Download:
pdf |
pdfAttachment 1
Drug-Free Communities Authorizing and
Re-Authorizing Legislation & STOP Act Legislation
FG"1i7
ii-o
DFC
Authorization
And
Re-authorizing Legislation
*
k
THE
•
DRUG-FREE
COMMUNITIES ACT
OF. 1997
*
*
*
*
On June 27. 1997, President Clinton signed into law The Drug-Free
Communities Act of 1997. This act will ser'e as a catalyst for
increased citizen participation in our efforts to reduce substance use
among our youth and provide community antidrug coalitions with
much needed funds to carry out their important missions.
V
Here are some the highlights of the Act:
Requires grants to be made to coalitions of representatives of youth,'
parents, businesses, the media, schools, youth organizations, law
enforcement, religious or fraternal organizations, civic groups, health
care professionals, State, local, or tribal governmental agencies, and
other organizations.
Requires the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
in canying out the Program, to: (1) make and track grants to grant
recipients; (2) provide for technical assistance and training, data collection and dissemination of information on state-of-the-art practices
that the Director determines to be effective in reducing substance
abuse; and (3) provide for the general administration of the Program.
Authorizes appropriations for FY 1998 through 2002.
Sets forth specified criteria a coalition shall meet to be eligible to
receive an initial or a renewal grant. Prescribes limitations concerning: (1) grant amounts; (2) coalition awards; and (3) rural coalition
grants.
•0
If
*
:•
Requires the minimization of reporting requirements by grant recipients. The ease of the application and reporting requirements will be a
key feature of this program.
Establishes the Advisory Commission on Drig-Free Communities to
advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Director
concerning activities carried out under the Program. Sets forth the
duties of the Advisory Commission.
4
*
Visit our Website at www.whitehou.sedrugpolicygov
,1*
-
*
p
p
p
*
-
.•
I
4
'
,-----.-..
.-.
.---
111 STAT. 224
oil
I
- --
1997
-________
11
tUI
June 27, 1991
(Hit 955J
sive, long-term commitment to reduce substanee abuse among youth, and foz
of
&nate
other purposes.
Drug-Free
Be it enacted by the
and House
Representatives
the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled,
of 1997.
SECTION 1. SHORT
Communities Act
•
To amend the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 to establish a program
to support and encourage 'ocal communities that first demonstrate a compreben-
21 USC 1501
.
This Act
of 1997".
may
of
tE.
be cited
as
the "Drug-Free
Communities
.
Act
SEC. 2. NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAM.
S
(a) IN Grt.-The National IIarcotics. Leadership Act of
1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is amended(1) by inserting between sections 1001 and 1002 the
following;
-
.
4
"CRAPTER 1-OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL
POLICY";
•
and
(2) by adding at the end the following;
"CHAPTER 2-DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES-
21 USC 1521.
"SEC. 1021. FINDINGS.
"Congress finds the following;
"(1) Substance abuse among youth has more than doubled
in the s-year period preceding 1996, with substantial increases
in the use of marijuana, inhalants, cocaine, methamphetaxnine,
.
•
.
LSD, and heroin.
.
"(2) The most dramatic increases in substance abuse has
occurred among 13- and 14-year-dds.
"(3) Casual or periodic substance abuse by youth today
will contribute to hard core or chronic substance abuse by
•
.
•
*
..
the next generation of adults.
"(4) Substance abuse is at the core of other problems,
.
such as rising violent teenage and violent gang crime, increas-
•
ing health care coats, HIV infections, teenage pregnancy, high
school drpouts, and lower economic productivity.
"(5 ) Increases in su bstance abuse among youth are due
1
-
in large part to an erosion of understanding by youth of the
high risks associated with substance abuse, and to the softening
of peer norms against use.
T
,. I,
/
_I
--;
.:
-.
• .
I
' .'
-cLc
-.
5
---,-- i.,.
•-
a
•.
S.
4
I
•
.
4
4
.
.
- _______________.
V
4
:'''' '-•-c•.
PUBLIC
LAW 105-20-JUNE- 27, 1997
4
4
,
4
s'4--
4
p
4
.:..;
.
111 STAT. 225
"(6XA) Substance abuse is a preventable behavior and a
treatable disease; and
"(BXi) during the 13-year period beginning with 1979,
monthly use of illegal drugs among youth 12 to 17 years of
age declined by over 70 percent; and
"(U) data suggests that if parents would simply talk to
their children regularly about the dangers of substance abuse,
use among youth could be expected to decline by as much
as 30 percent.
"(7) Community anti-drug coalitions throughout the United
States are successfully developing and implementing comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse
among youth on a sustained basis.
"(8) rnteovenental cooperation and coordination
through national, State, and local or tribal leadership and
partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of substance
abuse among youth in communities throughout the United
States.
s
)22. PURPOSES.
,,he purposes of this chapter are-
*
21 USC 1522.
"(1) to reduce substance abuse among youth in communities
throughout the United States, and over time, to reduce substance abuse among adults;
"(2) to strengthen collaboration among communities, the
-Federal Government, and State, local, and tribal governmenth•
"(3) to enhance intergovernmental cooperation anc(
coordination on the issue of substance abuse among youth;
"(4) to serve as a catalyst for increased citizen partidpation
and greater collaboration among all sectors and organizations
of a community that JIrst demonstrates a long-term commitxnentto reducing substance abuse among youth;
• "(5) to rechannel resoUrces from the fiscal year 1998
Federal drug control budget to provide technical assistance,
guidance, and financial support to communities that demonstrate a long-term commitment in reducing substance abuse
nniong youth;
"(6) to disseminate to communities timely- information
regarding the state-of-the-art practices and initiatives that have
proven to be effective in reducing substance abuse among youth;
"(7) to enhance, not supplant, local community initiatives
reducing substance abuse among youth; and
"(8) to encourage the creation of and support for community
anti-drug coalitions throughout the United States.
EC. 1023. DEFIRrrIONS.
.
*
.
S
*
.•
.
.
-
:
.-•
21 USC 1523.
"In this chapter-i
"(1) Am as'ra&roa.-The term 'Administrator' means the
.thninistrator appointed by the Director under section 103 1(c).
"(2) ADVISORY COMMISSION.-The term 'Advisory Comxnismeans the Advisory Commission established under section
I..
j'4(3) CowNrkY.-The term 'community'- shall have
the
..4ning provided that term by the Administrator, in consultation with the Advisory Commission.
"(4) Dmzc'roL-The term ¶Director' means the Director
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
,-
*
•.
-*
1.
111 STAT. 226
"(5) ELIGIBLE COALJTION.-The term . 'eligible coalition'
means a coalition that meets the applicable criteria under
section 1082(a).
•
S
"(6) GiuNr RECIPIENT.-The term rant recipient' means
the recipient of a grant award under section 1082.
S
"(7) NoNPRorr OROMGZATION.-The - terxn.Ingnproflt
ihtiOhe ilefliider section
organizati6ii meais an- o
'501(cX3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that is exempt
from taxation under section 501(a) of the1nterna1:evenue
Code of 1986
"(8) PROGRAM.-ThO term 'Program' means the program
established under section 1081(a).
"(9) SUBSTANCE ABUSE.-The term 'substance abuse'
means"(A) the illegal use or abuse of drugs, including substances listed in schedules I through V of section 112
of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812);
4
:
•
*
PUBLIC LW_12JJNE-2?-i997
"(B) the abuse of inhalants; or
"(C) the use of alcohol, 'tobacco, or other related product
as such use is prohibited by State or local law.
"(10) Youm.-The term 'youth' shall have the meaning
provided that term by the Administrator, in consultation with
the Advisory Commission.
21 USC 1524.
i_S
"SEC. 1024. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
"(a) IN Ga.4s.-There are authorized to be appropriated
to the Office of National Drug Control Policy to carry out this
chapter"(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1908;
"(2) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
"(3) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
"(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
"(5) $43,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.
"(b) AMINISTRXFIVE Cosrs.-Not more than the following
percentages of the amounts authorized under subsection (a) may
be used to pay administrative costs:
"(1)10 percent for fiscal year 1998.
"(2)6 percent for fiscal year 1999.
"(3)4 percent for fiscal year 2000.
"(4)3 percent for fiscal year 2001.
"(5)3 percent for fiscal year 2002.
-
"Subchapter I-Drug-Free Communities Support Program
21 USC 1531. -.
S
Grant3.
•
---5'
-
5
'-.''-•.
-'
5' 5•5S
"SEC. 103L ESTABLISHMENT OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNiTIES SUPPORT
PROGRAM.
"(a) ESrABusffINr.-The Director shall establish a program
to support communities in the development and implementation
of comprehensive, long-term plans and programs to prevent and
treat substance abuse among youth.
"(b) PROGRAM.-In carrying out the Program, the Director
shall"(1) make and track grants to grant recipients;
"(2) provide for technical assistance and training, data
collection, and dissemination of information on state.of-theart practices that the Director determines to be effective in
reducing substance abuse; and
SS•55• S5.S_. 5. '-'
• '5-
-y5. '
)
.4
••
-
o
*
S
.
-
"
------
I4\
4 4
-.
'-
PUBLIC LAW 105-20--JUNE 27, 1997
-
-I.
-
111 STAT. 227
4(3) provide for the general administration of the Program.
"(c) ADMINIsraT1ON.-Not later than 30 days after receiving
recommendations from the Advisory Commission under section
1042(aXl), the Director shall appoint an Administrator to carry
out the Program.
"(d) CONTRACTING.-The Director may employ any necessary
staff and may enter into contracts or agreements with national
drug control agencies, inciuding interagency agreements to delegate
authority for the execution of grants and for such other activities
necessary to carry out this chapter.
)
"SEC 1032. pROGa#,MAUrH0RIZATI0N.
21 USC 1532.
"(a) Grwr ELIGIBILZTY.-To be eligible to receive an initialgrant or a renewal grant under this subchapter, a coalition shall
meet each of the following criteria:
"(1) M'PUCATION.-The coalition shall submit an application to the Administrator in accordance with section 1033(aX2).
"(2) MAJOR SECTOR INVOLVEMENT.-
"(A) IN GENitAL.-The coalition shall consist of I or
more representatives of each of the following, categories:
"(i)Youth.
"(ii) Parents.
"(lii) Businesses.
"(IV) The media.
"(v) Schools.
"(vi) Organizations serving youth.
"(vii) Law enforcement.
"(viii) Religious or fraternal, organizations.
"(ix) Civic and volunteer groups.
"(x) Health care professionals.
"(xi) State, local, or tribal governmental agencies
with expertise in the field of substance abuse (including, if applicable, the State authority with primary
authority for substance abuse).
"(xii) Other organizations involved in reducing
substonce abuse.
"(B) ELECTED 0FFICIALS.-If feasible, in addition to
representatives from the categories listed in subparagraph
(A), the coalition shall have an elected official (or a representative of an elected official) from"(I) the Federal Government and
"(ii) the government of the appropriate State and
political subdivision thereof or the governing body or
an Indian tribe (as that term is defined in section
4(e) of the Indian Self4)etermination Act (25 U.S.C.
4&)b(e))).
"(C) REPBESENTATION-An individual who is a member
of the coalition may serve on the coalition as a representative of not more than I category listed under subparagraph
"(3) CoMMn,&g.-The coalition shall demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the Administrator"(A) that the representatives of the coalition have
worked together on substance abuse reduction initiatives,
which, at a minimum, Includes initiatives that target drugs referenced in section 1023(SXA), for a periodf not less
*
:
;;.'
'
'...
.,.
-.
"
_.;,.
-U-STAT 2W____ PUBLIC LAW 1O5-2oUNE27-I997____
•
than 6 month, acting through entities such as task forces,
subcommittees, or community boards; and
"(B) 8ubstantial participation from volunteer leaders
in the community involved (especially in cooperation with
individuals involved with youth such as parents, teachers,
andmemberaoftheclergy)_-:--.
A
sTdEs.--Thècàiliti6n shall, with
respect to the community involved"(A)- .-havan its principal-. missiou the reduction of
substance abuse, which, at a mininaurn, includes the use
•
and abuse of drugs referenced in section 1023(9XA), in
a comprehensive and long-term manner, with a primary
focus on youth in the community;
"(B) describe and document the nature and extent of
•
the substance abuse problem, which, at a niinimuni,
includes the use and abuse of drugs referenced in section
1023(9XA), in the community;
"(CXi) provide a description of substance abuse prevention and treatment programs and activities, which, at a
minimum, includes programs and activities relating to the
use and abuse of drugs referenced in section 1023(9XA),
in existence at the time of the grant application; and
"(ii) identify substance abuse programs and service
gaps, which, at a minimum, include.s programs and gap3
relating to the use and abuse of drugs referenced in section
1023(9XA), in the community;
"(D) develop a strategic plan to reduce substance abuse
among youth, which, at a minimum, includes the use and
abuse of drugs referenced in section 1023(9XA), in a comprehensive and long-term fashion; and
"(E) work to develop a consensus regarding the priorities of the community to combat substance abuse among
youth, which, at a minimum, includes the use and abuse
of drugs referenced in section 1023(9XA).
"(5) Sus mAnun'y.-The coalition shall demonstrate that
the coalition is an ongoing concern by demonstrating that the
coalition"(A) is"(iXI) a nonprofit organization; or
"(II) an entity that the Administrator determines
to be appropriate; or
"(ii) part of, or is associated with, an established
legal entity;
"(B) receives financial support (including, in the
discretion of the Administrator, in-kind contributions) front
non-Federal sources; and
"(C) has a strategy to solicit substantial financial
support from non-Federal sources to ensure that the coalition and the programs operated by the coalition are selfsustaining.
"(6) ACCOTJNTABLUTY.-The coalition shall-
*
4
-.
