[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34504-34509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16252]
[[Page 34503]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Justice
_______________________________________________________________________
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
_______________________________________________________________________
Training and Technical Assistance for the Life Skills Training Drug
Prevention Program; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 34504]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
[OJP (OJJDP)-1237]
RIN 1121-ZB70
Training and Technical Assistance for the Life Skills Training
Drug Prevention Program
AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, Justice.
ACTION: Announcement of discretionary competitive technical assistance
support.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This program is authorized under the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1999, October 19, 1998
(Pub. L. 105-277). OJJDP invites applications from schools, local
education agencies, local public health agencies, and public agencies
or private organizations involved with drug prevention activities.
Joint applications between schools or local education agencies and
nonschool applicants are welcome.
DATES: Applications must be received by August 9, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Interested applicants can obtain an application kit from the
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. The application kit is
also available on OJJDP's Web site at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Stansbury Program Manager, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 202-307-5914. [This is
not a toll-free number.]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a follow on to a previous OJJDP
program announcement of the availability of training and technical
assistance for the Life Skills Training drug prevention program,
originally announced in the Federal Register on December 4, 1998, 63 FR
67136. Under this program announcement, additional OJJDP-funded
training and technical assistance is being offered to 50 or more new
program sites.
Purpose
The purpose of this program is to support the development and
implementation of drug abuse prevention programs that help reduce risk
factors and enhance protective factors among adolescents in middle and
junior high school. The program will provide training and technical
assistance to schools and/or local education agencies to implement the
Life Skills Training drug prevention program. It will also provide the
program support and implementation materials needed to implement and
evaluate replication of this proven effective drug prevention program
model that addresses a community's identified substance abuse reduction
needs. The broad goal of the program is to reduce youth drug use by
encouraging the promotion of multiple approaches to educating and
motivating younger adolescents to make healthy lifestyle decisions.
Background
National survey data of adolescent drug use illustrate that the
1980's downward trend in the use of many drugs was reversed in 1993
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997); increases in the
prevalence of use among 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students were
observed through 1996. In 1997, the data indicated a leveling off for
some drug categories among some age groups, but in general, the trends
for the mid-1990's show escalating rates of use for students in the
three grades examined.
Age-related normative expectations for substance use generally
place older children at greater risk for substance use initiation than
younger children. Among preadolescent children, the use of illegal
substances is relatively rare. The transition to middle school or
junior high school is viewed as a major risk period for experimentation
with gateway substances. The 1997 Monitoring the Future survey data
indicate that by 8th grade, 47 percent of students had tried cigarettes
at least once, 19 percent had smoked in the past month, and 9 percent
were daily smokers (University of Michigan Institute for Social
Research, 1997). For 10th grade students, these figures jump to 60
percent, 30 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, and for 12th grade
students they jump to 65 percent, 35 percent, and 25 percent,
respectively. Similarly, a large number of students reported having
tried alcohol at least once during their lifetimes: 54 percent of 8th
graders, 72 percent of 10th graders, and 82 percent of 12th graders
admitted having used alcohol at least once, and 25 percent, 49 percent,
and 64 percent, respectively, admitted having been drunk. Prevalence of
marijuana use was lower than for tobacco and alcohol, but still high.
Annual and 30-day use rates for those in 8th grade were 18 percent and
10 percent; in 10th grade, these rates were 35 percent and 20 percent;
and in 12th grade, they were 39 percent and 24 percent.
Among youth who use drugs, a fairly predictable sequence has been
observed, beginning with substances legal for adult consumption and
then moving on to marijuana and eventually other illegal drugs (Kandel
and Yamaguchi, 1999). This pattern of use is largely consistent with
social attitudes and norms and the availability of drugs.
In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $5 million to the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) ``to develop,
demonstrate and test programs to increase the perception among children
and youth that drug use is risky, harmful, and unattractive * * *
[through an initiative that is] consistent with existing research
findings on effective prevention methods against teenage drug abuse''
(Conference Report 105-405 for Pub. L. 105-119, November 13, 1997).
