SDFSC Sign-On Letters

Senators Dodd (D-CT) and Grassley (R-IA) circulated a FY 2009 sign-on letter to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education. This letter was signed by 37 Senators (31 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 Independent). View letter

Congressmen Levin (D-12th/MI) and Souder (R-3rd/IN) circulated a FY 2009 sign-on letter to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education. This letter was signed by 91 Representatives (79 Democrats and 12 Republicans). View letter

CADCA's Publications Regarding the SDFSC Program:

"The State Grants Portion of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program: Perception vs. Reality"  View publication

"The Forgotten Link: Drug and Alcohol Use and Academic Performance"  View publication

"The Inextricable Link: The Relationship Between Alcohol, Drug Use and Violence Among Students"  View publication

Funding for the State Grants Portion of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program MUST Be Maintained: Elimination is Not an Option

| Background |

| The President's Budget Request |

| Significant Outcomes for Selected States |

| Drug and Alcohol Use Continue to Be a Pervasive Problem |
| The American Public Consistently Identifies Drugs as One of the Most Serious Problems in the Country |

| Peer Substance Use Impacts Academic Performance |

| Enhance the Prevention Infrastructure in Our Nation's Schools |

| Substance Abuse Prevention is a Good Investment |

| Conclusion |
| Supporting Research |

| National Network for SDFSC |

Background

The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) program is the only source of federal funding for school based prevention that directly targets all of America 's youth in grades K-12 with drug education, prevention and intervention services.

Title IV of H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, requires SDFSC programs to adhere to principles of effectiveness. Specifically, it requires that states must perform an assessment of the substance abuse and violence problem, using objective data and the knowledge of a wide range of community members; develop measurable goals and objectives; implement evidence and science based programs that have been shown to be effective and meet identified needs; and perform an assessment of program outcomes. As a result of these stringent requirements the SDFSC program has had a significant impact on helping to achieve the 23% overall decline in youth drug use over the past fiveyears, documented by the 2007 Monitoring the Future survey.

The President's Budget Request

In his FY 2009 budget request, President Bush recommended cutting the State Grants portion of the SDFSC program from $294.8 million to $100 million. According to recent data, upwards of 37 million youth are served annually by programs funded through SDFSC. [1] Cutting the SDFSC program will leave millions of American children without any drug education.

Although over half of the LEA's in the country receive less than $10,000, most of them have leveraged the limited funds from the program to recruit partners who have committed additional resources and manpower to make the program work for their communities. Even in districts where the funding is minimal, someone is responsible for addressing the impact of alcohol and other drugs on the school learning climate. LEA's receiving a small amount of money develop consortia to pool their resources to provide effective programs and services. Even a small amount of money from this program can be the catalyst for greater community involvement and leverage funding from other sources.

If a school does not receive funds to address the substance abuse prevention and intervention issues it faces, it cannot deal with the negative impact that drugs and alcohol undoubtedly cause. Schools must have the ability to address these issues and provide accurate information to children and their parents, so that the negative influences in society that encourage drug use will not have unchecked access to the minds of our children.

Significant Outcomes for Selected States

The SDFSC program is the backbone of youth drug prevention and intervention efforts in the United States . State and local programs funded by the SDFSC program are showing positive impacts and impressive outcomes, which have been documented by state-wide student surveys, despite the fact that the Department of Education has not yet implemented a UMIRS. For example:

•    Alabama – Reported a 27.4% decrease in the number of 10 th grade students reporting past 30 day use of alcohol, from 26.6% in 2005 to 19.3% in 2006.

  •  Alaska - Reported a decrease of 54% among Alaska high school students reporting having ever used inhalants from 22.2% in 1995 to 10.2% in 2003.

  •  Arizona – Reported a 23.3% decrease in the lifetime use of marijuana among 8 th graders from 2002 to 2004. Among 10 th and 12 th grades lifetime marijuana use went down by 12% and 10% respectively.

  •  California - Reported a 19.3% decrease in past 30 day use of marijuana among 11th graders, from 23.8% in 2000 to 19.2% in 2006.

  •  Delaware - Reported a decrease of 16% among high school students reporting ever having smoked a cigarette from 74% in 1997 to 62% in 2003.