)
•
"(A) establish a system to measure and report
outcomes"(1) consistent with common indicators and evalua-
*
tion protocols established by the Administrator, and
"(ii) approved by the Administrator
"(B) conduct-
-I
1*
•
I
.4.
4.
r ç
.. .1
-fl---*,-.
- ._.,
PUBLIC LAW 105-20--JUNE 27. 1997
111 STAT. 229
"(i) for an initial grant under this siThchapter, an
initial benchmark survey of drug use among youth
(or use local surveys or performance measures available or accessible in the community at the time of
the grant application); and
"(ii) biennial. surveys (or incorporate local surveys
in existence at the time of the evaluation) to measure
the progress and effectiveness of the coalition; and
"(C) provide assurances that the entity conducting an
evaluation under this paragraph, or from which the coalition receives information, has experience"(i) in gathering data related to substance abuse
among youth; or
"(ii) in evaluating the effectiveress of community
anti-drug coalitions.
"(b) GRANT AMOUNTS."(1) IN GENERAL."(A) Gam.-
"(i) IN GENERAL.-Subject to clause (iv), for a fiscal
year, the Administrator may grant to an eligible coalition under this paragraph, an amount not to exceed
the amount of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind contributions, for that fiscal
year.
"(ii) SUsPENsION OF GRANTS.-If such grant recipient fails to continue to meet the criteria specified in
subsection (a), the Adiwirilatrator may suspend the
grant, after providing written notice to the grant recipient and an opportunity to appeal.
"(iii) RENEWAL GRANTS.-Subject to clause (iv), the
Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant
recipient under this subparagraph for each fiscal year
following the fiscal year for which an initial grant
is awarded, in an aiount not to exceed the amount
of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, including
in-kind contributions, for that fiscal year, during the
4-year period following the period of the initial grant
"(iv) LIMrrATION.-The amount of a grant award
under this subparagraph may not exceed $100,000 for
a fiscal year.
"(B) CoAlrnoN AWARDS.-
"(i) IN GENERAL-Except as provided in clause
(ii), the Aamini.ctrator may with respect to a cornmunity, make a pnt to 1 eligible coalition that represents
that community.
"(ii) EXCEPTION.-The Administrator may make a
grant to more than 1 eligible coalition that represents
a community if"(I) the eligible coalItions demonstrate that the
coalitions are collaborating with one another and
"(ri) each of the coalitions has independently
met the requirements set forth in subsection (a).
"(2) RURAL COALITION GRANTS."(A) IN GENERAL."(i) IN GENERAL-In addition to awarding grants
under paragraph (1), to stimulate the development of
coalitions in sparsely populated and rural areas, the
p
4
4
4.
4.
4
.
11 STAT. 230
4
-
PUBLIC-LAW405-.20JUNE 27, 1997
Administrator, in consultation with the Adviso
Commission, may award a grant in accordance wi
this section to a coalition that represents a coon
with a population that does not exceed 30,000 mdlvi ua1s;aardJnggt under this. parap the
Aiteintstrator may- waveany-requirelnent under sub
section (a) if the Administrator considers that waiver
to be appzopIit
-
anQuEMENT.-Stibject
to
MATCHING
"(ii)
subparagraph (C) for a fiscal year, the Administratçr
may grant to an eligible coalition under this paragraph,
an amount not to exceed the amount of non-Federal
funds raised by the coalition, including In-kind contributions, for that fiscal year.
"(ifi). SUSPENSiON OF GEANTS.-Jf such grant recipient fails to continue to meet any criteria specified
in subsection (a) that baa not been waived by the
MminiRtrator pursuant to clause (i), the Administrator
may suspend the grant after providing written notice
to the grant recipient, and an opportunity to appeal.
'1(B) RENEWAL GRAN.-The Administrator may award
a renewal grant to an eligible coalition that is a grant
recipient under this paragraph for each fiscal year following
the fiscal yearfor. which an initial grant is awarded, in
an amount not to exceed the amount of non-Federal funds
raised by the coalition, including in-kind contributions, during the4-year period following the period of the initial
grant.
"(C) LIMITATIONS."(1) AMOUNT.-The amount of a grant award under
this paragraph shall not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal
year.
"(ii) AWARDS.-With respect to a county referred
to in subparagraph (A), the Mnthiistrator may award
a grant under this section to not more than 1 eligible
coalition that represents the county.
11•• •I"
1'
V
21 USC 1533
"SEC. 1033. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION wiTh
RESPECT TO GRANT RECIPIENTS.
"(1) CoALrrIoI( INFORMATION.-
"(1) GEima.L AtJD1TING Au'rHORnY.-For the purpose of
audit and examination, the Administrator"(A) shall have access to any books, documents, papers,
and records that are pertinent to any grant or grant
renewal request under this cbapter and
"(B) may periodically request information from a grant
recipient to ensure that the grant recipient meets the
applicable criteria under section 1032(a).
"(2) APPLICATION PROCESS.-The Administrator shall issue
a request for proposal regarding, with respect to the grants
awarded under section 1032, the application process, grant
renewal, and suspension or withholding of renewal grants. Each
- application under this paragraph shall be in writing and shalt
be subject to review by the Administrator.
"(3) R ORTING.-The Administrator shall, to the maximum
extent practicable and in a manner consistent with applicable
law, minim,e reporting requirements by a grant recipient and
I'
4-.S-
PUBLIC LAW 105-20-3IJNE 27, 1997
in STAT. 231
expedite any application for a renewal grant made under this
subchapter.
"(b) DATA COLLECTION m DISSEMINATION."(1) IN GENERAL-The Administrator may collect data
from"(A) national substance abuse organizations that work
with eligible coalitions, community anti-drug coalitions,
departments or agencies of the Federal Government, or
State or local governments and the governing bodies of
Indian tribes; and
"(B) any other entity or organization that carries out
activities that relate to the purposes of the Program.
"(2) ACTIVITIES OF ADMINISTRATOR-The Administrator
may"(A) evaluate the utility of specific initiatives relating to the purposes of the Program;
"(B) conduct an evaluation of the Program; and
"(C) disseminite information described in this subsection to"(i) eligible coalitions and other substance abuse
organizations; and
"(ii) the general public.
"SEC. 1O4. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING.
"(a) IN GENERAL."(1) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND AGREEMENTS.---With
respect to any grant recipient or other organization, the
Mrninistrator may-
•
•
21 usc iss4.
"(A) offer technical assistance and training; and
"(B) enter into contracts and cooperative agreements.
"(2) COORDINATION OF PROGRAMS.-The Administrator may
facilitate the coordination of programs between a grant recipient and other organizations and entities.
"(b) TRAINING.-The Adniinistrator may provide training to any
representative desigaated by a grant recipient in"(1) coalition building
"(2) task force development;
"(3) mediation and facilitation, direct service, assessment
and evaluation; or
"(4) any other activity related to the purposes of the
-
Program
_________
ç
"Subchapter U-Advisory Corn nwsaon
"SEC. 104L EsrABTirMRMT OF ADVISORY COMMISSION.
21 USC 1ML
"(a) EstBusnNT.-There is established a commission to
be known as the 'Advisory Commission on Drug-Free Communities'.
"(b) PUEPOSE.-The Advisory Commission shall advise, consult
with, and make recommendations to the Director concerning
matters related to the activities carried out under the Program.
"SEC. 1042. Dt?fIES.
"(a) IN GENERAL.-The Advisory Commission"(I) shall, not later than 30 days after its first meeting,
make recommendations to the Director regarding the selection
ofanAdnun1strato
0
_________________________
21 USC 1542.
STAT. 232
•
•
T
"(2) may make recomméniinUölWt1lie Director regarding
any grant, contract, or cooperative agreement made by the
Program;
"(3) may make recommendations to the Director regarding
the activities of the Program;
*
•
•
4
•
"(A) collect, by correspo4cr by personal investiga
tion, information concerning initiatives, studies, services
programs, or other activities of coalitions or organizationf
working in the field of substance abuse in the Unite3
States or any other country; and
"(B) with the approval of the Director make tlu
information reterred to in subparap (A) availabl
through appropriate publications or other methods for tb4
benefit of eligible coalitions and the general public; ani
"(6) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshop
and conferences.
a
Noti&ation.
"(b) REC0MMEN'DATIoNS.-If the Director rejects any rec
onunendation of the Advisory Commission under subsection (aXi
the Director shall notify the Advisory Commission in writing C
•
•
•
"SEC. 1043. MEMBEESKIP.
Prtsident.
"(a) Ii G ER.-The President shall appoint 11 membe
to the Advisory Commission as follows:
"(1) four members shall be appointed from the genen
public and shall include leaders"(A) in fields of youth development, public policy, la
or business; or
"(B) of nonprofit organizations or private foundatio
that fund substance abuse programs.
"(2) four members shall be appointed from the leadia
representatives of national substance abuse reduction organiz
tions, of which no fewer than three members shall have exte
sive training or experience in drug prevention.
"(3) three members shall be appointed from the leadi
representatives of State substance abuse reduction organil
tions.
-,
"(b) CHAIBPERSON-The Advisory Commission shall elect
chairperson or co-chairpersons from among it8 members.
•
0.
21 USC 1544.
•.
•
4
a
•
the reasons for the rejection not later than 15 days after receivin
the recommendation.
"(c) Coucr op IirrEsr.-A member of the Advisor
Commission shall recuse himself or herself from any decision tlu
would constitute a conflict of interest.
21 USC 1543.
•
•
"(4) may make recommenIationa to the Director regarding
any policy orcri aestab1ishedJythaDjreçtor t carry 0ut
the Program;
"(5)may-
••
•
PUBLIC LAW 105-20--JUNE 27, 1997
"(c) Ex OFFicio MEM13EES.-The: ex officio membership oft
Advisory Commission shall consist of any two officers or employc
of the United States that the Director determines to be nece-ss
for the Advisory Commission to effectively carry out its functioi
"SEC. 1044. COMPENSATION.
"(a) IN GENsnu..--Members of the Advisory Commission v
are officers or employees of the United States shall not rece
any additional compensation for service on the Advisory Comir
sion. The remaining members of the Advisory Commission a
receive, for each day (including travel time) that they are enga
*
•4
•.
•.;.:
•
--.
.
.
a'
-
•
-
-.
.
,
0
0
*
-
PUBLIC LAW 105-20--JUNE 27, 1997
111 STAT. 233
the performance of the functions of the Advisory Commission,
mpensation at rates not to exceed the daily equivalent to the
anal rate of basic pay payable for grade GS-lO of the General
iledule.
"(b) TRAVEL EXPENSES.-Each member of the Advisory Coinznism shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
,bsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title
United States Code.
SC. 104&TERMS OF OFFICE.
"(a) IN GENEft-Subject to subsection (b), the term of office
21 USC 1545.
a member of the Advisory Commission shall be 3 years, except
at, as designated at the time of appointment"(1) of the initial members appointed under section
104,3(aXl), two shall be appointed for a term of 2 years;
"(2) of the initial members appointed under section
1043(aX2), two shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and
"(3) of the initial members appointed under section
l')43(aX3), one shall be appointed for a term of 1 year.
VACANCIES.-Any member appointed to fill a vacancy for
pired term of a member shall serve for the remainder
t. 'uiexpired term. A member of the Advisory Commission
y rve after the expiration of such member's term until a
ceessor has been appointed and taken office.
-
C 1G46.MiiNG&
(a) IN G1t-After its initial meeting, the Advisory
21 USC 1546.
1047. STAFF.
"The Administrator shall make available to the Advisory
21 USC 1547.
*
mrnission shall meet, with the advanced approval of the Adminisitor at the call of the Chairperson (or Co-chairpersons) of the
Msory Commission Or a majority of its members or upon the
uest of the Director or Administrator of the Program.
"(b) QU0BuM.-Six members of the Mvinory Commission shall
•stitnte a quorum.
mmission adequate staff information, and other assistance.
_____
'-.
$
-
•'
'--'r' .
•
a'
_____
7
F
.-.
a
-
111 rAT-234---
-
PUBLICLAW 1O&-2OUNE27I99
"èc ioa rgaJtøi1ioi.
-
"Ilie Advisoiy Commission shall terniltiate at the end of fiacI
Act of 1988 (as so designated by thissection).
Approved June 21, 1991.
S
'S
*
S.
a
•
*
.
LEGISWIflVE mSTORT-H.R. 966 (& 536):
HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-105, Pt. 1 (Conno. on Go'emment Reform and
olght).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. VoL 143 (1997)
w&t
oMpu1oN ov
mm
June 27, Preoldentisi rarkL
0
DOCWS, Vol.33 (1997k
AT TEE FIRST SESSION
Begun and keU at the Ci*y of Washington on Wednasday,
the third dny ofJanuary, two thousand and one
To extend the authorization of the DngFree Communities Suppt Program for
an additional 5 years, to authorize a National Community AntIdrug Coalition
Institute, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatiuea of
the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled,
•SECTION 1. FIVB-YEAIt
TFENSION OP DRUG1tEE
PORT ROGRAM
•
COMMUNITIES SUP-
(a) Fnmn'Tos.-Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the United
States will grow by 21 percent, adding 6,5(10,000 youth to
the population of the United States. 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
DIV incidence, simply due to this population increase.
(2) According to the 1994-1996 National Household Survey,
60 percent of students age 12 to 17 who frequently cut classes
and. who reported delinquent behavior in the past 6 months
used marijuana 52 days or more in the previous year.
(3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey conducted
by the University of Washington reported that students whose
peers have little or no involvement with drinking and drugs
have higher math and reading scores than students whose
peers had low level drinking or drug use.
(4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10 c
percent of teens saw marijuana users as popular, compared
to 17 percent in 1998 and 19 percent in 1997. The rate of
past-month use of any drug among 12-to 17-year-olds. declined
26 percent between 1997. and 1999. Marijuana ue for sixth
through eighth raders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as
is use of cocaine, uihalants, and hailucinogens.