A number of theories, models, and frameworks have been tested to
identify possible explanatory mechanisms of youth substance use
initiation. The results of these tests also have created a basis for
developing strategies for deterring initiation, use, and progression to
abuse. Interventions based on these different theories, models, and
frameworks may be more or less applicable to different target groups.
Target audiences for drug abuse prevention interventions are grouped
into three categories; different types of interventions are used for
each. Universal interventions reach the general population (e.g., all
students in a school), selected programs target groups or subsets of
the general population at risk (e.g., children of drug users), and
indicated interventions are designed for individuals who are already
experimenting with drugs or who exhibit other related risks that
foreshadow the use of drugs. The majority of interventions that have
been developed and rigorously tested are of the universal type
(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1997).
Botvin, Schinke, and Orlandi (1995: 170-172) described common
approaches to drug prevention:
The most common prevention approach used by schools relies on
teaching students factual information about drugs and drug abuse.
Typically, students are taught about the dangers of tobacco,
alcohol, or drug use in terms of the adverse health, social, and
legal consequences. * * * Programs that rely exclusively on
providing students with facts about drugs and drug abuse are
conceptually based on a cognitive model of drug use/abuse. Such a
model assumes that individuals make a more or less rational decision
to use drugs or not to use drugs. * * * This model of drug abuse
assumes that once armed with the necessary facts, students will make
a rational and informed decision not to use drugs.
[[Page 34505]]
Another common approach to drug abuse prevention has been referred
to as affective education. This prevention strategy [is] based on the
belief that the risk of using drugs [can] be reduced through programs
designed to promote affective development. * * * Instead of focusing on
cognitive factors, affective education emphasizes the personal and
social development of students. Affective education takes a somewhat
broader approach to the problem of drug abuse than information
dissemination by implicitly recognizing the role of psychosocial
factors. * * * For example, components of affective education
approaches that are used in some prevention programs include
decisionmaking, effective communication, and assertiveness.
Subsequently developed approaches have been designed to target the
psychosocial factors believed to promote the use of drugs. Emphasis was
placed on teaching students the skills needed to resist influences such
as those from peers and the media (Botvin, Schinke, and Orlandi, 1995).
Perhaps the theory most widely applied to the problem of substance
use is the Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977). This theory posits
that people learn behaviors through processes of modeling and
reinforcement. A model derived from this theoretical perspective is the
Social Influence Model. According to this model, youth's perceptions
that deviant behaviors are standard practices among their peers promote
deviance through the establishment of negative normative beliefs and
reinforcement of behaviors that confirm those beliefs (Botvin et al.,
1995). Thus, the onset of substance use can be viewed as behavior
acquired through modeling, social pressure, and reinforcement by
friends, family, the media, and community norms and practices. These
same factors can be applied in a positive manner to change behavior.
Epidemiologic and etiologic studies have identified various factors
that predict youth drug involvement (Bentler, 1992). A number of
frameworks have been developed for classifying these factors into
conceptual domains that may contribute to an understanding of how these
factors cluster and operate'singly and together'for individuals and
groups (for a review, see Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992). Perhaps
the most commonly used framework is the ecological perspective, which
groups factors into individual, family, peer group, community, and
sociopolitical contextual domains (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, 1994).
Information about risks within these domains can then be used to focus
prevention programming and strategies.
Recently, there has been a concentration on the identification of
factors that may protect at-risk individuals and groups from the
initiation of substance use and other problem behaviors such as
violence (Cicchetti and Garmezy, 1993: Garmezy, 1993; Masten and
Coatsworth, 1998; Werner, 1995). These protective or resiliency factors
have been demonstrated to reduce the initiation of substance use under
some circumstances. However, they appear to be less potent when there
is an accumulation of risk factors in an individual's life or community
(Hawkins, 1998). Moreover, risk and protective factors are not static;
their potency and meaning change with a person's developmental status
and circumstance (Glantz and Sloboda, in press). For example,
epidemiologic studies have documented an association between changing
beliefs about social responsibility and perceived risks of marijuana
use on the prevalence of use among high school seniors (U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, 1997). That is, increases in social
disapproval of use and an increased perception of risk associated with
use were followed by a reduction in the prevalence of use from the mid-
1980's to 1992. Perceived risk began to drop in 1992, and prevalence of
use began to increase in 1993. Thus, it appears that a change in social
norms can function as either a risk or a protective factor.