  •  Florida – Reported a 35.5% decrease in the number of eighth grade students reporting past 30 day marijuana use, down from 13.8% in 2000 to 8.9% in 2004.

  •  Georgia – Reported a 20.9% decrease in past 30 day alcohol use among 10th grade students, from 47.4% in 1993 to 37.5% in 2005.

  •  Hawaii – Reported that the perception of harm associated with the "occasional use of inhalants" among 12th graders increased at a rate of 58% from 48.5% in 1998 to 76.8% in 2002.

  •  Illinois – Reported a decrease of 16.6% among 8th graders reporting past month use of alcohol from 22.9% in 2000 to 19.1% in 2004.

  •  Indiana – Reported a decrease of 29.2% in past 30 day marijuana use among 9 th graders, from 16.1% in 2001 to 11.4% in 2006.

  •  Iowa – Reported a 23.1% decrease in the number of Iowa students who had at least one drink in the last 30 days, from 26% in 1999 to 20% in 2005.

  •  Kansas – Reported a 32.0% decrease in past 30 day use of marijuana among 10 th graders, from 19.4% in 1999 to 13.2% in 2006.

  •  Kentucky – Reported a 26.6% decrease in the number of high school students reporting past 30 day marijuana use, down from 28.6% in 1997 to 21.1% in 2003.

  •  Maryland – Reported a 30.4% decrease in past 30 day marijuana use among 10th graders, down from 22.4% in 1996 to 15.6% in 2004.

  •  Maine – Reported a 63.7% decrease in the number of 12 th graders reporting lifetime use of meth, from 14.6% in 2000 to 5.3% in 2006.

  •  Massachusetts – Reported a 10.7% decrease in the number of students in grades 9-12 reporting lifetime use of marijuana, from 50.4% in 2001 to 45.0% in 2005.

  •  Michigan – Reported a 33.3% decrease in the number of students in grades 9-12 reporting past 30 day marijuana use, from 28.2% in 1997 to 18.8% in 2005.

  •  Minnesota – Reported a 32.7% decrease in the number of 9 th grade students reporting lifetime use of alcohol, from 63.7% in 1992 to 42.9% in 2004.

  •  Mississippi – Reported a 75.0% decrease in the number of 6 th grade students reporting past 30 day use of alcohol, from 13.2% in 2002 to 3.3% in 2006.

  •  Nevada – Reported a 10.8% decrease in the percent of high school students who had five for more drinks of alcohol in a row in the past 30 days, from 27.8% in 2003 to 24.8% in 2005.

  •  New Hampshire – Reported an increase of 9.7% in the number of 11 th graders reporting an increased perception of harm for using marijuana, from 62.6% in 2003 to 68.7% in 2005.

  •  New Jersey – Reported a 36.8% decrease in the number of 9 th – 12 th grade students reporting past 30 day use of alcohol, down from 57.0% in 2002 to 36.0% in 2005.

  •  North Carolina – Reported a 29.9% decrease in the number of students that had their first drink of alcohol, other than a few sips, before the age of 13 from 30.4 % in 1993 to 21.3 % in 2005.

  •  New Mexico – Reported that the number of high school students reporting past 30 day use of methamphetamines decreased at a rate of 37% , from 7.3% in 2003 to 4.6% in 2005.

  •  New York – Reported a 22.4% decrease among students reporting past 30 day use of marijuana from 26.7% in 2001 to 20.7% in 2003.

  •  North Dakota – Reported a 25.9% decrease in past 30 day use of alcohol among 7 th and 8 th graders, down from 22.8% in 1995 to 16.9% in 2003.

  •  Ohio - Reported that the percentage of youth in grades six through eight who reported using illegal drugs at least once during the past year decreased by 21% , from 14.9% in 1998-99 school year to 11.7% in 2002.

  •  Oklahoma – Reported that the number of 6 th , 8 th , 10 th and 12 th graders who have used marijuana in the past 30 days decreased at a rate of 18.8% , from 9.6% in 2004 to 7.8% in 2006.

  •  Oregon – Reported a 19.9% decrease in the number of 11 th grade students reporting lifetime use of marijuana, from 56.4% in 1986 to 45.2% in 2003.