(5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United
States are successfully developing and implementing comprehensive, long-term strategies to reduce substance abuse
among youth on a sustained basis. For example:
(A) The Boston Coalition brought college and university
presidents together to create the. Cooperative Agreement
on Underage Drinking. This agreement represents the first
coordinated effort of Boston's many institutions of higher
education to address issues such as binge drinking, underage drinking, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol
abuse that exist on college and university campuses.
(B) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater
Cincinnati surveyed more than 47,000 local students in
*
.- -
H. H. 2291-2
grades 7 through 12. The results provided evidence that
the Coalition's initiatives axe working. For the first time
in a decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati appears
to be. leveling off. The data collected from the survey has
served as a tool to strengthen relatioxshlps between schools
and communities, as well as facilitate the growth of antidrug coalitions in comxntmities where such coalitions had
not existed.
(C) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strategy
to decrease the percentage of high school seniors who
reported using marijuana at least once during the most
recent 30-day period. The development of a media strategy,
the creation of a network of prevention agencies, and
discussions with high school students about the dangers
of marijuana all contributed to a decrease in the percentage
of seniors who reported using marijuana from over 22
percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 1997. The Miami Coalition
was ahle to achieve these results while national rates of
marijuana use were increasing.
(D) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with
elementary and middle school children in an attempt to
influence them toward positive life goals and discourage
them from using substances. The Partnership targeted an
area in East Nashville and created after school programs,
mentoring opportunities, attendance initiatives, and safe
passages to and frOm schooL Attendance and test scores
increased as a result of the program.
(E) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the
Bering Strit Community Partnership in Norne, Alaska,
youth identified a need for a safe, substance-free space.
With help from a variety of community partners, the Partnership staff and youth members created the Java Hut,
a substance-free coffeehouse designed for youth. The Java
Hut is helping to change norms in the community by providing a fun, youth-friendly atmosphere and activities that
are not centered around alcohol or marijuana.
(F) Portland's Regional Drug Initiative (R1)I) has promoted the establishment of drug-free workplaces among
the city's large and small employers. Over 3,000 employers
have attended an RIM training session, and of those, 92
percent have instituted drug-free workplace policies. As
a result, there has been a 5.5 percent decrease in positive
workplace drug tests.
(U) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to increase
the age at which youth first used illegal substances.
Research suggests that the later the age of first use, the
lower the risk that a young person will become a regular
substance abuser. As a result, the age of first illegal drug
use increased from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in
199'7.
(H) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend
of increased alcohol use by teenagers in the Tray commurñty. Using its TMmuitiple strategies over multiple sector?
approach, the Tray Coalition worked with parents, physicians, students, coaches, and others to address this problem
from several angles. As a result the rate of twelfth grade
students who had consumed alcohol in the past month
H.R.2291-3
decreased from 62.1 percent to 53.3 percent between 1991
and 1998, and the rate of eighth grade students decreased
from 26.3 percent to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition
believes that this decline repiesents not mly a change
in behavior on the part of students, but also a change
in the norms of the community.
(6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a
serious problem facing communities across the United States.
For example:
(A) According to the Puise Check: Trends in Drug
Abuse Mid-Year 2000 report(1) crack and powder cocaine remains the most
serious drug problem;
(ii) marijuana remains themost widely available
illicit drug, and its potency is on the rise;
(lii) treatment sources report an increase in. adnrissions with marijuana as the prinaaxy drug of abuseand adolescents outnumber other age groups entering
treatment for marijuana;
(iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources reported
increased availability of club drugs, with ecstasy
(MDMA) and ketamine the most widely cited club
drugs and seven sources reporting that powder cocaine
is being used as a club drug by young adults;
(v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is expanding, no
longer conñned to the "rave" scene;
(vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown
from nightclubs and raves to high schools, the streets,
neighborhoods, open venues, and younger ages;
(vji) ecstasy users often are unknowingly purchasing adulterated tablets or some other substance
sol4asMDMA;and
(viii). along with reports of increased heroin
snorting as a route of atlminstration for initiates, there
is also an increase in injecting initiates and the negative health consepiences associated with injection (for
example, increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C) suggesting that there is a generational forgetting of the
dangers of injection of the drug.
(B) The 2000 Parent's Resource Institute for Drug Education study reported that 23.6 percent of children in the
sixth through twelfth grades used illicit drugs in the past
year. The same study found that monthly usage among
this group was 15.3 percent.
(C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future study,
the use of ecstasy among eighth graders increased from
1.7 percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in 2000, among tenth
graders from 4.4 percent to 5.4 percent, and from 5.6 percent to 8.2 percent among twelfth graders.
(B) A 1999 Mellnian Group study found thatCi) 56 percent of the population. in the United
States believed that drug use was increasing in. 1999;
(ii) 92 percent of the population viewed illegal
drug. use as a serious problem in the United States;
and;
(iii) 73 percent of the population viewed illegal
drug use as a serious problem in their communities.
1
H.R2291-4
(7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center
on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
entitied "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on
State Budgets", using the most conservative assumption, in
1998 States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage
of substance abuse, only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat
the problem and $433,000,000 for alcohol and tobacco regulation
and compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was distributed
as follows:
(A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 percent
ofjustice spending).
(B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of
education spending).
(C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of
health spending).
CD) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32.
percent of child and family assistance spending).
(B) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and developmental
disabilities (31 percent of mental health spending).
(F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of public
safety spending) and $400,000,000 for the state workforce.
(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination
through national, State, and local or tribal lea1ership and
partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of substance
abuse among youth in communities across the United States.
(9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem
nationally than at the community level. According to a 2001
Trusts, between 1994
study sponsoreçl by The Pew Charj*
and 2000(A) there was a 43 percent increase in the percentage.
of Americans who felt progress was being made in the
war on drugs at the community level;
(B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is
a "crisis" in their neighborhood, compared to 27 percent
who say this about the nation; and
(C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground
in the war on drugs on a community level fell by more I
than a quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to 37 percent
•
in2000.
(b) EXrrENSION Atm INcRLsE OF PROGRAtL-Section 1024(a)
of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21. U.S.C. 1524(a))
is amended(1). by striking "and" at the end of paragraph (4); and
(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following
new paragraphs:
"(5) 50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;
"(6) 60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
"(7) 70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
"(8) 80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
"(9) 90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
"(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.".
(c) EXTgNSIO? OF LTMFTATION ON ADMIN1sr1wnvE Cos'rs.-.Section 1024(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1524(b)) Is amended by striking
paragraph (5) and inserting the following new paragraph (5):
"(5) 6 percent for each of flscayears 2002 through 200'7.".
--
'a
H. 11. 2291-5
*
•
(d) ADDITIONAL GRArs.-Section 1032(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C.
1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph (3):
"(3) ADDITIONAL GRANTS."(A) IN GENERAL-Subject to subparagraph (F), the
Administrator may award an additional grant under this
paragraph to an eligible coalition awarded a grant under
paragraph (1) or (2) for any first fiscal year after the
•
end of the 4-year period following the period of the initial
grant under paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be.
"(B) SCOPE OP GRANTS.-A coalition awarded a grant
under paragraph (1) or (2), including a renewal grant under
such paragraph, may not be awarded another grant under
such paragraph, and is eligible fo an additional grant
under this section only under this paragraph.
"(C) No moarr FOR APPUCATIONS.-The Administrator may not afford a higher priority in the award of
an additional grant under this paragraph than the
Alminitrator would afford the applicant for the grant
if the applicant were submitting an application for an
initial grant under paragraph (1) or (2) rather than an
application for a grant munier this paragraph.
•
the initial additional grant under subparagraph (A) is
• awarded in an amount not to exceed amounts as follows:
•
"(r) For the first and second fiscal years of that
•
4-fiscal-year period, the amount equal to 80 percent
of the non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions, raised by the coalition for the applicable fiscal
year.
"(ii) For the third and fourth flcai years of that
4-fiscal-year period, the amount equal to 67 percent
of the non-Federal funds, including in-kind contributions, raised by the coalition for the applicable fiscal
year.
"(E) SUSPENsI0N.-If a grant recipient under this paragraph fails to continue to meet the criteria specified in
subsection (a), the Administrator may suspend the grant,
after providing written notice to the grant recipient and
an opportunity to appeal.
(F) Ln4rrAnoN.-The amount of a grant award under
this paragraph may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal year.".
(e) DATA COLLECTioN AND DISSEMINATI0N.-Section 1033(b) of
that Act (21 U.S.C. 1533(h)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraphi
"(3) C0NStmTAn0N.-The Administrator shall carry out
activities under this subsection in consultation with the
Advisory Commission and the National Community Antidrug
Coalition Institute?.
(i) LIMITATION ON USE OP CERTAIN FUNDS FOR EVALUATION
OF PROGRA.M.-Section 1033(b) of that Act, as amended by subsection (a) of this seetion is further amended by adding at the
end the following ne paragraph:
•
)
"(IL)) RENEWAL GRANTS.-Subject to subparagraph (F),
the Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant
recipient under this paragraph for each of the fiscal years
of the 4-fiscal-year period following the fiscal year for which
/
ILK. 2291-6
"(4) LIMrrT1ON ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR EVALUATION
OF PROGRAaL-Amounts lor activities under paragraph (2XB)
niay not be derived from amounts under section 1024(a) except
for amounts that are available under section 1024(b) for
administrative costs.".
(g) TREATMENT OP FUNDS 'OR C0AUTIoNs REPEESENITNG C TAIN ORGANIZATIONS.-SeCtion 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1532)
is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
"(c) TEEATMEN'r OF FUNDS FOR C0ALrn0NS REPRESENTING CEETAIN ORwNrzJTIoNS.-Funds appropriated for the substance abuse
activities of a coalition that includes a representative of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal government
agency with expertise in the field of substance.abuze may be counted
as non-Federal funds raised by the coalition for purposes of tWa
section.".
(h) PiuORrrr iN AwnDiNG GRANTS.-&etion 1032 of that Act
(21 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
"(ci) PRIORITY IN AwARDIZ4G GP.ANTS.-In awarding grants under
subsection (bX1XA.XD, priority shall be given to a coalition serving
economically disadvantaged areas.".
SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRAN'IS FOR COALITION MENTOR1?'G ACTZVI.
TIES UNDER DRUG-FREE COMMUNiTIES SUPPORT PRO.
GR
Subchapter I of chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership
Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
"SEC. 1035. SOPPLEMENPAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING
ACHVrFLES.
"(a) ALrrHORrr To MAKE GRANTa-As part of the program
established inder section 1031, the Director may award an initial
grant under this subsection, and renewal grants under subsection
(0. to any coalition awarded a grant under section 1032 that meets
the criteria specified in subsection (d) in order to fund coalition
nientoring activities by such coalition in support of the program.
"(b) rnAmIEwr Wmr OTaER Gitins."(1) Suprir.-A grant awarded to a coalition under
this section is in addition to any grant awarded to the coalition
under section 1032.
"(2) REQUIIEMENT FOR BASIC GRANT.-A coalition may not
be awarded a grant under this section for a fiscal year unies
the coalition was awarded a grant Or renewal grant under
section 1032(b) for that fiscal year.
"(C) APPUWrI0N.-A coalition seeking a grant under this section shall submit to the Administrator an application for the grant
in such form and manner as the Administrator may require.
"(d) CRITERIA.-A coalition meets the criteria specified in this
subsection lithe coalition"(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
"(2) baa achieved, by or through its own efforts, measurable
results in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse
among youth;
"(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors for
persons seeking to start or expand the activities of other coali-- tions in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse
-
S
H. R. 2291-7
"(4) has demonstrable stipport from some members of the
community in which the coalition mentoring activities to be
supported by the grant under this section are to be carried
out; and
"(5) submits to the Mmfrictrator a detailed plan for the
coalition rnentoring activities to be supported by the grant
under this section.
"Ce) USE OF GRA1T FUNDS.-A coalition awarded a grant under,
this section shall use the grant amount for mentoring activities
to support and encourage the development of new, self-supporting
conmiunity coalitions that are focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse in such new coalitions' communities. The
mentoring coalition shall encourage such devejopment in accordance
with the plan submitted by the mentoring coalition under subsection
(dX5).
"(f) RENEWAL Gnrrs.-The Administrator may make a
renewal grant to any coalition awarded a grant under subsection
(a), or a previous renewal grant under this subsection, if the coalition, at the time of application for such renewal grant"(1) continues to meet the criteria specified in subsection
(d); and
"(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development
of one or more new, self-supporting community coalitions that
are focused on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse.
"(g) GRANT AMOUNTS,"(1) IN GENERAL.---Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the
total amount of grants awarded to a coalition under this section
for a fiscal year may not exceed the amount of non-Federal
funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind contributions,
for that fiscal year. Funds appropriated for the substance abuse
activities of a coalition that includes a representative of the
Bureau..of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal
government agency with expertise in the field of substance
abuse may be counted as non-Federal funds raised by the
coalition.
"(2) INITIAL GEANTS.-The amount of the initial grant
awarded to a coalition under subsection (a) may not exceed
$75,000.
"(3) RENEWAL GRANTS.-The total amount of renewal grants
awarded to a coalition under subsection (f) for any fiscal year
may not exceed $75,000.
"Cli) FISCAL YEAR LIMrrATION or AMoUNT AvAiLArn.s FOR
GRANTS.-The total amount available for grants under this section,
including renewal grants under subsection c, in any fiscal year
may not exceed the amount equal to five percent of the amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 1024(a) for that fiscal
year.
"(i) Piuosrry ri Awswzuo INITIAL GRAirrs.-In awarding mltial grants under this section, priority shall be given to a coalition
that expressly proposes to provide meutorship to a coalition or
aspiring coalition serving economically disadvantaged areas.".