Despite these caveats, the use of risk and protective factors as a
framework for the selection of community prevention programs has become
widespread, and a number of studies have demonstrated the utility of
the model for this purpose (Hawkins, 1998). In general, the more risk
factors present in a community, the greater the likelihood that an
individual will become involved with drug and alcohol use and other
problem behaviors. Knowledge of the specific risk factors present in a
community and among youth within that community provides policy makers,
practitioners, and implementers with information critical for
comprehensive, communitywide prevention planning.
The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) at the
University of Colorado, Boulder, has identified 10 prevention and
intervention programs that meet the highest scientific standards of
program effectiveness. CSPV has described these programs and provided
the documentation necessary for their replication in a series of
publications called Blueprints. The Life Skills Training (LST) program
is an effective drug abuse program model documented in the Blueprint
series. Developed by Dr. Gil Botvin, this program has empirically
demonstrated, across settings, that it reduces gateway drug use among
youth. Although this model has been tested in a number of
jurisdictions, the training and technical assistance offered under this
program announcement is designed to foster its replication in more and
diverse jurisdictions, including urban, rural, and tribal settings.
This whole school immersion drug prevention program targets middle and
junior high school students with initial intervention in sixth or
seventh grades, depending on school structure. For a more complete
explanation of the LST program, see the appendix.
Goal
The specific goal of the training and technical assistance program
is to reduce drug use among younger adolescents (middle and junior high
school students) by increasing the perception among children and youth
that drug use is risky, harmful, and unattractive.
Objectives
To adapt, implement, and monitor the implementation of the
Life Skills Training program.
To reduce youth vulnerability to prodrug social
influences.
To decrease risk factors for drug use and associated
behaviors by enhancing personal and social competencies and other
protective factors among youth.
Program Strategy
Training and technical assistance for the replication of the LST
model has been awarded to CSPV, which will, in turn, provide technical
assistance to individual schools and local education agencies. CSPV
will also assist in the selection of schools and local education
agencies for the replication of the LST model and support the training,
technical assistance, and process evaluation components of the program
in each of the selected schools and local education agencies. In
conjunction with CSPV, the LST training team, led by Dr. Botvin, will
work with each selected site, providing training, technical assistance,
and program and curriculum materials over a 3-year period.
The training and technical assistance will be provided by CSPV and
the LST training team through a four-step process:
[[Page 34506]]
Determine the suitability of applicant organizations
(sites) to conduct the planned replication of LST (after being deemed
qualified by an OJJDP review panel). CSPV and LST will determine
suitability by reviewing applications, holding conference calls, and
making site visits, where necessary.
Facilitate the delivery of curriculum materials during the
3-year program to the selected sites, an essential step because the LST
program requires strict adherence to a core curriculum.
Provide technical assistance and training sessions during
the course of the 3-year program.
Monitor implementation at the local level and conduct a
process evaluation to assess how well the program is being implemented
and is serving the selected sites. (This step will be carried out by
CSPV only.)
Evaluation
Evaluation of the program will consist of both a process evaluation
and an outcome evaluation. In conjunction with its monitoring function,
CSPV will conduct a process evaluation that will focus on the
individual project's adherence to the model. CSPV will collect data
through observing project functions, examining project documents, and
interviewing staff to determine whether the program is reaching the
target population and whether the program is being implemented as
designed. Information regarding the findings of the process evaluation
will be provided periodically to the projects for use in making project
management decisions.
