In an effort to win the current war on drugs, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Rehabilitation Act of 1986 increased funding to communities, prevention and treatment agencies, and the public schools. The particular focus of the Act is to deter young people from initial drug use as well as to reduce existing drug abuse. Despite this focus on prevention, over the past decade federal expenditures on the war against drugs have consistently been apportioned utilizing a formula1 whereby only approximately 15 percent of the funds have gone to drug abuse prevention. The remaining 85 percent of the funds have been distributed by an allocation of less than 15 percent for drug treatment and the majority of the funds (70 percent) allocated for interdiction and enforcement. The distribution of funds appropriated by the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act shows a national ratio of seven-tenths of the funds distributed to local educational associations and approximately three-tenths provided to "seed" community-based substance abuse prevention planning projects.2
Thus, the majority of the responsibility for addressing the problems related to effective drug prevention among youth has been placed on the schools. Indeed, one might argue that, in general, communities place both the ownership of the drug problem among youth and the need for a prevention solution upon the educational system. Concurrently, new research efforts by Klitzner3 and Bangert-Drowns4 point to the concern that the educational system is not satisfactorily meeting those prevention needs. This article will utilize drug usage information collected from youth in North Central Idaho and information collected regarding community drug prevention programs in the same region. These data help determine if the schools truly do own the problem. The second question is, whether or not schools own the problem, should schools, in fact, absolutely own the solution?

Efficacy of Drug Education

Recent research efforts related to prevention activities have addressed two issues: are existing programs effective, and, secondly, what risk factors or combination of factors must be addressed to successfully implement drug prevention programs? In his article "School-based drug education in North America: What is wrong? What can be done?" Goodstadt (1986) reviewed current research in an effort to answer those questions. The multi-faceted areas of failure he cited included inadequate program planning, program development which encompasses isolationist philosophy and fails to tie the student into the "real world," poor program implementation, and little or inadequate evaluation efforts.5 Other researchers support these contentions regarding failure in drug prevention programs. For instance, "according to Polich, 'no presently available approach to alcohol prevention appears to warrant major investments.' "6 Social inoculation strategies focusing on countering peer pressure may not be effective because peer pressure may not be as significant in the etiology of alcohol use among adolescents as we thought it to be.7 If not peer pressure, what then are the causes of adolescent use of alcohol? What differences exist among the causes of abuse of alcohol when compared to the use patterns? The importance of factors outside the classroom is acknowledged since in a very widely used prevention curriculum, Here's Looking at You, prevention strategies are "too limited in their influence because they are only implemented in the classroom and after other important influences are already in place which are not subject to classroom change8" Thus, a growing number of researchers are arguing for broader community involvement beyond the schools.

Risk Factors

Recently, a proliferation of research has centered around the relationship between the prevalence of identified risk factors and their relationships with alcohol and other drug use/abuse. This approach is adapted from the epidemiological model which follows patterns of vulnerability and susceptibility due to increased exposure to risk. Hypothetically, as a person accumulates a greater number of risk factors regardless of which ones are specifically collected, his/her risk for abusing alcohol and other drugs increases proportionally.

Bry, et al. (1982) isolated the risk factors of low grade point average in school, lack of religiosity, early alcohol use, low self-esteem, psychopathology, and poor relationships with parents as high predictors of vulnerability to abuse.9 The four risk factors of lack of social conformity, sensation seeking, perceived peer drug use, and perceived adult drug use were added by Newcomb.10 The only risk factor directly associated to youth within the school milieu was low academic achievement.

A list of risk factors for substance abuse which reflect a more sociological connection was developed by Hawkins in 198611 and 1988.12 These risk factors included community laws and norms favorable to drug use, low neighborhood attachment and community disorganization, and economic and social deprivation. Of the 15 identified risk factors, only two relate to the school setting: little commitment to school and academic failure.

Since a number of the above cited risk factors are related to peer pressure, the schools have become a natural focus as they offer the means of imparting peer association. However, since the risk factors related to peer pressure are often only part of a multi-risk profile (in which additional factors fall outside the influence of schools), the focus on peer pressure activities in schools as a means of drug prevention falls well short of prevention goals.