I
SEC. 3. FIVE-TEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON DRUGFREE COMMUNITIES.
Section 1048 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988
-(21 U.S.C. 1548) is amended by atrfl ing'2002" and inserting "2007".
H. R. 2291
SEC. 4. AUTROIUZATION POE NA11ONAL COMMVNIT AMIDRUG
COALITION INSTmYFE.
(a) IN GgNERAL.-The Director of the Office of National l)ru
Control Policy may, using amounts authorized to be appropriate
by subsection (d), make a grant to an eligible orgarnzatiozi to
provide for the establishment of a National Community Antidrug
Coalition Institute
(b) ELIGrsI OEGANIzoNS.-An organization eligible for the
grant under subsection (a) is any national nonprofit organization
that represents, provides technical assistance and training to, and
has special expertise and broad, national-level experience in community antidrug coalitions under section 1032 of the National Narcotics
Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532).
(c). USE OP GRANT AMOUNT..-The organization receiving the
grant under subsection (a) shall establish a National Community
Antidrug Coalition Institute to-
(1) provide education, training, and tchnicai assistance
for coalition leaders and community teams, with emphasis on
the development of coalitions servmg economically disadvantaged areas;
(2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools mechanisms,
and measures to better assess and aent coalition performance measures and outcomes; and
(3) bridge the gap between research and prartice by translating knowledge from research into practical information.
(d) Aumopizx1oN OF APPROPRWI'IONS.-ThCre is authorized
to be appropriated for purposes of activities under this section,
including the grant under subsection (a), amounts as follows:
(1) For each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 2,000,000.
(2) For each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $1,000,008.
(3) For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $750,000.
SEC. 5. PROBIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OP EFFORT.
The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
shall ensure that the same or similar activities are not carried
out, through the use of funds for atlministrative costs provided
under subchapter TI of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of
1988 (21 U.S.C. 1521 et seq.) or funds provided under section
4 of this Act, by more than one recipient of such funds.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Wee Preaid.ent of the United States and
President of the Senate.
107TH CONGRESS
Rept. 107-1 75
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session
Part I
TO EXTEND TILE AUTHORIZATION OF TH1 DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES
SUPPORT PROGRAM FOR AN ADDITIONAL 5 YEARS, TO AUTHORIZE A
NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTIDRUG COALITION INSTITUTE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
JULY 30, 2001- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and
ordered to be printed
Mr. BURTON of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 2291]
[Including cost estimate of th Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 2291) to
extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program for an
additional 5 years, to authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
LAcrN'rs
1LJrpi.
LI1
8
____
Ho
y_j(x
21J
I1wUJ itatement of CBO Cost Estimate
_______
JJjtederai Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5b)
221
24
28
[ijnfirnded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section 4231 28
LJL
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES
SUPPORT PROGRAM.
(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) In the next 15 years, the youth population in the United States will grow by 21
percent, adding 6,500,000 youth to the population of the United States. 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.
(2) According to the 1994-1996 National Household Survey, 60 percent of
students age 12 to 17 who frequently cut classes and who reported delinquent
behavior in the past 6 months used marijuana 52 days or more in the previous
year.
(3) The 2000 Washington Kids Count survey conducted by the University of
Washington reported that students whose peers have little or no involvement with
drinking and drugs have higher math and reading scores than students whose
peers had low level drinking or drug use.
(4) Substance abuse prevention works. In 1999, only 10 percent of teens saw
marijuana users as popular, compared to 17 percent in 1998 and 19 percent in
1997. The rate of past-month use of any drug among 12- to 17-year-olds declined
26 percent between 1997 and 1999. Marijuana use for sixth through eighth
graders is at the lowest point in 5 years, as is use of cocaine, inhalants, and
hallucinogens.
(5) Community Anti-Drug Coalitions throughout the United States are
successfully developing and implementing comprehensive, long-term strategies to
reduce substance abuse among youth on a sustained basis. For example:
(A) The Boston Coalition brought college and university presidents
together to create the Cooperative Agreement on Underage Drinking. This
agreement represents the first coordinated effort of Boston's many
institutions of higher education to address issues such as binge drinking,
underage drinking, and changing the norms surrounding alcohol abuse that
exist on college and university campuses.
(B) In 2000, the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati surveyed
more than 47,000 local students in grades 7 through 12. The results
provided evidence that the Coalition's initiatives are working. For the first
time in a decade, teen drug use in Greater Cincinnati appears to be
leveling off. The data collected from the survey has served as a tool to
strengthen relationships between schools and communities, as well as
facilitate the growth of anti-drug coalitions in communities where such
coalitions had not existed.
(C) The Miami Coalition used a three-part strategy to decrease the
percentage of high school seniors who reported using marijuana at least
once during the most recent 30-day period. The development of a media
strategt, the creation of a network of prevention agencies, and discussions
with high school students aboutthe dangers of marijuana all contributed to
a decrease in the percentage of seniors who reported using marijuana from
over 22 percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 1997. The Miami Coalition was
able to achieve these results while national rates of marijuana use were
increasing.
(D) The Nashville Prevention Partnership worked with elementary and
middle school children in an attempt to influence them toward positive life
goals and discourage them from using substances. The Partnership
targeted an area in East Nashville and created after school programs,
mentoring opportunities, attendance initiatives, and safe passages to and
from school. Attendance and test scores increased as a result of the
program.
(E) At a youth-led town meeting sponsored by the Bering Strait
Community Partnership in Nome, Alaska, youth identified a need for a
safe, substance-free space. With help from a variety of community
partners, the Partnership staff and youth members created the Java Hut, a
substance-free coffeehouse designed for youth. The Java Hut is helping to
change norms in the community by providing a fun, youth-friendly
atmosphere and activities that are not centered around alcohol or
marijuana.
(F) Portlandts Regional Drug Initiative (RDI) has promoted the
establishment of drug-free workplaces among the cityt s large and small
employers. Over 3,000 employers have attended an RDI training session,
and of those, 92 percent have instituted drug-free workplace policies. As a
result, there has been a 5.5 percent decrease in positive workplace drug
tests.
(G) San Antonio Fighting Back worked to increase the age at which youth
first used illegal substances. Research suggests that the later the age of
first use, the lower the risk that a young person will become a regular
substance abuser. As a result, the age of first illegal drug use increased
from 9.4 years in 1992 to 13.5 years in 1997.
(H) In 1990, multiple data sources confirmed a trend of increased alcohol
use by teenagers in the Troy community. Using its 'multiple strategies
over multiple sectorst approach, the Troy Coalition worked with parents,
physicians, students, coaches, and others to address this problem from
several angles. As a result, the rate of twelfth grade students who had
consumed alcohol in the past month decreased from 62.1 percent to 53.3
percent between 1991 and 1998, and the rate of eighth grade students
decreased from 26.3 percent to 17.4 percent. The Troy Coalition believes
that this decline represents not only a change in behavior on the part of
students, but also a change in the norms of the community.
(6) Despite these successes, drug use continues to be a serious problem facing
communities across the United States, For example:
(A) According to the Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse Mid-Year 2000
report(i) crack and powder cocaine remains the most serious drug
problem;
(ii) marijuana remains the most widely available illicit drug, and its
potency is on the rise;
(iii) treatment sources report an increase in admissions with
marijuana as the primary drug of abuse--and adolescents
outnumber other age groups entering treatment for marijuana;
(iv) 80 percent of Pulse Check sources reported increased
availability of club drugs, with ecstasy (MDMA) and ketamine the
most widely cited club drugs and seven sources reporting that
powder cocaine is being used as a club drug by young adults;
(v) ecstasy abuse and trafficking is expanding, no longer confined
to the 'rave' scene;
(vi) the sale and use of club drugs has grown from nightclubs and
raves to high schools, the streets, neighborhoods, open venues, and
younger ages;
(vii) ecstasy users often are unknowingly purchasing adulterated
tablets or some other substance sold as MDMA; and
(viii) along with reports of increased heroin snorting as a route of
administration for initiates, there is also an increase in injecting
initiates and the negative health consequences associated with
injection (for example, increases in HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C)
suggesting that there is a generational forgetting of the dangers of
injection of the drug.
(B) The 2000 Parent's Resource Institute for Drug Education study
reported that 23.6 percent of children in the sixth through twelfth grades
used illicit drugs in the past year. The same study found that monthly
usage among this group was 15.3 percent.
(C) According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future study, the use of ecstasy
among eighth graders increased from 1.7 percent in 1999 to 3.1 percent in
2000, among tenth graders from 4.4 percent to 5.4 percent, and from 5.6
percent to 8.2 percent among twelfth graders.
(D) A 1999 Mellman Group study found that(i) 56 percent of the population in the United States believed that
drug use was increasing in 1999;
(ii) 92 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use as a
serious problem in the United States; and
(iii) 73 percent of the population viewed illegal drug use as a
serious problem in their communities.
(7) According to the 2001 report of the National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University entitled 'Shoveling Up: The Impact of
Substance Abuse on State Budgets', using the most conservative assumption, in
1998 States spent $77,900,000,000 to shovel up the wreckage of substance abuse,
only $3,000,000,000 to prevent and treat the problem and $433,000,000 for
alcohol and tobacco regulation and compliance. This $77,900,000,000 burden was
distributed as follows:
(A) $30,700,000,000 in the justice system (77 percent ofjustice spending).
(B) $16,500,000,000 in education costs (10 percent of education
spending).
(C) $15,200,000,000 in health costs (25 percent of health spending).
(D) $7,700,000,000 in child and family assistance (32 percent of child and
family assistance spending).
(E) $5,900,000,000 in mental health and developmental disabilities (31
percent of mental health spending).
(F) $1,500,000,000 in public safety (26 percent of public safety spending)
and $400,000,000 for the state workforce.
(8) Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination through national, State, and
local or tribal leadership and partnerships are critical to facilitate the reduction of
substance abuse among youth in communities across the T4nited States.
(9) Substance abuse is perceived as a much greater problem nationally than at the
community level. According to a 2001 study sponsored by The Pew Charitable
Trusts, between 1994 and 2000-(A) there was a 43 percent increase in the percentage of Americans who
felt progress was being made in the war on drugs at the community level;
(B) only 9 percent of Americans say drug abuse is a 'crisist in their
neighborhood, compared to 27 percent who say this about the nation; and
(C) the percentage of those who felt we lost ground in the war on drugs on
a community level fell by more than a quarter, from 51 percent in 1994 to
37 percent in 2000.
(b) EXTENSION AND INCREASE OF PROGRAM- Section 1024(a) of the National
Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1524(a)) is amended-(1) by striking 'andt at the end of paragraph (4); and
(2) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following new paragraphs:
'(5) $50,600,000 for fiscal year 2002;
'(6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
'(7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
'(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
'(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
'(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.'.
(c) EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS- Section 1024(b)
of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1524(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the
following new paragraph (5):
'(5) 6 percent for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007.'.
(d) ADDITIONAL GRANTS- Section 1032(b) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1533(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph (3):
'(3) ADDITIONAL GRANTS'(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (F), the Administrator may
award an additional grant under this paragraph to an eligible coalition
awarded a grant under paragraph (1) or (2) for any first fiscal year after the
end of the 4-year period following the period of the initial grant under
paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be.
'(B) SCOPE OF GRANTS- A coalition awarded a grant under paragraph
(1) or (2), including a renewal grant under such paragraph, may not be
awarded another grant under such paragraph, and is eligible for an
additional grant under this section only under this paragraph.
'(C) NO PRIORITY FOR APPLICATIONS- The Administrator may not
afford a higher priority in the award of an additional grant under this
paragraph than the Administrator would afford the applicant for the grant
if the applicant were submitting an application for an initial grant under
paragraph (1) or (2) rather than an application for a grant under this
paragraph.
'(D) RENEWAL GRANTS- Subject to subparagraph (F), the
Administrator may award a renewal grant to a grant recipient under this
paragraph for each of the fiscal years of the 4-flsáal-year period following
the fiscal year for which the initial additional grant under subparagraph
(A) is awarded in an amount not to exceed amounts as follows:
'(i) For the first and second fiscal years of that 4-fiscal-year period,
the amount equal to 80 percent of the non-Federal funds, including
in-kind contributions, raised by the coalition for the applicable
fiscal year.
'(ii) For the third arid fourth fiscal years of that 4-fiscal-year
period, the amount equal to 67 percent of the non-Federal funds,
including in-kind contributions, raised by the coalition for the
applicable fiscal year.
'(E) SUSPENSION- If a grant recipient under this paragraph fails to
continue to meet the criteria specified in subsection (a), the Administrator
may suspend the grant, after providing written notice to the grant recipient
and an opportunity to appeal.
'(F) LIMITATION- The amount of a grant award under this paragraph
may not exceed $100,000 for a fiscal year.'.
(e) DATA COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION- Section 1033(b) of that Act (21
U.S.C. 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
'(3) CONSULTATION- The Administrator shall carry out activities under this
subsection in consultation with the Advisory Commission and the National
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.',
(f) LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR EVALUATION OF
PROGRAM- Section 1033(b) of that Act, as amended by subsection (e) of this section, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
'(4) LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR EVALUATION OF
PROGRAM- Amounts for activities under paragraph (2XB) may not be derived
from amounts under section 1024(a) except for amounts that are available under
section 1024(b) for administrative costs.'.
(g) TREATMENT OF FUNDS FOR COALITIONS REPRESENTING CERTAIN
ORGANIZATIONS- Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1532) is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
'(c) TREATMENT OF FUNDS FOR COALITIONS REPRESENTING CERTAIN
ORGANIZATIONS- Funds appropriated for the substance abuse activities of a coalition
that includes a representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service,
or a tribal government agency with expertise in the field of substance abuse may be
counted as non-Federal funds raised by the coalition for purposes of this section.'.