Also, in cooperation with OJJDP, the National Institute on Drug
Abuse will conduct an outcome evaluation to assess the extent to which
a large-scale replication program in schools and local education
agencies with diverse characteristics is able to effectively implement
the LST model across multiple sites and reduce substance abuse. To
facilitate the evaluation, applicant schools and/or local education
agencies, as appropriate, must agree to and/or arrange for the
following conditions:
Applicants must document the cooperation and assurance of
the school or local education agency's administration to:
--Provide documentation of cooperation and assurance for sites for
random assignment to either intervention or control schools (it is
anticipated that up to 30 sites (grantees) will be randomly selected to
participate in an outcome evaluation). Interviews with students
receiving the LST program and their matched counterparts in the control
schools (not receiving LST) will be conducted over a 5-year period in
sites selected to participate in the outcome evaluation.
--Assist in obtaining informed consent from parents for their
children's participation in the project (to include the administration
of surveys) in the intervention (treatment) and nontreatment control
schools.
--Cooperate with the administration of pretests, posttests, and annual
follow-up school surveys through the students' high school years to
assess the impact of the implementation over time. The surveys will be
done in both the intervention schools and the nontreatment control
schools.
Applicants must agree to collaborate with the researchers
in designing and administering surveys to assess risk and protective
factors and potential mediators of program effectiveness such as school
environment (school policies, school behavioral norms), drug use
behaviors, perceptions of risk, and changes over time in skill
development and/or other essential intervention components.
Applicants must agree to allow researchers access to all
process evaluation data, including those data that monitor the fidelity
of implementation across sites, participation rates, and barriers to
implementation.
Over the course of the project, the researchers conducting
the outcome evaluation will provide feedback to participating schools
and agencies on the outcome evaluation, including interim and final
reports.
Eligibility Requirements
OJJDP invites applications from schools, local education agencies,
local public health agencies, and public and private drug prevention
agencies. Joint applications between schools or local education
agencies and nonschool applicants are welcome. If the applicant is not
a school or local education agency, the application must include a
memorandum of understanding that documents the local education agency's
formal commitment to cooperate with the applicant, participate in all
training, and provide all necessary data over the course of the
project.
Selection Criteria
Because sites will not receive funding directly, but instead will
receive training, curriculum materials, and technical assistance, OJJDP
has modified its standard selection criteria.
Applicants will be reviewed to determine that they are qualified
based on the following criteria:
Applicants' assessment of the juvenile drug use problem in
their communities, particularly whether specific problem areas coincide
with the requirements of the LST model.
Applicants' understanding of the program's specific goals
and objectives.
Applicants' ability to restate the objectives in
measurable terms.
The local structure established to implement the project.
Prior to the CSPV and LST team review process described above,
applicants will be evaluated and rated by a review panel according to
the criteria outlined below.
Problems To Be Addressed (15 points)
Applicants must describe the targeted school or local education
agency and explain why it would be a suitable site for replication of
the LST program. This description should include the number of schools
and students that will participate in the LST program and must explain
the community assessment process, including the procedures used, the
types and sources of data, and the relationship of the data to the
target population. Emphasis should be placed on establishing baseline
data that describe community risk and protective factors and general
characteristics of the population to be served. Applicants should also
describe other drug prevention programs (e.g., efforts to reduce
underage drinking and community-based coalitions designed to reduce
substance abuse by youth) in the community and explain how this program
will be coordinated with them.
Goals and Objectives (5 points)
Applicants must provide succinct statements demonstrating an
understanding of the goals, objectives, and tasks associated with the
project (see, for example, sections regarding evaluation and
implementation design and also the appendix). Objectives must be
quantifiable and measurable, and applicants must convey a clear
understanding of the purpose, implementation, evaluation requirements,
and expected results of the project.
Implementation Design (40 points)
The LST program is a school-based intervention designed to be
implemented in the classroom.
Applicants must demonstrate that the LST program meets the drug
prevention needs of the target population of students within the
specific community. They must also provide a detailed description of
the processes for planning and implementing the project
[[Page 34507]]
and for cooperating with the outcome evaluation grantee.
Because successful prevention programs change students, schools,
neighborhoods, and families in ways that reduce drug use by youth,
proposals must be based on local objective data that identify
characteristics and risk factors that need to be addressed and
protective factors that show potential. Data collected about
populations other than the specific populations that will receive
direct services under the program (for example, national or State data
on youth drug use) are not considered sufficient evidence that the
program responds to the community-level needs of the target population.