Clearly, the key risk factors are not ones over which schools have either power or control since so very few components are within their domain. Of the risk factors for drug use/abuse among youth, only three of the 25 identified above are related to the educational setting: low academic achievement, little commitment to school, and academic failure. It is not surprising, then, to find that existing school-provided drug prevention programs are less than effective.

Drug Education Infusion Project in North Central Idaho

In 1987, the Drug Education Infusion Project (DEIP) at Lewis-Clark State College surveyed over 5,000 junior and senior high school students in a total of 20 school districts in north central Idaho and the contiguous school districts in southeastern Washington. This voluntary, anonymous survey as reported by Mayton13 was conducted to determine students' attitudes and perceptions about drugs and drug use, factual knowledge about alcohol and other drugs, and effectiveness of current drug education techniques. Students also responded to a series of questions designed to assess the levels of risk for alcohol and other drug use present in the regions' youth.

Nine risk factors were identified as being prevalent indicators of use and abuse of drugs among the youth in the region. In declining order of prevalence they were: perceived levels of adult drug use; perceived levels of peer drug use; alcohol use at an early age; perceived parental approval of drug use; limited educational plans; perceived peer approval of drug use; low religious commitment; low educational achievement; and reported school truancy.

Of the three factors which addressed risks in the educational setting, two (low achievement and school attendance) were rated as the least reported of the original nine. The third factor, limited educational plans, was reported by a significant number of youth (27.9 percent). Two-thirds of youths' most reported factors leading to drug use/abuse were those which involved the perceived levels of parent and peer use/ approval, alcohol use at an early age, and low religious commitment. Thus, the majority of reasons given by the this population's youths were not within the educational domain.

Delphi Study Responses of Community Members in North Central Idaho

In the same region of north central Idaho from which the youth were surveyed, a Delphi study of community leaders was conducted. These fifty-five adult participants included seven community leaders, 20 service providers, nine school personnel, 14 law enforcement officers and judges, one health care professional, and four members of the clergy on local, county, regional, and state levels. In addition to occupation, the 33 male and 19 female respondents represented the ethnic diversity of the area (55 Caucasian; three Native Americans) and included representation from the smaller, more rural areas. These participants identified community enabling of alcohol, family difficulties, and lack of alternative activities for youth as key factors in the drug use/abuse by youth in the area.14

This information is important in the development of prevention programs for two reasons. Firstly, many of the risk factors identified for the region's population were non-school related, i.e., over one-third of the population is at risk for substance abuse because of demographic factors such as low income, single-parent families, and unemployment. Extrapolating from the divorce rate, drop-out rates, and estimates of illiteracy in the population, it is likely that the percentage of youth at risk for substance abuse because of social and family factors is as high as 50 percent. According to the report, "data collected on patterns of use indicated that family and community factors play a critical role in determining early use of alcohol, tobacco, and controlled substances."" Furthermore, this needs assessment document identified the interaction among individual behaviors, school, experiences, family problems, economic disadvantages, and community enabling as critical to drug use and abuse among young people.

Of all the factors listed in this report, illiteracy or poor basic skills was the only one clearly within the domain of the educational setting. Data collected on this problem, however, indicated that this variable was also dependent on other forces including family literacy levels, lower socioeconomic status, and parenting skills. Furthermore, in order to deal effectively with the basic skills problems, early intervention in the lower grades is critical as is the ability of the schools to create a partnership with other agencies in order to effectively refer families to parenting skills courses, counseling, adult basic education, and social welfare services.

Nonetheless, despite the overwhelming belief that alcohol and other drug problems emerge from community/family interactions, respondents in this needs assessment still identified school prevention programs as a critical resource for addressing drug problems. Given the lack of coordination among agencies serving families in trouble and the lack of resources to adequately address the problem, most interviewees reverted back to giving the schools both the responsibility for the solution and the locus of control over any interaction between the school and other agencies.