(h) PRIORITY IN AWARDING GRANTS- Section 1032 of that Act (21 U.S.C. 1532) is
further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
'(d) PRIORITY IN AWARDING GRANTS- In awarding grants under subsection
(b)(1)(A)(i), priority shall be given to a coalition serving economically disadvantaged
areas.'.
SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING
ACTWITIES UNDER DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM.
Subchapter! of chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
'SEC. 1035. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING
ACTIVITIES.
'(a) AUTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS- As part of the program established under
section 1031, the Director may award an initial grant under this subsection, and renewal
grants under subsection (f), to any coalition awarded a grant under section 1032 that
meets the criteria specified in subsection (d) in order to fund coalition mentoring
activities by such coalition in support of the program.
'(b) TREATMENT WITH OTHER GRANTS'(1) SUPPLEMENT- A grant awarded to a coalition under this section is in
addition to any grant awarded to the coalition under section 1032.
'(2) REQUIREMENT FOR BASIC GRANT- A coalition may not be awarded a
grant under this section for a fiscal year unless the coalition was awarded a grant
or renewal grant under section 1032(b) for that fiscal year.
'(c) APPLICATION- A coalition seeking a grant under this section shall submit to the
Administrator an application for the grant in such form and manner as the Administrator
may require.
'(d) CRITERIA- A coalition meets the criteria specified in this subsection if the
coalition-'(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
'(2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts, measurable results in the
prevention and treatment of substance abuse among youth;
'(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors for persons seeking to start
or expand the activities of other coalitions in the prevention and treatment of
substance abuse;
'(4) has demonstrable support from some members of the community in which the
coalition mentoring activities to be supported by the grant under this section are to
be carried out; and
'(5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for the coalition mentoring
activities to be supported by the grant under this section.
'(e) USE OF GRANT FUNDS- A coalition awarded a grant under this section shall use
the grant amount for mentoring activities to support and encourage the development of
new, self-supporting community coalitions that are focused on the prevention and
treatment of substance abuse in such new coalitions' conununities. The mentoring
coalition shall encourage such development in accordance with the plan submitted by the
rnentoring coalition under subsection (d)(5).
'(f) RENEWAL GRANTS- The Administrator may make a renewal grant to any coalition
awarded a grant under subsection (a), or a previous renewal grant under this subsection, if
the coalition, at the time of application for such renewal grant'(I) continues to meet the criteria specified in subsection (d); and
'(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development of one or more new,
self-supporting community coalitions that are focused on the prevention and
treatment of substance abuse.
'(g) GRANT AMOUNTS'(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the total amount of grants
awarded to a coalition under this section for a fiscal year may not exceed the
amount of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind
contributions, for that fiscal year. Funds appropriated for the substance abuse
activities of a coalition that includes a representative of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal government agency with expertise in
the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal funds raised by the
coalition.
'(2) INITIAL GRANTS- The amount of the initial grant awarded to a coalition
under subsection (a) may not exceed $75,000.
'(3) RENEWAL GRANTS- The total amount of renewal grants awarded to a
coalition under subsection (f) for any fiscal year may not exceed $75,000.
'(h) FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION ON AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR GRANTS- The
total amount available for grants under this section, including renewal grants under
subsection (f), in any fiscal year may not exceed the amount equal to five percent of the
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 1024(a) for that fiscal year.
'(i) PRIORITY IN AWARDING INITIAL GRANTS- In awarding initial grants under
this section, priority shall be given to a coalition that expressly proposes to provide
mentorship to a coalition or aspiring coalition serving economically disadvantaged
areas.'.
SEC. 3. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON
DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES.
Section 1048 of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1548) is
amended by striking '2002' and inserting '2007'.
SEC. 4. AUTHORJZATION FOR NATIONAL COMMUNITY ANTIDRUG
COALITION INSTITUTE.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy may,
using amounts authorized to be appropriated by subsection (d), make a grant to an
eligible organization to provide for the establishment of a National Community Antidrug
Coalition Institute.
(b) ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS- An organization eligible for the grant under
subsection (a) is any national nonprofit organization that represents, provides technical
assistance and training to, and has special expertise and broad, national-level experience
in community antidrug coalitions under section 1032 of the National Narcotics
Leadership Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1532).
(c) USE OF GRANT AMOUNT- The organization receiving the grant under subsection
(a) shall establish a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute to-(1) provide education, training, and technical assistance for coalition leaders and
community teams, with emphasis on the development of coalitions serving
economically disadvantaged areas;
(2) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and measures to better
assess and document coalition performance measures and outcomes; and
(3) bridge the gap between research and practice by translating knowledge from
research into practical information.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to be appropriated
for purposes of activities under this section, including the grant under subsection (a),
amounts as follows:
(1) For each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $2,000,000.
(2) For each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, $1,000,000.
(3) For each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, $750,000.
SEC. 5. PROffEBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION OF EFFORT.
The Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall ensure that the same or
similar activities are not carried out, through the use of funds for administrative costs
provided under subchapter II of the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 (21
U.S.C. 1521 et seq.) or funds provided under section 4 of this Act, by more than one
recipient of such funds.
I. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
The purpose of the 'Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. Sec. 1521 et seq.)
('DFCA') is to establish a program to support and encourage local communities that first
demonstrate a comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce substance abuse among youth.
The DFCA did this primarily by authorizing grants of up to $100,000 to local community
coalitions to assist them in their anti-drug efforts. H.R. 2291 would expand that program and
reauthorize it for an additional five years (through fiscal year 2007). The reauthorizing
legislation includes provisions that would (1) annually increase the total funds authorized for the
program from $50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002 to $99,000,000 in fiscal year 2007; (2) increase
the percentage of the total funds authorized available for administrative costs from the 3 percent
allowed under current law to 6 percent; (3) instruct the Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) to take steps to ensure that there is no bureaucratic duplication of effort
among the various entities charged with administering the program and assisting coalitions; (4)
allow coalitions to re-apply for grants even after five years, but only with an increased matching
requirement; (5) create a new class of grants that help mature coalitions 'mentor' newly-formed
coalitions; (6) instruct the Director to give priority for all grants to coalitions that propose to
assist economically disadvantaged communities; (7) help coalitions serving Native American
communities to meet their private fundraising 'matching requirement' under existing law by
allowing them to count Federal funds allocated to tribal government agencies as non-Federal
funds raised; and (8) establish a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
H. NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Drug use among the nation's youth is a substantial and continuing problem. After achieving
significant declines in teen drug use in the 1980's, the United States began to lose ground in the
1990's. According to the 2000 Monitoring the Future Study, from 1992 to 1996 past-month use
of any illicit drug rose from 14.4 percent to 24.6 percent for twelfth graders; 11.0 percent to 23.2
percent for tenth graders; and 6.8 percent to 14.6 percent for eighth graders. The National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse, conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), reported that between 1994 and 1996, LSD and
hallucinogen use increased by 183 percent and cocaine use increased by 166 percent.
The rise in drug use reflected a growing level of ignorance about the risks and consequences of
illegal drug use. For example, disapproval of marijuana use and perception of the risks associated
with that drug weakened significantly during that same period among eighth graders,
corresponding (not surprisingly) with an increase in marijuana use among eighth graders (from
approximately 3 percent to approximately 11 percent). (Source: 2000 Monitoring the Future
Study.) Perception of the risks of LSD, powder cocaine and crack cocaine had similarly declined.
These two trends (growing ignorance of the dangers of drug abuse, and growing drug abuse
among youth) suggested a looming national crisis.
Congress responded to this threat by passing, among other legislation, the Drug Free
Communities Act of 1997 ('DFCA'), an amendment to the National Narcotics Leadership Act of
1988. DFCA sought to strengthen what has proven to be one of the most effective demand-side
weapons in the fight against teen drug use: local community anti-drug coalitions. These
coalitions bring individuals and institutions together to pooi their knowledge, experience and
resources in the struggle against illegal drug use in their local communities. As locally-based
organizations, these coalitions are uniquely well-situated to deal with the special problems of
their communities.
DFCA established a program of direct grants to community organizations demonstrating a
comprehensive, long-term commitment to reduce substance abuse among youth. The DFCA
program was intended, among other things, to strengthen collaboration among communities, the
federal government, and state, local and tribal governments, to serve as a catalyst for increased
citizen participation in community anti-drug efforts, and to rechannel federal anti-drug resources
and infonnation to local communities.
At the heart of the DFCA are grants to 'coalitions,' which are broad-based groups consisting of
representatives of youth, parents, businesses, the media, law enforcement,
religious or other civic groups, health care professionals, and others that seek to reduce drug
addiction in their communities, especially among the young. The coalitions are required to
submit detailed applications for grants, describing their commitment to anti-drug efforts, their
long-term strategy for combating drug addiction, and their ability to sustain and account for their
efforts. The grants are limited to $100,000 per year, and are subject to a matching requirement
(under which the coalition must match each Federal grant dollar with a dollar raised from nonFederal sources). Coalitions from rural areas may be excused from meeting all of the DECA's
program requirements. Under existing law, a coalition receiving a grant is entitled to apply for
renewal grants for four years after its initial award.
The program has been a resounding success, and is one of the cornerstones of our nation's
narcotics demand-reduction efforts. The 'Findings' section of H.R. 2291 (Section 1(a)) gives
only a few examples of the successes of the local coalitions assisted by DFCA. According to
ONDCP, there are now 307 coalitions receiving grants under DFCA, with an additional 144 new
awards projected for fiscal year 2001. Though it is difficult precisely to quantify the effect these
local coalitions have had on the nation's drug problem, there is no doubt but that the steep
increases in drug abuse among the young have leveled off since 1997. (Source: 2000 Monitoring
the Future Study.)
Nevertheless, significant work remains to be done. The National Parents' Resource Institute for
Drug Education (PRIDE) survey of high school seniors for the 2000-2001 school year shows that
2 out of every 5 seniors used an illegal drug in the past year. The PRIDE shows that parental
involvement (one key strategy promoted by DFCA) has a tremendous impact on the rate of youth
drug abuse. Students are nearly twice as likely to use drugs if their parents do not talk to them
about drugs, and students whose parents set clear rules about family standards are more than 50
percent less likely to use drugs than those who do not. The reauthorization of DFCA is critical to
the nation's continuing efforts to reduce drug abuse.
III. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE ACTION
A. Hearings
The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources held a hearing on
June 28, 2001, at which Congressman Rob Portman and Congressman Sander Levin testified as
sponsors of the bill. Dr. Donald M. Vereen, Jr., Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, Mr. John J. Wilson, Acting Director of the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention at the U.S. Department of Justice, General Arthur T. Dean (retired),
Chairman and CEO of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Judge Michael Kramer of
the Noble County, Indiana, Superior Court and Chair of Drug-Free Noble County, and Mr.
Lawrence Couch, Program Manager of the Montgomery County Partnership, Maryland, also
testified in support of the bill.
Subcommittee Chairman MarkE. Souder began the hearing with a statement in strong support of
the bill, and taking note of the many successes made possible by the original Drug-Free
Communities Act. Chairman Souder also expressed his concerns, however, with the bill's
increase in the administrative expenses cap and the risk of duplication of effort between the
many entities entrusted under the bill with monitoring, evaluating, and providing training and
technical assistance to anti-drug coalitions. The ranking Minority member of the subcommittee,
Elijah E. Cummings, expressed his support for the bill and especially for its support of the efforts
of established coalitions to provide assistance to new coalitions. Mr. Cummings also expressed
his concern that DFCA funds be targeted towards economically disadvantaged communities. The
Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee, Benjamin A. Gilman, made a statement praising the DFCA
program as a major component of our national demand reduction strategy.
Congressman Portman summarized the goals of the DFCA program and its successes since
original enactment. He noted that reauthorization of the DFCA was one of the centerpieces of
President George W. Bush's anti-drug strategy, and that the bill is a priority for the
Administration. Mr. Portman remarked on the vital role played by the faith community in the
program, and expressed his support for the bill's creation of a National Community Antidnig
Coalition Institute. Mr. Portman also stated his support for the bill's increase in the
administrative expenses cap, while acknowledging that a central goal of the original legislation
was to limit the number of dollars being spent on administrative overhead.
Congressman Sander Levin discussed the history of the DFCA, explaining how it had been
enacted to deal with the nation's crippling drug problem. Mr. Levin expressed his support for the
bill's authorization of grants to support the mentoring of new coalitions by established ones, and
for the proposed Institute. Mr. Levin noted that demand for grants under the DFCA has risen
tremendously since the program's inception.
Dr. Vereen testified to the successes of the DFCA program and to the need for increasing the
administrative expenses cap. Mr. Wilson described OJJDP's administration of most aspects of
the program, and also testified as to the need for the increase in the cap. Both also provided
testimony in response to questions from the Subcommittee concerning the size of the
administrative expenses cap and the risk of duplication of administrative tasks.
Mr. Dean expressed his support for the reauthorization of the DFCA, and in particular for the
creation of the proposed Institute. Judge Kramer and Mr. Couch also expressed their support for
the legislation, and described their experiences as lea1ers of DFCA coalitions.
B. Committee Action
The Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources favorably referred
An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the bill, as amended, by voice vote on July 24,
2001, to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
On July 25, 2001, a quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
favorably reported An Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2291, as amended, by
voice vote.
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight--lO7th Congress Rolicall
Date: July25, 2001.
Amendment No. 1.
Description: Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2291.
Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton (IN).
Adopted by: Voice Vote.
Date: July 25, 2001.
Amendment No. 2.
Description: Amendment to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H,R. 2291, page 11,
strike lines 2 through 4 and insert the following: '(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005; (9)
$90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and (10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
Offered by: Hon. Danny K. Davis (IL).
Adopted by: Voice Vote.