Applicants should provide evidence that they will work with the LST
training and technical assistance provider to make the program
culturally relevant to the target community and its population.
Applicant schools and agencies also should consider that greater
effectiveness is achieved when the core elements of the original
research-based model are retained. Core elements are the basic
structure, content, and delivery of the program. For example, the
structure of the program includes the number of sessions during year 1
and booster sessions during years 2 and 3 required to achieve the
desired effect; the content includes the critical components such as
normative education, refusal skills, and social skills training; and
delivery includes the provision of appropriate staff training and
resources to assist in implementation.
Applicants must detail the number of schools and students within
each school that will be involved in the replication effort during the
3-year period. LST is ideally meant to begin in sixth or seventh grade
(middle or junior high school) with booster sessions in each of the
following 2 years. However, in the 2 years following the initial
implementation, two new sixth grade cohorts may begin implementing LST,
so that eventually the entire school is implementing the program.
Although applicants may submit proposals with any number of
participating schools and students, OJJDP reserves the right to hold
sites to a limited number of participating students. Applicants must
identify an equal number of students in nontreatment school sites to
serve as control groups. Documentation for each participating school of
a commitment to implement the program or serve as a control school for
the participating schools should be included. Because the evaluation
may involve random assignment to treatment or control groups, schools
must be willing to commit to participate in either group.
Management and Organizational Capability (35 points)
Applicants must demonstrate that their management structure and
staffing are adequate for the successful implementation of the project.
They must present a workplan that identifies responsible individuals,
major tasks, and milestones (timeline) for implementing the LST model
in their school(s), with training beginning in late summer or early
fall 1999 and implementation beginning in spring 2000. Applicants
should specifically describe coordination and collaboration efforts
related to the project.
Applicants must demonstrate any existing programs or partnerships
related to substance abuse prevention by submitting project
descriptions or memorandums of understanding, interagency agreements,
or other documentation. These materials may be attached as appendixes.
However, the collaborative relationship must be clearly described in
the application. Staff resumes or job descriptions should also be
attached as an appendix.
Budget (5 points)
Training and technical assistance funds for the replication of the
LST model will not be awarded to individual schools and local education
agencies, but rather to CSPV, which will use the money to provide all
materials, training, technical assistance, and a process evaluation.
Thus, applicants are required to submit budgets detailing only the in-
kind contributions they will make to ensure sufficient onsite
coordination of and support for replication of the model. Examples of
in-kind contributions include, but are not limited to, office space, an
appropriate location for provider training and onsite technical
assistance, personnel to serve as liaison with LST and CSPV and
coordinate local site activities, and equipment that will be used to
support the project.
Applicants must provide as an in-kind contribution a mechanism for
coordinating onsite training and technical assistance such as providing
a suitable location for provider training by LST staff. Applicants
should describe this mechanism. For example, a school might designate
one or more individuals as training and technical assistance
coordinator(s). Applicants should list and total the value of those in-
kind contributions required to implement this project and describe
plans for institutionalizing the project. Applicants are advised that
they must document the in-kind costs in accord with OMB Circular A-110
or A-102.
Format
The narrative portion of this application must not exceed 25 pages
(excluding the budget narrative, forms, assurances, and appendixes) and
must be submitted on 8\1/2\- by 11-inch paper, double-spaced on one
side of the paper in a standard 12-point font. These standards are
necessary to maintain a fair and uniform standard among all applicants.
If the narrative does not conform to these standards, OJJDP will deem
the application ineligible for consideration.
Project Period
Sites selected will be provided technical assistance, program
implementation training, and LST curriculum materials over a 3-year
project period.