Conclusions and Recommendations

While schools do impact children in many ways, the schools themselves are not generally equipped to deal with the interaction of outside-of-school variables. For the youth of the region in the DEIP study, limited educational plans, low educational achievement, and school attendance were the only three of the nine risk factors related to drug use/abuse clearly within the domain of the schools. These were substantially less prevalent than the other risk factors which lie within the community domain. Yet, the community Delphi respondents still identified school prevention programs as a critical resource for addressing drug and alcohol problems and even gave the schools both the responsibility for the solution as well as the locus of control over any interaction between the school and social agencies. It cannot be assumed, however, that the schools have the resources, capacities, or skills to do so.

The information generated on patterns of drug use and abuse and current attempts to address issues related to youth substance abuse indicate that schools alone cannot win this war. Schools neither singularly own the problem nor does their traditional domain impact the majority of the areas of risk or risk interaction factors. As Klitzner stated,

...it is increasingly apparent that the influences that increase or decrease the probability that youth will use substances are found at all levels of society including the individual use, the peer group, the family, the school, the community, and the larger society."16

Many of the proponents of school-based drug education have mistakenly and naively entrusted the responsibility to the educational system for the solution of preventing substance abuse. Research continues to impress upon us that the student is multifaceted and possesses many roles outside the school setting. Many of the stand-alone drug prevention curricula and programs imply that the child exists only within this vacuum. Also, many of the drug prevention curricula are erroneously based upon the philosophy that they are impacting a single causative factor. Research, again, supports that it is a variety of factors which adversely effects the non-use philosophy of our youth, and it is the interaction of a number of factors which causes the risk to use and abuse drugs.
If schools do not either singularly create or cause the drug use and abuse problems of our youth, wherein lies the solution? It must lie in exploring drug prevention from an integrative approach. To truly become successful in the war on drugs, we must develop strategies whereby the community and the schools can more optimally collaborate.

Liza Nagel, Ph.D., is director of drug education in the school of professional studies at Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston, Idaho.

Mary Emery, Ph.D., is director of the office of grants and contracts at the Institute for Community Development at Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston, Idaho.

Cheryl Granby, Ed.D., is an assistant professor in the division of education at Lewis-Clark State College, Lewiston, Idaho.

Endnotes

1 National Drug Control Strategy, A Nation Responds to Drug Use, Budget Summary, Office of National Drug Control Policy, January 1992

2 Federal Register, Feb. 4, 1992.

3 Klitzner, M.D. Report to Congress: Effectiveness of Federal, State, and Local Drug Prevention /Education Programs. Part 2: An Assessment of the research on School-Based Prevention Programs. U.S. Department of Education,  Washington, D.C., 1988.

4 Bangert-Drowns, Robert, "The Effects of School-Based Substance Abuse Education — A Meta-Analysis," Journal of Drug Education, 1988.

5 Goodstadt, Michael, "School-Based Drug Education in North America: What is Wrong? What Can be Done?" Journal of School Health,1986.

6 °Austin, Gregory A. "Prevention Goals, Methods and Outcomes," Prevention Research Update, Western Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities,1988.

7 Ibid

8 Ibid.

9 Bry, B.H., P. McKeon and R.J. Pandina. "Extent of Drug Use as a Function of Number of Risk Factors," Journal of Abnormal Psychology,1982.

10 Newcomb, Michael, et al. "Risk Factors for Drug Use Among Adolescents: Concurrent and Longitudinal Analysis," American Journal of Public Health,1988.

11 Hawkins, J. David, Denise M. Lishner, Richard F. Catalano and Matthew 0. Howard. "Childhood Predictors of Adolescent Substance Abuse: Toward an Empirically Grounded Theory,"Journal of Children in Contemporary Society,1986.

12 Hawkins, J. David, Jenson, Jeffrey M., Catalano, Richard F., and Lishner, Denise M. 'Delinquency and Drug Abuse: Implications for Social Services," Social Service Review, 1988.

13 Mayton, Daniel. "Risk Factors for Substance Abuse for Rural Adolescents," Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Psychological Association, 1989.

14 Emery, Mary, et al. "One Miracle Please! A Needs Assessment on Drug and Alcohol Prevention for Region II of Idaho," Prepared for the Region II Substance Abuse Prevention Planning Team, Lewis-Clark State College, 1990.

15 /bid

16 Klitzner, Op cit.