  •  Pennsylvania – The number of 10 th grade students reporting past 30 day use of marijuana decreased at a rate of 29.4% , from 17.0% in 2001 to 12.0% in 2005.

  •  South Dakota – Reported that the number of students in grades 9-12 reporting that they had 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, within a couple of hours, on 1 or more of the past 30 days decreased at a rate of 24.8% , from 45.2% in 1997 to 34% in 2005.

  •  Utah – Reported that the number of 7 th through 12 th graders who reported using alcohol in the last 30 days decreased at a rate of 51.4% , from 24.5% in 1984 to 11.9% in 2005.

  •  Virginia – Reported a 35.1% decrease in the number of 12 th graders who reported smoking cigarettes in the last 30 days from 37% in 2000 to 24% in 2005.

  •  Washington – Reported that among 8 th graders, past 30 day use of marijuana decreased at a rate of 23.3% , from 12% in 2000 to 9.2% in 2004.

   

  •  Wisconsin – Reported that the number of students throughout the state reporting that they had ever smoked marijuana decreased at a rate of 14.0% , from 43% in 2001 to 37% in 2005.

Drug and Alcohol Use Continue to Be a Pervasive Problem

Despite the positive results documented by the Monitoring the Future Survey and that SDFSC programs are achieving in states across the nation, drug and alcohol use continue to be a pervasive problem. According to the 2007 Monitoring the Future (MTF) results, 46.8% of high school seniors have tried an illicit drug. The late 1990s saw a huge resurgence in marijuana usage. In fact 18.8% of high school seniors report that they have used marijuana in the last 30 days. [2]

This problem, however, is not limited in scope to the use of marijuana. Many of today's youth are abusing legally available drugs such as prescription pain killers and over-the-counter cough medicines. For example, in 2007, nearly 1 in 10 seniors abused Vicodin,[3] and according to the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, more people age 12 or older started misusing prescription pain relievers (2.6 million) than started using marijuana (2.1 million). [4] In addition, the abuse of common cough and cold medicines containing Dextromethorphan (DXM) to get high, ranked sixth on the list of Prevalence of Past Year Drug Abuse Among 12th Graders (MTF).

In the next 15 years, the youth population will grow by 21%, adding 6.5 million youth— even if drug use rates remain constant, there will be a huge surge in drug-related problems, such as academic failure, drug-related violence and HIV incidence, simply due to this population increase. [5] Our nation cannot afford to live with these statistics.

The American Public Consistently Identifies Drugs As One of the Most Serious Problems in the Country

The American public consistently has identified illegal drugs as one of the most serious problems facing communities and children, and continues to do so. A survey released by the Pew Partnership for Civic Change found that illegal drugs are considered the third most serious problem in communities across the country. [6] Additionally, in a recent survey of 300 police chiefs from across the country, 63% reported that “drug abuse was a serious problem in their community – more than any other issue.” [7] According to a poll conducted by MTV and Peter D. Hart Associates on February 13, 2003, drug use tied with the war on Iraq as the most important issue facing people between the ages of 14 and 24.

Clearly, substance use and abuse continue to rank among the most the most troubling issues our society faces. It is imperative, that we as a nation invest in programs, such as the SDFSC program, that provide “no use” messages to delay the age of onset at which youth use alcohol for as long as possible and to prevent them from ever starting to use illegal substances.

Peer Substance Use Impacts Academic Performance

A recent study by the University of Washington provided the first large-scale documentation that found that the level of peer substance use in schools has a substantial impact on academic performance. The study findings link lower reading and math scores to peer substance abuse – not to individual student use as one might expect. On average, students whose peers avoided substance use had test scores (measured by the Washington state math and reading standards) that were 18 points higher for reading , and 45 points higher for math . [8] The study concluded that if the public is concerned with academic performance, the challenges in students' learning environment, particularly substance use, must be addressed ( University of Washington , 2000). [9] This fact is further substantiated in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's 2002 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse Report entitled Marijuana Among Youths, as it states that poor performance in school has been associated with marijuana use, as youths with an average grade of D or below were more than four times as likely to have used marijuana in the past year as youths with an average grade of A. Other data also supports the fact that adolescents who use alcohol may remember 10% less of what they have learned than those who don't drink. [10]