Project Sites and Level of Support
Up to 50 projects will be selected to replicate the LST model
locally over 3 years. Successful applicants will receive the training,
curriculum materials, and technical assistance from CSPV and LST. In
making final selections, the OJJDP Administrator will consider
geographic distribution and balance in the number of each type of
jurisdiction (urban, rural, and tribal) selected.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number
For this program, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
number, which is required on Standard Form 424, Application for Federal
Assistance, is 16.729. This form is included in OJJDP's Application
Kit, which can be obtained by calling the Juvenile Justice
Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or sending an e-mail request to
puborder@ncjrs.org. The kit also is available online at
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.
Coordination of Federal Efforts
To encourage better coordination among Federal agencies in
addressing State and local needs, the U.S. Department of Justice is
requesting applicants to provide information on the following: (1)
Active Federal grant award(s) supporting this or related efforts,
including awards from the U.S. Department of Justice; (2) any pending
application(s) for Federal funds for this or related efforts; and (3)
plans for coordinating any funds described in items (1) or (2) with the
funding sought by this application.
For each Federal award, applicants must include the program or
project title, the Federal grantor agency, the
[[Page 34508]]
amount of the award, and a brief description of its purpose.
``Related efforts'' is defined for these purposes as one of the
following:
Efforts for the same purpose (i.e., the proposed award
would supplement, expand, complement, or continue activities funded
with other Federal grants).
Another phase or component of the same program or project
(e.g., to implement a planning effort funded by other Federal funds or
to provide a substance abuse treatment or education component within a
criminal justice project).
Services of some kind (e.g., technical assistance,
research, or evaluation) to the program or project described in the
application.
Delivery Instructions
All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile
Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K,
Rockville, Maryland 20850; 301-519-5535.
Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, the
applicant must clearly write ``Training and Technical Assistance for
the Life Skills Training Drug Prevention Program.''
Due Date
Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five
copies of the application package are received by 5 p.m. ET on August
9, 1999.
Contact
For further information, call Eric Stansbury, Program Manager,
Special Emphasis Division, at 202-307-5914, or send an e-mail inquiry
to stansbur@ojp.usdoj.gov.
References
Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bentler, P.M. 1992. Etiologies and consequences of adolescent drug
use: Implications for prevention. Journal of Addictive Diseases
11(3):47-61.
Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., and Botvin, E.M. 1995. Long-
term follow-up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial
in a white-middle-class population. Journal of the American Medical
Association 273(14):1106-1112.
Botvin, G.J. 1995. Drug abuse prevention in school settings. In Drug
Abuse Prevention With MultiEthnic Youth, edited by G.J. Botvin, S.
Sckinke, and M. Orlandi. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bronfenbrenner, U., and Ceci, S.J. 1994. Nature-nurture
reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological
model. Psychological Review 101(4):568-586.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 1998. Blueprints
for Violence Prevention, Book 5: Life Skills Training. Golden, CO:
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
Cicchetti, D., and Garmezy, N. 1993. Prospects and promises in the
study of resiliency. Development and Psychopathology 5:497-502.
Garmezy, N. 1993. Children in poverty: Resiliency despite risk.
Psychiatry 56:127-136.
Glantz, M., and Sloboda, Z. In press. Analysis and
reconceptualization of resilience. In Resilience and Development;
Positive Life Adaptations, edited by M. Glantz and J. Johnson. New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Hawkins, J.D. 1998 (June). Moving to phase five in the prevention
cycle: Collaborating with communities to make prevention science
prevention practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Prevention Research, Park City, UT.
Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Miller, J.Y. 1992. Risk and
protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in
adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse
prevention. Psychological Bulletin 112(1):64-105.
Kandel, D.B., and Yamaguchi, K. 1999. Developmental stages of
involvement in substance use. In Sourcebook on Substance Abuse:
Etiology, Epidemiology, Assessment, and Treatment, edited by R.E.
Tarter, R.J. Ammerman, and P.J. Ott. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. 1998. Development of competence
in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on
successful children. American Psychologist 53(2):205-220.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1997. Preventing Drug Use Among
Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide. NIH Publication
No. 97-4212. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug
Abuse.
Pentz, M.A., Cormack, C., Flay, B., Hansen, W.B., and Johnson, C.A.
