[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 122 (Friday, June 25, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34504-34509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16252]



[[Page 34503]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Justice





_______________________________________________________________________



Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention



_______________________________________________________________________



Training and Technical Assistance for the Life Skills Training Drug 
Prevention Program; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 122 / Friday, June 25, 1999 / 
Notices  

[[Page 34504]]



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
[OJP (OJJDP)-1237]
RIN 1121-ZB70


Training and Technical Assistance for the Life Skills Training 
Drug Prevention Program

AGENCY: Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, Justice.

ACTION: Announcement of discretionary competitive technical assistance 
support.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This program is authorized under the Omnibus Consolidated and 
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1999, October 19, 1998 
(Pub. L. 105-277). OJJDP invites applications from schools, local 
education agencies, local public health agencies, and public agencies 
or private organizations involved with drug prevention activities. 
Joint applications between schools or local education agencies and 
nonschool applicants are welcome.

DATES: Applications must be received by August 9, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Interested applicants can obtain an application kit from the 
Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. The application kit is 
also available on OJJDP's Web site at www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Stansbury Program Manager, Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 202-307-5914. [This is 
not a toll-free number.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a follow on to a previous OJJDP 
program announcement of the availability of training and technical 
assistance for the Life Skills Training drug prevention program, 
originally announced in the Federal Register on December 4, 1998, 63 FR 
67136. Under this program announcement, additional OJJDP-funded 
training and technical assistance is being offered to 50 or more new 
program sites.

Purpose

    The purpose of this program is to support the development and 
implementation of drug abuse prevention programs that help reduce risk 
factors and enhance protective factors among adolescents in middle and 
junior high school. The program will provide training and technical 
assistance to schools and/or local education agencies to implement the 
Life Skills Training drug prevention program. It will also provide the 
program support and implementation materials needed to implement and 
evaluate replication of this proven effective drug prevention program 
model that addresses a community's identified substance abuse reduction 
needs. The broad goal of the program is to reduce youth drug use by 
encouraging the promotion of multiple approaches to educating and 
motivating younger adolescents to make healthy lifestyle decisions.

Background

    National survey data of adolescent drug use illustrate that the 
1980's downward trend in the use of many drugs was reversed in 1993 
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997); increases in the 
prevalence of use among 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students were 
observed through 1996. In 1997, the data indicated a leveling off for 
some drug categories among some age groups, but in general, the trends 
for the mid-1990's show escalating rates of use for students in the 
three grades examined.
    Age-related normative expectations for substance use generally 
place older children at greater risk for substance use initiation than 
younger children. Among preadolescent children, the use of illegal 
substances is relatively rare. The transition to middle school or 
junior high school is viewed as a major risk period for experimentation 
with gateway substances. The 1997 Monitoring the Future survey data 
indicate that by 8th grade, 47 percent of students had tried cigarettes 
at least once, 19 percent had smoked in the past month, and 9 percent 
were daily smokers (University of Michigan Institute for Social 
Research, 1997). For 10th grade students, these figures jump to 60 
percent, 30 percent, and 18 percent, respectively, and for 12th grade 
students they jump to 65 percent, 35 percent, and 25 percent, 
respectively. Similarly, a large number of students reported having 
tried alcohol at least once during their lifetimes: 54 percent of 8th 
graders, 72 percent of 10th graders, and 82 percent of 12th graders 
admitted having used alcohol at least once, and 25 percent, 49 percent, 
and 64 percent, respectively, admitted having been drunk. Prevalence of 
marijuana use was lower than for tobacco and alcohol, but still high. 
Annual and 30-day use rates for those in 8th grade were 18 percent and 
10 percent; in 10th grade, these rates were 35 percent and 20 percent; 
and in 12th grade, they were 39 percent and 24 percent.
    Among youth who use drugs, a fairly predictable sequence has been 
observed, beginning with substances legal for adult consumption and 
then moving on to marijuana and eventually other illegal drugs (Kandel 
and Yamaguchi, 1999). This pattern of use is largely consistent with 
social attitudes and norms and the availability of drugs.
    In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $5 million to the Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) ``to develop, 
demonstrate and test programs to increase the perception among children 
and youth that drug use is risky, harmful, and unattractive * * * 
[through an initiative that is] consistent with existing research 
findings on effective prevention methods against teenage drug abuse'' 
(Conference Report 105-405 for Pub. L. 105-119, November 13, 1997).
    A number of theories, models, and frameworks have been tested to 
identify possible explanatory mechanisms of youth substance use 
initiation. The results of these tests also have created a basis for 
developing strategies for deterring initiation, use, and progression to 
abuse. Interventions based on these different theories, models, and 
frameworks may be more or less applicable to different target groups. 
Target audiences for drug abuse prevention interventions are grouped 
into three categories; different types of interventions are used for 
each. Universal interventions reach the general population (e.g., all 
students in a school), selected programs target groups or subsets of 
the general population at risk (e.g., children of drug users), and 
indicated interventions are designed for individuals who are already 
experimenting with drugs or who exhibit other related risks that 
foreshadow the use of drugs. The majority of interventions that have 
been developed and rigorously tested are of the universal type 
(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1997).
    Botvin, Schinke, and Orlandi (1995: 170-172) described common 
approaches to drug prevention:

    The most common prevention approach used by schools relies on 
teaching students factual information about drugs and drug abuse. 
Typically, students are taught about the dangers of tobacco, 
alcohol, or drug use in terms of the adverse health, social, and 
legal consequences. * * * Programs that rely exclusively on 
providing students with facts about drugs and drug abuse are 
conceptually based on a cognitive model of drug use/abuse. Such a 
model assumes that individuals make a more or less rational decision 
to use drugs or not to use drugs. * * * This model of drug abuse 
assumes that once armed with the necessary facts, students will make 
a rational and informed decision not to use drugs.

[[Page 34505]]

    Another common approach to drug abuse prevention has been referred 
to as affective education. This prevention strategy [is] based on the 
belief that the risk of using drugs [can] be reduced through programs 
designed to promote affective development. * * * Instead of focusing on 
cognitive factors, affective education emphasizes the personal and 
social development of students. Affective education takes a somewhat 
broader approach to the problem of drug abuse than information 
dissemination by implicitly recognizing the role of psychosocial 
factors. * * * For example, components of affective education 
approaches that are used in some prevention programs include 
decisionmaking, effective communication, and assertiveness.

    Subsequently developed approaches have been designed to target the 
psychosocial factors believed to promote the use of drugs. Emphasis was 
placed on teaching students the skills needed to resist influences such 
as those from peers and the media (Botvin, Schinke, and Orlandi, 1995).
    Perhaps the theory most widely applied to the problem of substance 
use is the Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977). This theory posits 
that people learn behaviors through processes of modeling and 
reinforcement. A model derived from this theoretical perspective is the 
Social Influence Model. According to this model, youth's perceptions 
that deviant behaviors are standard practices among their peers promote 
deviance through the establishment of negative normative beliefs and 
reinforcement of behaviors that confirm those beliefs (Botvin et al., 
1995). Thus, the onset of substance use can be viewed as behavior 
acquired through modeling, social pressure, and reinforcement by 
friends, family, the media, and community norms and practices. These 
same factors can be applied in a positive manner to change behavior.
    Epidemiologic and etiologic studies have identified various factors 
that predict youth drug involvement (Bentler, 1992). A number of 
frameworks have been developed for classifying these factors into 
conceptual domains that may contribute to an understanding of how these 
factors cluster and operate'singly and together'for individuals and 
groups (for a review, see Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992). Perhaps 
the most commonly used framework is the ecological perspective, which 
groups factors into individual, family, peer group, community, and 
sociopolitical contextual domains (Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, 1994). 
Information about risks within these domains can then be used to focus 
prevention programming and strategies.
    Recently, there has been a concentration on the identification of 
factors that may protect at-risk individuals and groups from the 
initiation of substance use and other problem behaviors such as 
violence (Cicchetti and Garmezy, 1993: Garmezy, 1993; Masten and 
Coatsworth, 1998; Werner, 1995). These protective or resiliency factors 
have been demonstrated to reduce the initiation of substance use under 
some circumstances. However, they appear to be less potent when there 
is an accumulation of risk factors in an individual's life or community 
(Hawkins, 1998). Moreover, risk and protective factors are not static; 
their potency and meaning change with a person's developmental status 
and circumstance (Glantz and Sloboda, in press). For example, 
epidemiologic studies have documented an association between changing 
beliefs about social responsibility and perceived risks of marijuana 
use on the prevalence of use among high school seniors (U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services, 1997). That is, increases in social 
disapproval of use and an increased perception of risk associated with 
use were followed by a reduction in the prevalence of use from the mid-
1980's to 1992. Perceived risk began to drop in 1992, and prevalence of 
use began to increase in 1993. Thus, it appears that a change in social 
norms can function as either a risk or a protective factor.
    Despite these caveats, the use of risk and protective factors as a 
framework for the selection of community prevention programs has become 
widespread, and a number of studies have demonstrated the utility of 
the model for this purpose (Hawkins, 1998). In general, the more risk 
factors present in a community, the greater the likelihood that an 
individual will become involved with drug and alcohol use and other 
problem behaviors. Knowledge of the specific risk factors present in a 
community and among youth within that community provides policy makers, 
practitioners, and implementers with information critical for 
comprehensive, communitywide prevention planning.
    The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) at the 
University of Colorado, Boulder, has identified 10 prevention and 
intervention programs that meet the highest scientific standards of 
program effectiveness. CSPV has described these programs and provided 
the documentation necessary for their replication in a series of 
publications called Blueprints. The Life Skills Training (LST) program 
is an effective drug abuse program model documented in the Blueprint 
series. Developed by Dr. Gil Botvin, this program has empirically 
demonstrated, across settings, that it reduces gateway drug use among 
youth. Although this model has been tested in a number of 
jurisdictions, the training and technical assistance offered under this 
program announcement is designed to foster its replication in more and 
diverse jurisdictions, including urban, rural, and tribal settings. 
This whole school immersion drug prevention program targets middle and 
junior high school students with initial intervention in sixth or 
seventh grades, depending on school structure. For a more complete 
explanation of the LST program, see the appendix.