Enhance the Prevention Infrastructure In Our Nation's Schools

Recent research states that schools play a critical role in getting the anti-drug message out to children. In today's changing society, schools serve as one of the only sources of information for most children about the harms of drug use. The 2002 - 2003 Pride Survey found that teachers are as likely as parents to warn youth about the problems of drugs, "Only 19% of students said their teachers never talk to them about alcohol and drug problems, and only 15% said their parents never do so." This fact was further substantiated by the 2003-2004 Pride Survey, which found that four out of five students said their teachers talk to them about illegal drugs. The same percentage said their parents talk to them about illegal drugs. Further, 72% of teachers recognize that they need additional training in drug education. Clearly, schools play a critical role in getting the anti-drug message out to students. Because children spend more than a quarter of their day at school and find many role models within school walls, schools have a unique opportunity to deliver effective drug prevention programs. In doing so, they reinforce norms against drug use and give students peer refusal and other life skills. The role that schools play in reducing substance use and abuse is both critical and measurable:

•  Students who reported that their teachers warned them about the dangers of drugs were 17% less likely to use drugs. [11]

•  The number of 8th, 10th and 12th grade students who reported using any illicit drug during the last 12 months continued to decline to 13.2%, 28.1% and 35.9%, respectively. [12]

•  8th and 10th graders continued to show an increase in perceived risk of marijuana use this year, a fact that may help to explain this year's declines in use among 8th and 10th graders . [13]

•  24.6 % of 10th graders reported past year marijuana use in 2007, the lowest rate seen since 1994, and well below the peak of 34.8% in 1997. [14]

•  47.2% of students reported drinking alcohol in the past year and 24.3% of students reported smoking cigarettes in the past year, these rates are the lowest in 15 years . [16]

Substance Abuse Prevention Is A Good Investment

Studies indicate that the “costs associated with drug, alcohol and tobacco use add 10% - or $41 billion – to the already strained budgets of schools across the nation.” [17]

According to First Lady of Ohio, Hope Taft, “…by 2020, the need for alcohol and other drug treatment will increase by 57%. One of the most important indicators for the number of people who will need treatment in 2020 is the age of first use of marijuana. Currently the age of first use of marijuana is about 13… if we can immediately reduce the number of initiates into drug use by 25%, we can reduce the number who need treatment by one million. ” [18] The statistics below provide further support of this fact:

• The savings per dollar spent on substance abuse prevention can be substantial and range from $2.00 to $19.64 depending on how costs were calculated, outcomes included and the differences in methodologies. [19]
• A study of the Social Influence/Skills Building Substance Prevention Programs, which are school based programs that include information about the short and long term consequences of substance use and other health-related information, located in Snohomish, Thurston and Whatcom Counties in Washington State , found that these programs resulted in a $70.34 benefit for dollar savings. [20]
• A community-based prevention program implemented in 26 schools in Kansas City , Kansas (Project STAR), reported that, for every $1 expended for prevention programming, $4.83 was saved in outpatient counseling or similar treatment over a five year period in affected family members. [21]
• For every dollar spent on drug use prevention, communities can save $4 to $5 dollars in costs for drug abuse treatment and counseling. [22]
• Children who first smoke marijuana under the age of 14 are more than 5 times as likely to abuse drugs, as adults, as compared to those who first use marijuana at age 18. [23]
• People who begin drinking before the age of 15 are four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence as an adult than those who wait until age 21. Each additional year of delayed drinking onset reduces the probability of alcohol dependence by 14%. [24]

Conclusion

The State Grants portion of the SDFSC program is an integral part of America 's substance abuse prevention efforts, educating millions of American youth. It provides the infrastructure through which all other school based prevention and intervention programs are coordinated and has contributed to the 17% decline in youth drug use over the last three years. However, this does not mean that substance abuse is no longer a pervasive problem. Our nation cannot afford to take its “eye off the ball” simply because drug use is on the decline. This is NOT the time to cut funding for the State Grants portion of the SDFSC program! Without continued substance abuse prevention and intervention efforts funded by the State Grants portion of the SDFSC program, generational forgetting inevitably will occur, causing drug and alcohol use among youth to increase. School based programs such as SDFSC are imperative as they provide both parents and all of America 's school aged youth with the information and skills that are necessary to remain substance free.