1986. Balancing program and research integrity in community drug
abuse prevention: Project STAR approach. Journal of School Health
56(9):389-393.
Pentz, M.A., Dwyer, J.H., MacKinnon, D.P., Flay, B.R., Hansen, W.B.,
and Johnson, C.A. 1989. Primary prevention of chronic diseases in
adolescence: Effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project on tobacco
use. American Journal of Epidemiology 130(4):713-724.
Pentz, M.A., Trebow, E.A., Hansen, W.B., MacKinnon, D.P., Dwyer,
J.H., Johnson, C.A., Flay, B.R., Daniels, S., and Cormack, C. 1990.
Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug use behavior:
The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Evaluation Review 14:264-
289.
University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. 1997 (December
18). Drug use among American teens shows some signs of leveling
after a long rise. Press release. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Institute for Social Research.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1997 (December 20).
Drug use survey shows mixed results for nation's youth: Use among
younger adolescents appears to be slowing. Press release.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Werner, E.E. 1995. Resilience in development. Current Directions in
Psychological Science 4(3):81-85.
Appendix
Applicants should contact The Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University
of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 442, Boulder, Colorado 80309-
0442; 303-492-8465, to obtain copies of the Life Skills Training
Blueprint. The cost is $10.
Following is a brief description of the LST model, summarized
from Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book 5: Life Skills
Training.
The Life Skills Training Program
The LST program is a primary prevention program that targets
individuals who have not yet developed drug abuse problems. The goal
of the program is to prevent gateway substance use among adolescents
by making an impact on risk factors associated with tobacco,
alcohol, and marijuana use, particularly occasional and experimental
use. This goal is accomplished by providing adolescents with the
knowledge and skills to:
Resist peer and media pressure to smoke, drink, or use
drugs.
Develop a positive self-image.
Make decisions and solve problems on their own.
Manage anxiety.
Communicate effectively and avoid misunderstandings.
Build healthy relationships.
Handle social situations with confidence.
The LST program is a school-based intervention designed to be
implemented in the classroom. This intervention often is referred to
as a universal intervention in that it is designed for all
individuals in a given setting. The program was developed to have an
impact on drug-related knowledge, attitudes, and norms; teach skills
for resisting social influences to use drugs; and promote the
development of general personal self-management skills and social
skills. The LST prevention program comprises three major components.
The first component is designed to teach students a set of general
self-management skills. The second component focuses on teaching
general social skills. The
[[Page 34509]]
third component includes information and skills that are
specifically related to the problem of gateway substance use. The
first two components are designed to enhance overall personal
competence and decrease the motivation to use drugs and
vulnerability to social influences. The problem-specific component
is designed to provide students with material that relates directly
to drug use (drug resistance skills, antidrug attitudes, and
antidrug norms). Skills are taught using training techniques such as
instruction, demonstration, feedback, reinforcement, and practice.
In school districts that have a middle school structure, the program
is implemented with sixth, seventh, and eighth graders. Where there
is a junior high school structure, the program is implemented with
seventh, eighth, and ninth graders.
The LST prevention program is a 3-year intervention designed to
prevent or reduce gateway drug use. The program comprises 15
sessions in year 1, 10 booster sessions in year 2, and 5 booster
sessions in year 3. The most natural and logical provider for a
school-based prevention program is a regular classroom teacher. In
addition to their availability, teachers are a logical choice
because of their teaching experience and classroom management
skills. Selection of program providers should be based on their
interest, experience, enthusiasm, and commitment to drug abuse
prevention; the extent to which they will be positive role models;
and their willingness to attend the training workshop and implement
the intervention carefully and completely according to the
provider's guide.
The LST program provides project personnel 1- or 2-day initial
training on the curriculum. This training is designed to familiarize
intervention providers with the prevention program, its rationale,
and the results of prior studies and to provide them with the
opportunity to learn and practice the skills needed to successfully
implement the program. Onsite and telephone technical assistance
also are available to school personnel implementing the program in
the respective project sites. In addition, LST provides booster
training sessions during the second and third years.
