA Times article of the types of approaches that don't work are discredited, outdated approaches that are not allowed to be funded under the SDFSC program. These include: scare tactics; oversimplification; condemning all drugs as bad; and leaving students with misperceptions about the true prevalence of drug and alcohol use among their peers. In fact, before a school may use a program that is not considered science-based, that school is required to apply to the state for a waiver and to show that what they want to implement will demonstrate measurable likelihood of success.

The drug and alcohol prevention field is by far more data driven and research based than most other social services related fields. It is unfortunate that it is also misunderstood and misrepresented by the LA Times. Much of the LA Times article is based on outdated anecdotal evidence, and not the reality of what is being funded with the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities program in schools around the country. 

Submitted By:

Sue Thau
Public Policy Consultant
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)
6217 29th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20015
suerthau@aol.com