Every new cohort of youth MUST have the benefit of prevention efforts to ensure that drug and alcohol use rates continue to decline. The state grants portion of the SDFSC program represents an investment in our children's future and has the potential to leave a long lasting legacy: a healthier America where fewer children are addicted to drugs and alcohol. In an effort to attain this legacy, and in the absence of any guidance from the Department of Education, the states have conscientiously implemented, directed and maintained effective programs and collected all the data necessary to prove that the SDFSC program is having a positive impact on youth drug and alcohol use throughout the country. Unless Congress intervenes, the State Grants portion of the SDFSC program will be eliminated, leaving millions of American youth without drug education and prevention.

Left unchecked, drug, alcohol and tobacco use and abuse cost schools throughout the country an EXTRA $41 billion per year and have a devastating impact on the educational performance of students nationwide. Given that drug use still plagues America 's youth, and positive academic outcomes are linked to schools with low levels of drug and alcohol use, the State Grants portion of the SDFSC program must be maintained in the FY 2006 appropriations process. Eliminating the funding for the State Grants portion of the SDFSC program is simply not an option for our nation! To ensure the health and academic success of American students, funding for the State Grants portion of the SDFSC program must be restored.

Supporting Research

Washington Kids Count Study

A recent study by the University of Washington concluded that:

• Academic achievement and risky behaviors show a close association by middle school: This relationship is also present in high school. This implies that prevention programs should begin prior to 6th grade and continue through high school.*
• Social and moral beliefs, risk in the community, and commitment to school influence substance use and violence/delinquency: In both middle and high school, these factors directly impacted substance use and violence/delinquency. In high school, some of these aspects of the social environment also directly impacted achievement.
• Attitudes and behaviors are closely related: In middle school, groups of students that think it's okay to use alcohol or drugs, know where to obtain them, and think they are unlikely to get caught, are also using them. Groups with antisocial and rebellious attitudes are also involved in violent/delinquent behaviors. In high school, groups with favorable attitudes toward risky behaviors also tend to engage in those behaviors.
• Substance use is closely related to violence/delinquency: The strong association between these factors suggests that prevention programs should address violence/delinquency and substance use together.

Source: Washington Kids Count/University of Washington, 2002

Click here to read the Full Study or a Summary

Impacts on Learning

Risk Factors	Adolescant Problem Behaviors
	Substance Abuse	Deliquency	Teen Pregnancy	School Drop-Out	Violence
Community
Availability of Drugs
Availability of Firearms
Community Laws and Norms Favorable Toward Drug Use, Firearms, and Crime
Media Portrayals Violence
Transitions and Mobility
Low Neighborhood Attachment and Community Disorganization
Extreme Economic Deprivation
Family
Family History of the Problem Behavior
Family Management Problems
Family Conflict
Favorable Parental Attitudes and involvement in the Problem Behavior
School
Early and Persistent Antisocial Behavior
Academic Failure Beginning in Late Elementary School
Lack of Commitment to School
Individual/Peer
Alienation and Rebelliousness
Friends Who Engage in the Problem Behavior
Favorable Attitudes Toward the Problem Behavior
Early Initiation of the Problem Behavior
Constitutional Factors

© 1996-1998 Developmental Research and Programs

Franklin County Survey

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Consortium has administered the Primary Prevention, Awareness, Attitude and Use Survey (PPAAUS) five times since 1988. PPAAUS is designed to measure student attitudes and reported usage of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs and provide information on violence and safety issues. Sixth through twelfth graders in the 16 public school districts and 36 non-public schools in Franklin County, Ohio completed the latest survey in the fall of 2003.

Follow this link to read more about the survey and its results: http://www.edcouncil.org/programs/drugfree/ppaaus/execsum.htm

National Network for SDFSC

The National Network was formed in 1996, when it became clear that a unified, organized voiced was needed to enhance communication between federal, state and local agencies that work on behalf of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) Education Program. As an advocacy group, the National Network is particularly concerned with providing its' members with programmatic resources such as technical assistance concerning the program and networking opportunities.