There are two ways to implement LST in the classroom. The
program can be scheduled so that it is taught at a rate of one class
per week, or it can be programmed as a curriculum module or
minicourse so that the entire program is conducted on consecutive
class days. LST is a prescribed prevention program but has some
implementation flexibility. It can be implemented in a number of
different curriculum slots such as health education or drug
education, if available, or through a major subject area such as
science or social studies. Generally, it is implemented in a single
subject area and taught by one teacher. However, some schools have
implemented the program through more than one subject area where
students are being taught by a team of teachers.
Individual or district-level school sites may implement the
school-based program, which is designed to serve between 330 and
1,000 students in the school/district population who enter the
program over a 3-year period in groups of equal size.
LST is based on an understanding of the causes of gateway
substance use. LST interventions are designed to target the
psychosocial factors associated with the onset of drug involvement.
The initiation of drug use is the result of a complex combination of
diverse factors; there is no single pathway or single variable that
serves as a necessary and sufficient condition for initiating drug
use. The LST approach to drug abuse prevention is based on an
interactive model of drug abuse; drug abuse is thought of as
resulting from a dynamic interaction of an individual and his or her
environment. Social influences to use drugs (along with the
availability of drugs) interact with individual vulnerability. Some
individuals may be influenced to use drugs by the media (television
and movies that glamorize drug use or suggest that drug use is
normal or socially acceptable and advertising efforts that promote
the sale of alcohol and tobacco products), family members who use
drugs or convey prodrug attitudes, and friends or acquaintances who
use drugs or hold attitudes and beliefs supportive of drug use.
Others may be propelled toward drug use or a drug-using peer group
because of intrapersonal factors such as low self-esteem, high
anxiety, other negative feelings, or the desire for excitement.
The program focuses on drug-related expectancies (knowledge,
attitudes, and norms), drug-related resistance skills, and general
competence (personal self-management skills and social skills).
Increasing prevention-related drug knowledge and resistance skills
can provide adolescents with the information and skills needed to
develop antidrug attitudes and norms and to resist peer and media
pressure to use drugs. Teaching effective self-management and social
skills (improving personal and social competence) can produce an
impact on a set of psychological factors associated with decreased
drug abuse risk (by reducing intrapersonal motivations to use drugs
and by reducing vulnerability to prodrug social influences).
Examples of the types of personal and social skills typically
included in this prevention approach are decisionmaking and problem-
solving skills, cognitive skills for resisting interpersonal and
media influences, goal setting and self-directed, behavior-change
techniques, adaptive coping strategies for dealing with stress and
anxiety, general social skills, and general assertiveness skills.
This prevention approach teaches both these general skills and their
application to situations related directly to tobacco, alcohol, or
drug use. Building knowledge and skills in these areas can provide
adolescents with the resources they need to resist peer and media
pressures to use drugs and aid in developing a school climate in
which drug use is not acceptable.
More than one-and-a-half decades of research with the LST
program have consistently shown that it can cut drug use in half.
These reductions (relative to controls) in both the prevalence
(i.e., proportion of persons in a population who have reported some
involvement in a particular offense) and incidence (i.e., the number
of offenses that occur in a given population during a specified time
interval) of drug use have been reported primarily in tobacco,
alcohol, and marijuana use. These studies have demonstrated that
this prevention approach can produce reductions in drug use that are
long lasting and clinically meaningful. For example, long-term
follow-up data indicate that reductions in drug use by seventh
graders can last up to the end of high school. Evaluation research
has demonstrated that this prevention approach is effective with a
broad range of students including white middle-class youth and poor,
inner-city minority (African-American and Hispanic) youth. Not only
has this approach demonstrated reductions in alcohol and marijuana
use of up to 80 percent, but evaluation studies have shown that LST
also can reduce more serious forms of drug involvement such as the
weekly use of multiple drugs or the prevalence of heavy smoking (a
pack a day), heavy drinking, and episodes of drunkenness.
Dated: June 21, 1999.
Shay Bilchik,
Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[FR Doc. 99-16252 Filed 6-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