Date: July 25, 2001.
Motion to favorably report H.R. 2291, as amended
Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton (IN).
Adopted by Voice Vote.
IV. OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(1), and rule X, clause 2(b)(l) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee presents the following oversight findings from its own
investigation. During the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy
and Human Resources held a hearing on June 28, 2001 concerning H.R. 2291. Witnesses at the
hearing testified as to the need for the legislation and its provisions, as well as the past
administration of the DFCA program. The results and findings from Committee oversight
activities are incorporated in the bill and this report.
V. EXPLANATION OF BiLL
The Committee provides the following description of the proposed legislation and an explanation
of the Committee's actions. Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(4) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, it includes a description of its general performance goals and objectives, as well
as outcome-related goals and objectives.
A. Findings (Sec. 1(a))
The bill's fmdings are outlined clearly. They demonstrate (1) the pressing need for further
demand-reduction efforts, particularly among our nation's youth, and (2) the record of success
and prospects for future progress offered by local community anti-drug coalitions.
B. Extension and Increase of Program (Sec. 1 (b,))
The reauthorization of DFCA is critical to the nation's continuing efforts to reduce drug abuse.
Moreover, to ensure that enough funds are available to assist the rapidly growing number of
coalitions emergingthroughout the country, increasing the funds authorized for the program is
essential. Thus, HR. 2291 (as amended) would reauthorize DFCA for 5 years (through fiscal
year 2002), and gradually increase the funds authorized, up to $99,000,000 in the final year
(fiscal year 2007).
Concerns were raised concerning the size of these increases. The Committee believes that these
concerns are well-founded, particularly since they could threaten the availability of funds for
other pressing national priorities. In addition, there are legitimate questions about just how many
coalitions capable of properly using these funds currently exist, or are likely to exist over the
next five fiscal years. It is certainly the case that over the past four years this program has
expanded rapidly, and the demand for grant funding should continue to grow. For the past 3
years, grants have been made to only about 40 percent of the applicant pooi, with no degradation
from one year to the next. Such significant increases in the amounts authorized for the program,
however, may well outstrip the number of coalitions ready and able to provide the level and
quality of services expected in the program. It is the intention of the Committee that ONDCP
carefully monitor the grant criteria and administration to ensure that there is no relaxation of
them for DFCA grants. The Committee also emphasizes that only the amounts authorized have
been increased. During the annual appropriations process, Congress, in consultation with the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), should take care to ensure that only those
amounts are appropriated as can be awarded to coalitions that fully meet all applicable criteria.
Some concern were expressed to the Committee that special language should be included
regarding the eligibility of statewide anti-drug coalitions for a DFCA grant. After reviewing the
legislation and the legislative history, it is the belief both of the bill's sponsors in the House of
Representatives and the Senate and of the Committee that no special language would be
necessary. The purpose of a DFCA grant is to support the growth of eligible coalitions, no matter
what their size. Therefore, where a statewide coalition meets all of the other eligibility
requirements outlined by the legislation, it should be able to compete on equal footing with other
coalitions for a grant.
Pursuant to a directive of the ONDCP program Administrator, the maximum amount that a
coalition can receive under a renewal grant was reduced from $100,000 to $75,000 for years 3, 4,
and 5 of this program. While neither the bill's sponsors in the House of Representatives and the
Senate nor the Committee are convinced of the necessity of this reduction, they do believe that
the Administrator, when acting with the clear advice and understanding of the Advisory
Commission, has the authority to make such changes. However, the Committee believes it is
essential that all coalitions receive adequate notice well in advance of any future changes in the
eligibility amounts, as coalition fund-raising strategies may be affected by changes to the
program.
C. Extension of limitation on administrative costs
Reflecting the intent of Congress to minimize the amount of money spent on bureaucratic
overhead instead of grants to local anti-drug coalitions, administrative costs have been subject to
a decreasing percentage cap since 1998 (reflecting the increasing levels of overall funding): 10
percent of fund authorized in fiscal year 1998 (meaning $1,000,000 was available for
administrative costs), 6 percent in fiscal year 1999 ($1,200,000), 4 percent in fiscal year 2000
($1,200,000), and 3 percent in fiscal year 2001 ($1,200,000). The 3 percent cap would remain in
effect under existing law for fiscal year 2002 ($1,305,000).
As amended, H.R. 2291 will raise the administrative costs cap to 6 percent of funds authorized
for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. ONDCP requested, and the original version of the bill
provided, a cap of 8 percent. (See the further discussion of this issue below.) The Committee
carefully analyzed the information provided to it by ONDCP in determining an appropriate
administrative costs cap.
ONDCP identified five sources of administrative costs associated with DFCA which it believes
should be paid for with DFCA funds:
1. Grants management by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), a
division of the Department of Justice.
2. Peer review of grant applications, and marketing and publicity of the DFCA program, all of
which are undertaken by a private firm called Aspen Systems Corporation.
3. Technical assistance and training to grantees, undertaken by the six regional Centers for
Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPTs), which are administered by the Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention (a division of the Department of Health and Human Services).
4. Independent evaluation of the DFCA program, undertaken by another private firm, Caliber
Associates.
5. Salary and costs of ONDCP's DFCA Administrator and the Advisory Commission established
by DFCA.
Each of these is analyzed below.
1. Grants management by OJJDP
Section 1031(b) of the DFCA directs ONDCP to '(1) make and track grants to grant recipients;
(2) provide for the technical assistance and training, data collection, and dissemination of
information on state-of-the-art practices that the Director determines to be effective in reducing
substance abuse; and (3) provide for the general administration of the program.' Pursuant to an
Interagency Agreement, ONDCP has delegated most of the tasks of administering the DFCA
program to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a division of the
Department of Justice, which has the personnel and experience necessary to carry them out.
According to an Administrative Cost Study (the 'Study'), first submitted by ONDCP to the
Appropriations Committee of the United States Senate on January 18, 2001 and subsequently
provided to this Committee, OJJDP administers the DFCA program through its Special
Emphasis Division (SED). SED has assigned 9 staff members to work full-time on the DFCA
program. Seven of these staffers are program managers, who are responsible for monitoring and
administering the grants program, and two are administrative support staff.
During the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human
Resources concerning this bill, representatives of ONDCP and OJJDP testified to the need for
more program managers to handle the growing number of grants. According to OJJDP, currently
each program manager is responsible for an average of 44 grants. That number will rise as the
number of grants rises; thus the Committee recognizes that there is a need to hire more program
managers if the administration of the program is not to suffer. OJJDP has stated that ideally each
program manager would be responsible for only 26 grants, as this is the amount reportedly used
in many other grant programs.
In an effort to determine how many program managers would be required, the Committee asked
ONDCP and OJJDP to identify the activities carried out by these staffers, and how much time
they spend on them. In their joint written response, ONDCP and OJJDP identified the following
three principal activities: (1) administering the grant application process, which according to
ONDCP and OJJDP occupies virtually all of the program managers' time from May through
November each year; (2) bi-monthly telephone contacts with grantees, which require, on
average, one hour per grantee per month; and (3) conducting on-site visits, one per grantee per
year, each visit taking an average of 2 days. Assuming that May through November of each year
are indeed completely taken up by the grant application process, five months are left in which to
carry out the other two principal activities. The following chart shows the demands made on a
program manager's time during those 5 months at various grants-per-program manager levels,
assuming an 8-hour working day:
Grants per manager Days spent on telephone contacts Jays spent on s1te visits
Total days per month
44
5.5
17.6
42
5.3
16.8
40
5.0
16.0
23.1
22. 1
21.0
38
4.8
15.2
36
4.5
14.4
34
4.3
13.6
32
4.0
12.8
30
3.8
12.0
28
3.5
11.2
26
3.3
10.4
20.0
18.9
17. 9
16.8
15.8
14.7
13.7
There are slightly less than 22 working days per month, on average. Thus, a ratio in the range of
38 to 40 grants per program manager would appear to be adequate. While a ratio approaching 26
grants per manager (as requested by OJJDP) would certainly allow for a great deal of flexibility
in the schedule of each program manager, as well as the potential for greater individual attention
to each grantee, it must be remembered that the DFCA program was envisioned as involving
very low administrative and bureaucratic overhead--lower than that of the typical Federal grant
program. The Committee believes that to keep those administrative costs low, only such staff as
necessary should be added.
According to OJJDP, the cost of adding each new professional staffer is $100,000. Set forth
below is a chart showing what the cost would be per year to keep the grants-to-program manager
ratio at its current level of 44, to reduce it to 40, and to reduce it still further to 38. (Each grant is
assumed to be $100,000, which is the assumption used by OJJDP in the calculations provided to
the Committee and its staff.) 1
[Footnote]
[Footnote 1: Note that this chart overstates the number of program managers required, since it
does not subtract administrative expenses from the total funds available for grants. For example,
in fiscal year 2002, the actual number of grants which OJJDP would have to manage would be
less than 500 once administrative costs were subtracted from the $50,600,000 authorized for
DFCA.J
FY
40
Total cost (millions)
Total funds (millions) Total grants Staffers
44
44 40 38
38
2002
$1.3 $1.3
2003
1.5 1.6
$50.6
506
12 13 13
$1.2
60
600
4 15 16
1.4
2004
1.8 1.8
.2005
2 2.1
2006
2.3 2.4
2007
2.5 2.6
70
700
16 18 18
1.6
80
800
18 20 21
1.8
90
900
21 23 24
2.1
99
990
23 25 26
2.3
2. Peer review of grant applications, and marketing and publicity of the DFCA program, by
Aspen Systems Corporation
According to the written responses provided to the Committee, OJJDP has contracted with
Aspen Systems Corporation to provide 3 services: (1) a 'peer review' of grant applicants as part
of the application process; (2) development of publications on the DFCA program; and (3)
website support and information dissemination activities. From 1998 through 2000, OJJDP
reports paying $289,000 per year to Aspen for these services. According to OJJDP, it plans to
pay Aspen $325,000 in 2002. While OJJDP did not state precisely how much it planned to pay
Aspen in the years after 2002, it predicted 'proportional growth' as the number of grants
increased.
Assuming proportional growth (to match the growth in total funds for DFCA), the Committee
projects the approximate growth of this cost as follows:
1200411
447,0001
1200511 510.0001
i92JLJ '00011
3. Technical assistance and training provided by the CAPTs
OJJDP reports that it has agreed with CSAP that the CAPTs will (1) provide to each DFCA
grantee 8 hours of technical assistance upon request, (2) allow grantees to attend regional
training conferences registration-free, (3) provide a Drug-Free Communities Grantee Workshop
(at which an overview of the CAPTs' research and training is presented), and (4) provide training
to potential applicants and/or unsuccessful applicants for DFCA grants to assist them with the
application process.
OJJDP informed Committee staff that it costs approximately $1 ,000 per grantee to provide these
services. Subsequently, OJJDP stated that the $1,000 figure was arrived at simply by dividing the
$350,000 it paid to CSA.P by the total number of grantees (307). It is therefore not clear how
much the total cost will grow as the number of grantees grows, since the cost of some of the
services provided by the CAPTs (such as the Workshop and the conferences) may not vary
significantly with the number of participants.
However, using the $1,000 figure per grantee produces the following rough estimate of the future
costs: 2
[Footnote]
[Footnote 2: As was the case with the number of program managers, this estimate overstates the
amount required, since administrative costs have not yet been subtracted from the total funds
available for grants; also, 5 percent of the total funds would be spent on mentoring grants, which
would not carry with them the requirement for additional CAPTs training.]
600
700
4. Independent evaluation by Caliber Associates
According to ONDCP, the independent evaluation is designed to measure: '(1) The impact of
coalition efforts on community capacity for prevention service delivery and (2) the degree to
which coalition efforts result in a strengthened community response to alcohol, tobacco, and
other drug problems.! It is a 5-year study. ONDCP spent $600,000 from 1998 to 2000 on this
evaluation, and plans to spend the same amount in 2001. It proposes, however, to increase the
funding for it by $50,000 increments, up to a maximum of $750,000.
Due to the difficulties involved in quantifying the 'results' of the DFCA program and the
problems entailed in comparing the effectiveness of coalitions in widely varying local
circumstances, the evaluation does not attempt to determine whether individual coalitions have
been effective. Indeed, since so many variables are involved in attempting to quantify both the
nation's drug problem and efforts to deal with it, the independent evaluation cannot reasonably
be expected to provide a comprehensive, quantifiable analysis of the results of the program as a
whole. Instead, the independent evaluation is designed principally to attempt to identify coalition
activities that have proven effective. The evaluation thus relies primarily on analyzing the
activities of a representative sample of the coalitions, rather than analyzing in detail the activities
of all of the coalitions.
The Committee acknowledges the difficulties inherent in evaluating a program like the DFCA
program. Under the circumstances, the Caliber Associates evaluation is probably the best
possible evaluation that can be achieved, particularly given the intent of Congress to minimize
the administrative costs of the program. Because of these inherent difficulties, however, the
Committee does not believe that increasing the funding of the evaluation or attempting to expand
it would be likely to be very fruitful. Since the evaluation relies primarily on a representative
sample for its most significant findings, there is little need for increased funding, even as the
number of grantees grows. Indeed, if the evaluation really had to be increased to match the
growing number of grants, it would have to rise by more than $150,000 over the next 5 fiscal
years. Thus, the Committee believes that the current funding level of $600,000 per year is
sufficient.
5. Salary and costs of ONDCP Administrator and Advisory Commission
In accordance with the statute, ONDCP has assigned a program Administrator to oversee the
DFCA program. The DFCA also established an Advisory Commission, consisting of
representatives (appointed by the President) of the public, of non-profit organizations, and state
agencies with experience in substance abuse prevention. The Advisory Commission makes
recommendations to ONDCP regarding the DFCA program, and may collect information on
substance abuse prevention and make that information available to eligible coalitions and the
general public through publications and workshops or conferences.