Network membership is comprised of state-level administrators for the Governor's Office and State Education Agency in each state; the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers located regionally throughout the country; Local Education Agency representatives; and representatives from associate national, state and local agencies; and interested parties that support the mission of the National Network.

For more information about the National Network for SDFSC (NNSDFSC), please go to: http://nnsdfsc.ou.edu/

[1] Bennett-Harper, Sarah M., Brizius, Maritine G., Donaldson, Sonia J. “Characteristics of SDFSCA SEA and Governors' Programs: Volume I Summary of the 1999-2000 Data Collection. Available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/9900statereport/report.pdf

[2] Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G. & Schulenberg, J. E. (December 11, 2007). Overall, illicit drug use by American teens continues gradual decline in 2007. University of Michigan News and Information Services: Ann Arbor , MI. [On-line]. Available: www.monitoringthefuture.org.

[3] Ibid

[4] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2006). The National Survey on Drug Use and Health. “Initiation of Substance Use.” Rockville : MD. Available: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k6nsduh/2k6Results.cfm#5.7

[5] Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, FY 2001 Department of Health and Human Services Request 2000.

[6] Pew Partnership For Civic Change (2005). Addressing the Real Issues. Available: www.pew-partnerhsip.org/pubs/rwa/summary/real_issues.html.

[7] Adapted by CESAR from Drug Strategies. (2004) “Drugs and Crime Across America : Police Chiefs Speak Out.” Available: http://www.drugstrategies.org/police_poll.pdf

[8] Bence, M., Brandon , R., Lee, I., Tran, H. University of Washington . (2000). Impact of peer substance use on middle school performance in Washington : Summary. Washington Kids Count/University of WA: Seattle , WA . Available: http://www.hspc.org/wkc/special/pdf/peer_sub_091200.pdf

[9] Ibid

[10] Brown S.A. , Tapert S.F., Granholm E., et al. (2000). Alcoholism: Clinical and experimental research. “Neurocognitive functioning of adolescents: Effects of protracted alcohol use.” Volume 24, Issue 2. Psychology Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System and the Department of Psychiatry, University of California : San Diego , CA .

[11] Ibid.

[12] Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G. & Schulenberg, J. E. (December 11, 2007). Overall, illicit drug use by American teens continues gradual decline in 2007. University of Michigan News and Information Services: Ann Arbor , MI. [On-line]. Available: www.monitoringthefuture.org.

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] PRIDE – Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education. (2006). PRIDE questionnaire report for grades 6-12: 2004-2005 PRIDE Surveys national summary/total. Bowling Green : KY. Available: http://www.pridesurveys.com/customercenter/us04ns.pdf

[17] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Education and SAMHSA's National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information. (2002) Prevention Alert . “Schools and Substance Abuse (I): It Costs $41 Billion. Volume 5, Number 10. Available: http://www.health.org/govpubs/prevalert/v5/5.aspx

[18] Taft, Hope R. (May 19, 1999). Helping Youth Succeed . Columbus Foundation.

[19] Swisher, John. (2004). Journal of Primary Prevention. “Cost-benefit estimates in prevention research.”

[20] Washington State Institute For Public Policy. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia : WA. Available: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf

[21] Pentz, M. A. (1998). NIDA Research Monograph No. 176 . “Costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of comprehensive drug abuse prevention.” In Bukoski, W. J. & Evans, R. I (Eds.). U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington , DC : U.S.

[22] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1997). Preventing drug use among children and adolescents: A research-based guide . Bethesda : MD. Available: www.nida.nih.gov/prevention/prevopen.html

[23] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2002). The national household survey on drug abuse report. “Marijuana use and drug dependence.” Rockville : MD. Available: http://www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/2k2/MJ&dependence/MJ&dependence.htm

[24] Grant, B. F. (1998). Alcohol Health and Research World. “The impact of a family history of alcoholism on the relationship between age at onset of alcohol use and DSM-IV alcohol dependence: Results from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey.” Volume 22, Issue 2. Bethesda : MD.