ONDCP has spent $200,000 per year to pay the salary and expenses of the DFCA Administrator
and the Advisory Commission established by the statute. ONDCP has informed the Committee
that it will not need to increase that figure through 2007.
6. Other administrative costs
The Committee asked ONDCP and OJJDP to describe any additional costs that they believed
should be paid for out of the amounts authorized for administrative costs. In its written response,
these agencies did not identify any such additional costs. Subsequently the Committee's staff was
informed (1) that travel costs had not been included in previous cost forecasts, and (2) that
additional administrative staff would need to be added at OJJDP (beyond the additional program
managers). The Committee has not received sufficient documentation of these costs to be able to
quantify or evaluate them.
7. Total administrative costs
Adding up all of the costs identified by ONDCP and OJJDP, and holding the funding of the
Caliber Associates evaluation constant at $600,000, the following would be the approximate total
administrative costs per year and the percentage of the total funding, if the grants per program
manager were held constant at 44, or were reduced to 40 or 38: 3
[Footnote]
[Footnote 3 This chart reflects both the reduction in the number of total grants due to the
subtraction of administrative costs, and the fact that 5 percent of the grants will be mentoring
grants which are set at $75,000 instead of $100,000.]
40 grants per program
Fiscal year 44 grants per program manager
38 grants per program manager
manager
In
In millions Percent
In millions Percent
millions Percent
2002
$2.80
2003
3.18
2004
3.58
2005
3.98
2006
4.38
2007
4.74
5.5
5.3
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.8
$2.69
$2.86
3.05
3.25
3.43
3.66
3.80
4.07
4.18
4.49
4.52
4.86
5.3
5.7
5.1
5.4
4.9
5.2
4.8
5.1
4.6
5.0
4.6
4.9
The preceding chart indicates that the-total administrative costs will fall as a percentage of the
total funds authorized from 2002 through 2007. Moreover, it indicates that the 6 percent
administrative cost cap permitted by the amended bill should be more
than sufficient to allow ONDCP and OJJDP to reduce the grants-per-program manager ratio by a
significant amount. The Committee acknowledges that the preceding estimates, being limited to
those costs for which sufficient information and documentation were provided, may not include
every possible administrative cost of the program. However, the creation of new entities to assist
coalitions also strongly suggests that some cost reduction reasonably may be expected within the
delineated categories. Even at the 38 grants-per-manager level, the authorized administrative cost
limit will still leave additional ftmds to meet other needs. It is no doubt the case that choices will
have to be made about where to allocate these administrative resources. In the view of the
Committee, however, that was part of Congress' original intent in establishing an administrative
cost cap: to control the growth of the bureaucracy and to ensure that the maximum number of
dollars goes to the local coalitions.
8. Additional views concerning the administrative expenses cap
As acknowledged above, there was a dispute about the appropriate level for the cap on
administrative expenses for the DFCA program. Both the House and Senate bills set the level at
8 percent, which was the level requested by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. The
bill's sponsors on both the House and Senate side have expressed concern that cutting the
administrative costs to 6 percent would jeopardize the administration of the program. The
Committee agrees that continued review of the proper level to be authorized for administrative
expenses of this program is warranted, and will monitor this issue next year after the changes
made by this legislation are put in place. The Committee acknowledges that, even at 8 percent,
the administrative costs would still be lower than those for other Department of Justice programs
including the At-Risk Children program (10 percent) and the Drug Court program (up to 15
percent for training and technical assistance alone).
C. Additional grants (Sec. 1(d))
Under the original DFCA, after being awarded an initial grant, a local coalition was entitled to
reapply for a renewal grant for four additional years. No provision was made for additional aid
after that point. This reflected in part Congress' intention that Federal aid to local coalitions
would only be temporary, enabling the coalitions to establish themselves and begin their antidrug efforts, but not to become permanently dependent on Federal funding. The Committee
continues to support that goal. Representatives of many of the coalitions, however, informed the
Committee and the bill's sponsors on both the House and Senate side that an abrupt cessation of
Federal assistance would cause many of these coalitions to halt their activities. After five years,
many of these coalitions (being primarily voluntary organizations) have only just begun to make
a difference in their communities. A limit of 5 years, while certainly supportive of the goal of
financial independence, may have the additional and unintended effect of withdrawing assistance
from some coalitions just as they are starting to become effective.
The reauthorizing legislation therefore allows for a second five-year period of Federal funding,
but only with certain restrictions. First, ONDCP may not accord any priority during the
application process to a coalition because of its status as a previous grantee; that coalition must
compete with all other applicants on an equal footing. Second, any renewal grants are subject to
an increased matching requirement, under which the coalition must raise $1.25 in non-Federal
funds for every dollar of DFCA funds it receives for the first two renewal grants, and
approximately $1.33 in non-Federal funds for every DFCA dollar for the last two renewal grants.
D. Data collection and dissemination (Sec. 1(e))
This subsection directs the program Administrator to carry out data collection and dissemination
activities under Section 1033(b) of the DFCA in consultation with the Advisory Commission and
the National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute created by this legislation. This provision
is intended to ensure that the resources and experience of the Advisory Commission and the new
Institute are fully utilized for these important activities.
E. Limitation on use of certain funds for evaluation ofprogram (Sec. 1(f))
This provision codifies Congress' original understanding that the cost of any program evaluation
is an administrative expense subject to the limitation on administrative expenses. Indeed, as two
committees of the United States informed ONDCP, the cost of evaluation, technical assistance
and training are considered to be administrative costs subject to the cap. (See Administrative
Cost Study, submitted by ONDCP to the Senate Appropriations Committee, January 18, 2001,
page 8.)
F. Treatment offunds for coalitions representing certain organizations (Sec. 1(g))
This provision remedies a problem that had arisen under the previous statute in the treatment of
coalitions that serve Indian tribes and include representatives of tribal government agencies (as
specifically allowed by the DFCA). The Committee was informed that it is frequently more
difficult for coalitions serving Indian tribes to raise non-Federal funds to meet the matching
requirement under Section 1032 of the DFCA. These coalitions typically receive Federal funds
(other than DFCA funds) instead of State government funds for anti-drug activities, putting those
coalitions at a comparative disadvantage to coalitions with greater access to State and local
government funds.
ONDCP informed the Committee that pursuant to Federal Indian law, ONDCP has the authority
to waive or modify the matching requirement for tribes that are Federally recognized and enjoy a
government-to-government relationship with the United States. However, this authority would
not extend to non-Federally recognized tribes.
This provision therefore enables any coalition including a representative of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal government agency with
expertise in the field of substance abuse prevention, to count any funds it receives from any
source, including Federal sources (other than the DFCA program itself), as non-Federal funds for
purposes of the matching requirement. This subsection removes the barrier to receiving DFCA
funds and eliminates any disparity in the treatment of coalitions serving Federally-recognized
and non-Federally recognized tribes.
G. Priority in awarding grants (Sec. 1(h))
Several members of the Committee expressed their concern that coalitions serving economically
disadvantaged communities might face added difficulties in obtaining grants under the DFCA.
Since these coalitions may lack the same resources available to coalitions from more prosperous
communities, their applications may not seem as well supported as those of other coalitions. This
provision seeks to remedy this imbalance, by directing those evaluating grant applications to give
priority to coalitions serving economically disadvantaged communities. This subsection should
not be read, however, to mean that any coalition (whether serving an economically
disadvantaged community or not) should be excused from the minimum criteria and standards
necessary to receive a grant. It is not the Committee's intent that this provision eliminate those
criteria and standards. Rather, the Committee intends that among those coalitions meeting those
minimum criteria and standards, priority is to be given to the ones that serve our nation's neediest
areas.
H. Supplemental grants for coalition menroring activities (Sec. 2)
A number of established coalitions with proven histories of success have expressed an interest in
mentoring new and/or struggling coalitions, particularly in neighboring communities. Rather
than creating a new and separate grant program, the bill will authorize certain coalitions to apply
for a supplemental grant of up to $75,000. Up to 5 percent of the total funds authorized under
DFCA may be used for these grants. This coalition mentoring grant program capitalizes on the
idea, which underpins the entire DFCA, that local communities, rather than the Federal
government, often know how best to address challenges in those communities. The Committee
expects that as a result of these mentoring grants, new coalitions can have the benefit of local
insights and common experiences when addressing similar problems.
Section 2 of H.R. 2291, as amended, imposes a number of conditions on the receipt of these
grants, including requirements that a grantee have been in existence for at least 5 years, and that
it have achieved demonstrable results in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse among
youth. Renewal grants are allowed. A non-Federal funds matching requirement identical to that
applying to general grants is imposed, but with an exception for coalitions serving Indian tribes
(identical to that described in part II.F above). There is no requirement that the non-Federal
funds have been raised specifically for mentoring purposes; rather, funds raised for any antisubstance abuse activities may be counted against the matching requirement.
To ensure that coalitions are given an appropriate incentive to mentor coalitions serving those
most in need, priority in awarding these grants is to be given to coalitions expressly proposing to
mentor coalitions or aspiring coalitions serving economically disadvantaged areas.
I. Five-year extension of advisory commission on drug-free communities (Sec. 3)
The Advisory Commission is reauthorized for an additional 5 years.
J Authorization for national community anti-drug coalition institute (Sec. 4)
In response to a perceived need on the part of many grant recipients for greater guidance and
information in carrying out their anti-substance abuse activities, the bill's drafters in both the
House of Representatives and the Senate looked for ways effectively to provide that guidance
and information. The end result of those efforts is the bill's authorization of a National
Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. The Institute is intended to (1) provide education,
training, and technical assistance for coalition leaders and community teams; (2) develop and
disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and measures to better assess and document coalition
performance measures and outcomes; and (3) bridge the gap between research and practice by
translating knowledge from research into practical information. In response to concerns raised by
several members, the Committee added language directing the Institute to place special emphasis
on the development of coalitions serving economically disadvantaged areas.
To help create the Institute, the bill authorizes a federal grant, to be awarded by ONDCP to a
national organization that represents, provides technical assistance to and training to, and has
special expertise and broad, nation,al-level experience in working with DFCA coalitions. The
Committee expects that ONDCP will ensure that a competitive process, in accordance with
applicable Federal law, will be used to determine the ultimate recipient of that grant.
Nevertheless, only one such organization, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
(CADCA), has communicated with the Committee regarding the legislation. Thus, the
Committee received extensive information from CADCA concerning its views of possible future
goals and activities of the Institute.
The bill authorizes up to $2,000,000 in each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 for the grant
establishing the Institute. CADCA has expressed the view that it believes the Institute could
expect to receive sufficient outside funding after 2003 to enable it to achieve financial
independence. Nevertheless, some provision should be made for financial assistance to the
Institute (regardless of which organization ultimately receives the grant) from fiscal years 2004
through 2007, should insufficient non-Federal funding be available. The Committee believes that
a cap on such assistance of $1,000,000 in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and $750,000 in fiscal
years 2006 and 2007, will balance the
need for contingent financial assistance with the intent of the Committee that the Institute move
quickly towards independence from Federal support.
The Committee had some concerns with respect to the level of the initial grants in 2002 and
2003. CADCA submitted to the Committee its view of a proposed budget for the Institute which,
while describing activities and expenditures that undoubtedly have great merit, suggests the risk
of duplicating some tasks already being undertaken or commissioned by ONDCP and/or OJJDP.
The Committee expects that the ultimate recipient of the Institute grants will take its own steps to
ensure that such duplication of effort does not occur and that overall costs are minimized as
much as possible.
K. Prohibition against duplication of effort (Sec. 5)
The Committee is very concerned that the creation of the mentoring grants and the Institute,
coupled with the raising of the administrative expenses cap, poses a significant danger of
duplication of tasks among all the various entities providing monitoring, training and technical
assistance, and/or evaluation services to DFCA grantees. Such duplication of tasks would be
antithetical to one of the central purposes of the DFCA, namely to minimize the number of
dollars spent on administrative overhead while maximizing the number of dollars directed to the
coalitions themselves. This section instructs the Director of ONDCP to take affirmative steps to
ensure that such duplication of effort does not occur.
VI. SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY
SECTION 1. FIVE YEAR EXTENSION OF DRUG-FREE
COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM
The Drug-Free Communities Act program is reauthorized for five years, from fiscal year 2003
through fiscal year 2007. The amounts authorized for the program are increased in fiscal year
2002 (the last year of authorization under the current DFCA) to $50,600,000 in fiscal year 2002;
thereafter $60,000,000 is authorized in fiscal year 2003, $70,000,000 in fiscal year 2004,
$80,000,000 in fiscal year 2005, $90,000,000 in fiscal year 2006, and $99,000,000 in fiscal year
2007. The limitation on administrative costs is extended through fiscal year 2007, but is raised
for fiscal years 2002 through 2007 to 6 percent of the amounts authorized.
Authority is given to the program Administrator to make additional grants to coalitions that
already received an initial grant and 4 renewal grants. No priority is to be given these coalitions
during the application process, however. Moreover, renewal grants for these additional grants are
subject to a more stringent matching requirement, under which the renewal grant may be equal to
no more than 80 percent of the total non-Federal funds raised by the coalition for the first two
years after the initial grant, and 67 percent for the final two years. These grants remain capped at
$100,000 per year.
The program Administrator is directed to carry out data collection and dissemination activities
under Section 1033(b) of the original DFCA in consultation with the Advisory Commission and
the National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute established by Section 4 of this bill.
This Section provides that amounts expended on a program evaluation are to be derived from the
amounts authorized for administrative expenses only, and not from any other funds authorized by
the DFCA.
The non-Federal fundraising matching requirement is changed for coalitions serving Indian
communities by allowing such coalitions to include Federal funds appropriated to them for
substance abuse activities.
This Section provides that priority in awarding DFCA grants is to be given to otherwise eligible
coalitions that serve economically disadvantaged areas.
SECTION 2. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR
COALITION MENTORING ACTIVITIES UNDER DRUGFREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM
Section 2 authorizes the Administrator to award supplemental grants to coalitions already
receiving DFCA grants, for the purpose of supporting the mentoring of new or emerging
coalitions. The criteria for receiving such a grant are listed in Section 2(d). Renewal grants are
permitted under certain conditions. The grants are limited to $75,000 per year, and the total
amount of all such grants cannot exceed 5 percent of the funds authorized under the DFCA.
Priority for the grants is given to coalitions expressly proposing to assist coalitions serving
economically disadvantaged areas.
SECTION 3. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ADVISORY
COMMISSION ON DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES
The Advisory Commission is reauthorized through fiscal year 2007.
SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR NATIONAL
COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG COALITION INSTITUTE
This Section authorizes the ONDCP Director to award a grant to a private, not-for-profit
organization with substantial experience in working with community anti-drug coalitions for the
purpose of establishing a National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute. The Institute's
activities are outlined in subsection (c). Up to $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003
is authorized for this grant. If necessary, up to $1,000,000 may be awarded to the Institute in
each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and up to $750,000 in each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
SECTION 5. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATION
OF EFFORT
The Director of ONDCP is instructed to take steps to ensure no duplication of effort by entities
receiving funds under the DFCA or under Section 4 of this bill.
VII. STATEMENT OF CBO COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee
was provided the following estimate of the cost of H.R. 2291 prepared by the Congressional
Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. DAN BURTON,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost
estimate for H.R. 2291, a bill to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support
Program for an additional 5 years, to authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition
Institute, and for other purposes.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff
contact is Mark Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson,
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director,).
Enclosure.
I-JR. 2291--A bill to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program
for an additional 5 years, to authorize a National Community Antidrug Coalition Institute, and
for other purposes
Summary: HR. 2291 would authorize the appropriation of $406 million over the 2002-2007
period to extend the Drug-Free Communities Support Program. In addition, the bill would
authorize the appropriation of $7.5 million over the 2002-2007 period to establish a National
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing HR. 2291
would cost $235 million over the 2002-2006 period, mostly for the Drug-Free Communities
Support Program. This legislation would not affect direct spending or receipts so pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply.
H.R. 2291 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Any costs to state and local governments receiving grants under
this bill would be incurred voluntarily.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2291 is
shown in the following table. For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the authorized
amounts will be appropriated by the start of each fiscal year and that spending would follow the
historical spending rates for these or similar activities. The cost of this legislation falls within
budget function 800 (general government).
By fiscal year in millions of dollars
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending under current law for the Drug-Free Communities Support Program:
Authorization level 1
0
0
0
0
44
40
Estimated outlays
0
0
30
9
31
39
Proposed Changes.:
Authorization level
91
71
81
62
0
9
Estimated outlays
72
82
24
53
4
0
Spending under H.R. 2291 for the Drug-Free Communties Support Program and the
National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute:
Authorization level 1
71
91
81
62
40
53
Estimated outlays
72
82
62
43
54
31
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: HR. 2291 contains no intergovernmental mandates
as defined in UIMIRA. Any costs of state and local governments receiving grants under this bill
would be incurred voluntarily.
Estimated prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Grabowicz; impact on State, local, and tribal
governments: Susan Sieg Tompkins; impact on the the private sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director of Budget Analysis.
V11I. STATEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORiTY
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee
finds that Congress is specifically granted the power to enact this law under Article I, Section 8,
clause 1 under which Congress is granted the 'Power To * * * provide for the * * * general
Welfare of the United States[]t
IX. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT (5 U.S.C. APP.) SECTION
5(B)
As H.R. 2291 does not establish a new advisory committee within the meaning of Section 5(b) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, no statement under that section is necessary. The
Committee refers interested parties to Section IX of Report 105-105, dated May 20, 1997, which
contains the Section 5(b) statement for the Advisory Commission created by the original DFCA.
X. CHANGES 1N EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic,
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL NARCOTICS LEADERSHIP ACT OF 1988
TITLE I--COORDINATION OF NATIONAL DRUG POLICY
Subtitle A--National Drug Control Program
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the 'National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988.
*******
CHAPTER 2--DRUG.FREE COMMUNITIES
* * * ** * *
SEC. 1024. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Office of National
Drug Control Policy to carry out this chapter(1) * * *
(4) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; [Struck out->J[ and I [<-Struckout]
[Struckout->][ (5) $43,500,000 for fiscal year 2002. j[<-Struckout]
(5) $50,600,000for fiscal year 2002;
(6) $60,000, 000 for fiscal year 2003;
(7) $70,000,000 for fiscal year 2004;
(8) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2005;
(9) $90,000,000 for fiscal year 2006; and
(10) $99,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(b) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS- Not more than the following percentages of the
amounts authorized under subsection (a) may be used to pay administrative costs:
(1) * * *
[Struckout->}( (5) 3 percent for fiscal year 2002. ][<-StrUckOut]
(5) 6percentfor each offiscal years 2002 through 2007.
SUBCHAPTER I--DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES SUPPORT PROGRAM
SEC. 1032. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.
(a) * * *
(b) GRANT AMOUNTS(1) * * *
(3 ADDITIONAL GRANTS(A) IN GENERAL- Subject to subparagraph (F), the Administrator may
award an additional grant under this paragraph to an eligible coalition
awarded a grant under paragraph (1) or 2,) for any first fiscal year afler
the end of the 4-year periodfollowing the period of the initial grant under
paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be.
(73) SCOPE OF GRANTS- A coalition awarded a grant under paragraph
(1) or (2), including a renewal grant under such paragraph, may not be
awarded another grant under such paragraph, and is eligible for an
additional grant under this section only under this paragraph.
(C) NO PRIORITY FOR APPLICATIONS- The Administrator may not
afford a higher priority in the award of an additional grant under this
paragraph than the Administrator would afford the applicant for the grant
f the applicant were submitting an application for an initial grant under
paragraph (1) or (2) rather than an application for a grant under this
paragraph
(D) RENEWAL GRANTS- Subject to subparagraph (F), the Administrator
may award a renewal grant to a grant recipient under this paragraph for
each of the fiscal years of the 4-fiscal-year period following the fiscal year
for which the initial additional grant under subparagraph (A) is awarded
in an amount not to exceed amounts as follows:
(1) For the first and second fiscal years of that 4-fiscal-year period,
the amount equal to 80 percent of the non-Federal funds, including
in-kind contributions, raised by the coalition for the applicable
fiscal year.
(ii) For the third and fourth fiscal years of that 4-fiscal-year
period the amount equal to 67 percent of the non-Federal funds,
including in-kind contributions, raised by the coalition for the
applicable fiscal year.
(E) SUSPENSION- If a grant recipient under this paragraph fails to
continue to meet the criteria specfled in subsection (a), the Administrator
may suspend the grant, after providing written notice tothe grant
recipient and an opportunity to appeal.
(F) LIMITATION- The amount of a grant award under this paragraph
may not exceed $1 00,000 for afiscal year.
(c) TREA TMENT OF FUNDS FOR COALITIONS REPRESENTING CERTAIN
ORGANIZATIONS- Funds appropriated for the substance abuse activities of a coalition
that includes a representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service,
or a tribal government agency with expertise in the field of substance abuse may be
counted as non-Federal funds raised by the coalition for purposes of this section.
(d) PRIORITY INA WARDING GRANTS- In awarding grants under subsection
(b)(1)(A)(i,), priority shall be given to a coalition serving economically disadvantaged
areas.
SEC. 1033. INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION WITH
RESPECT TO GRANT RECIPIENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) DATA COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION(1) * * *
(3) CONSUL TA TION- The Administrator shall carry out activities under this
subsection in consultation with the Advisory Commission and the National
Community Antidrug Coalition Institute.
(4) LIMITATION ON USE OF CERTAIN FUNDS FOR EVALUATION OF
PROGRAM- Amounts for activities under paragraph (2)(B) may not be derived
from amounts under section 1 024(a) except for amounts that are available under
section 1024(b) for administrative costs.
SEC. 1035. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR COALITION MENTORING
A C TI VI TIES.
(a) A UTHORITY TO MAKE GRANTS- As part of the program established under section
103], the Director may award an initial grant under this subsection, and renewal grants
under subsection (/), to any coalition awarded a grant under section 1032 that meets the
criteria spec/led in subsection (d) in order to fund coalition mentoring activities by such
coalition in support of the program.
(b) TREA TMENT WITH OTHER GRANTS(1) SUPPLEMENT- A grant awarded to a coalition under this section is in
addition to any grant awarded to the coalition under section 1032.
(2) REQUIREMENT FOR BASIC GRANT- A coalition may not be awarded a
grant under this section for aJiscal year unless the coalition was awarded a grant
or renewal grant under section 1032(b) for that fiscal year.
(c) APPLICATION- A coalition seeking a grant under this section shall submit to the
Administrator an application for the grant in such form and manner as the Administrator
may require.
(d) CRITERIA- A coalition meets the criteria specified in this subsection fthe coalition-(1) has been in existence for at least 5 years;
(2) has achieved, by or through its own efforts, measurable results in the
prevention and treatment of substance abuse among youth;
(3) has staff or members willing to serve as mentors for persons seeking to start
or expand the activities of other coalitions in the prevention and treatment of
substance abuse;
(4) has demonstrable support from some members of the community in which the
coalition mentoring activities to be supported by the grant under this section are
to be carried out; and
(5) submits to the Administrator a detailed plan for the coalition mentoring
activities to be supported by the grant under this section.
(e) USE OF GRANT FUNDS- A coalition awarded a grant under this section shall use
the grant amount fdr mentoring activities to support and encourage the development of
new, self-supporting community coalitions that are focused on the prevention and
treatment of substance abuse in such new coalitions' communities. The mentoring
coalition shall encourage such development in accordance with the plan submitted by the
mentoring coalition under subsection (d)(5).
(f) RENEWAL GRANTS- The Administrator may make a renewal grant to any coalition
awarded a grant under subsection (a), or a previous renewal grant under this subsection,
f the coalition, at the time of application for such renewal grant-(1) continues to meet the criteria specied in subsection (d); and
(2) has made demonstrable progress in the development of one or more new, selfsupporting community coalitions that are focused on the prevention and treatment
of substance abuse.
(g) GRANT AMOUNTS(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the total amount of grants
awarded to a coalition under this section for afiscal year may not exceed the
amount of non-Federal funds raised by the coalition, including in-kind
contributions, for that JIscal year. Funds appropriated for the substance abuse
activities of a coalition that includes a representative of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or a tribal government agency with expertise in
the field of substance abuse may be counted as non-Federal funds raised by the
coalition.
(2) INITIAL GRANTS- The amount of the initial grant awarded to a coalition
under subsection (a) may not exceed $75, 000.
(3) RENEWAL GRANTS- The total amount of renewal grants awarded to a
coalition under subsection (/)for any fiscal year may not exceed $75, 000.
(h) FISCAL YEAR LIMITATION ON AMOUNT A VAILABLE FOR GRANTS- The total
amount available for grants under this section, including renewal grants under
subsection (/), in any fiscal year may not exceed the amount equal to five percent of the
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 1024(a) for that fiscal year.
(i) PRIORITY IN A WARDING INITIAL GRANTS- In awarding initial grants under this
section, priority shall be given to a coalition that expressly proposes to provide
mentorship to a coalition or aspiring coalition serving economically disadvantaged
areas.
SUBCHAPTER Il--ADVISORY COMMISSION
SEC. 1048. TERMINATION.
The Advisory Commission shall terminate at the end of fiscal year [Struck out->}[ 2002
[<-Struck out] 2007.
XI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; PUBLIC LAW 104-1
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the terms and conditions of
employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of Section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (PL 104-1).
XII. BUDGET ANALYSIS
Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(c)(2) of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and Section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee finds that no new budget
authority, new spending authority, new credit authority or an increase or decrease in revenues or
tax expenditures results from enactment of this resolution.
XIII. UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT; PUBLIC LAW 104-4
SECTION 423
The Committee finds that the legislation does not impose any Federal mandates within the
meaning of Section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (P.L. 104-4).
XIV. APPENDIX
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. DAN BURTON,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
Raybum House Office Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR CHAIRMAN BURTON: I am iting with regard to H.R. 2291, which the Committee on
Government Reform ordered reported on July 25, 2001. The Committee on Energy and
Commerce was named as an additional Committee of jurisdiction upon the bilPs introduction.
I recognize your desire to bring this bill before the House in an expeditious manner.
Accordingly, I will not exercise the Committees right to exercise its referral. By agreeing to
waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Energy and Commerce Committee does not
waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 2291. In addition, the Energy and Commerce Committee
reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this similar legislation. I ask for
your commitment to support any request by the Energy and Commerce Committee for conferees
on HR. 2291 or similar legislation.
I request that you include this letter as a part of the Committee's report on H.R. 2291 and in the
Congressional Record during debate on its provisions. Thank you for your attention to these
matters.
Sincerely,
W.J. 'Billy' Tauzin,
Chairman.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC, July 30, 2001.
Hon. W.J. 'BILLY' TAUZIN,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Raybum House Office Building, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of July 30, 2001, regarding H.R. 2291, a
bill to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program.
I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions of this legislation, and I appreciate your decision not to exercise your referral in the
interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing your right to consider
this legislation, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. I will
also support your Committee's request to seek conferees on provisions of the bill that fall within
your jurisdiction, should the bill go to a House-Senate conference. Further, as your requested,
this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill and in the
Congressional Record as part of the floor debate.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Burton,
Chairman.
in'
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2008-08-26 |