Goal

    The specific goal of the training and technical assistance program 
is to reduce drug use among younger adolescents (middle and junior high 
school students) by increasing the perception among children and youth 
that drug use is risky, harmful, and unattractive.

Objectives

     To adapt, implement, and monitor the implementation of the 
Life Skills Training program.
     To reduce youth vulnerability to prodrug social 
influences.
     To decrease risk factors for drug use and associated 
behaviors by enhancing personal and social competencies and other 
protective factors among youth.

Program Strategy

    Training and technical assistance for the replication of the LST 
model has been awarded to CSPV, which will, in turn, provide technical 
assistance to individual schools and local education agencies. CSPV 
will also assist in the selection of schools and local education 
agencies for the replication of the LST model and support the training, 
technical assistance, and process evaluation components of the program 
in each of the selected schools and local education agencies. In 
conjunction with CSPV, the LST training team, led by Dr. Botvin, will 
work with each selected site, providing training, technical assistance, 
and program and curriculum materials over a 3-year period.
    The training and technical assistance will be provided by CSPV and 
the LST training team through a four-step process:

[[Page 34506]]

     Determine the suitability of applicant organizations 
(sites) to conduct the planned replication of LST (after being deemed 
qualified by an OJJDP review panel). CSPV and LST will determine 
suitability by reviewing applications, holding conference calls, and 
making site visits, where necessary.
     Facilitate the delivery of curriculum materials during the 
3-year program to the selected sites, an essential step because the LST 
program requires strict adherence to a core curriculum.
     Provide technical assistance and training sessions during 
the course of the 3-year program.
     Monitor implementation at the local level and conduct a 
process evaluation to assess how well the program is being implemented 
and is serving the selected sites. (This step will be carried out by 
CSPV only.)

Evaluation

    Evaluation of the program will consist of both a process evaluation 
and an outcome evaluation. In conjunction with its monitoring function, 
CSPV will conduct a process evaluation that will focus on the 
individual project's adherence to the model. CSPV will collect data 
through observing project functions, examining project documents, and 
interviewing staff to determine whether the program is reaching the 
target population and whether the program is being implemented as 
designed. Information regarding the findings of the process evaluation 
will be provided periodically to the projects for use in making project 
management decisions.
    Also, in cooperation with OJJDP, the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse will conduct an outcome evaluation to assess the extent to which 
a large-scale replication program in schools and local education 
agencies with diverse characteristics is able to effectively implement 
the LST model across multiple sites and reduce substance abuse. To 
facilitate the evaluation, applicant schools and/or local education 
agencies, as appropriate, must agree to and/or arrange for the 
following conditions:
     Applicants must document the cooperation and assurance of 
the school or local education agency's administration to:

--Provide documentation of cooperation and assurance for sites for 
random assignment to either intervention or control schools (it is 
anticipated that up to 30 sites (grantees) will be randomly selected to 
participate in an outcome evaluation). Interviews with students 
receiving the LST program and their matched counterparts in the control 
schools (not receiving LST) will be conducted over a 5-year period in 
sites selected to participate in the outcome evaluation.
--Assist in obtaining informed consent from parents for their 
children's participation in the project (to include the administration 
of surveys) in the intervention (treatment) and nontreatment control 
schools.
--Cooperate with the administration of pretests, posttests, and annual 
follow-up school surveys through the students' high school years to 
assess the impact of the implementation over time. The surveys will be 
done in both the intervention schools and the nontreatment control 
schools.

     Applicants must agree to collaborate with the researchers 
in designing and administering surveys to assess risk and protective 
factors and potential mediators of program effectiveness such as school 
environment (school policies, school behavioral norms), drug use 
behaviors, perceptions of risk, and changes over time in skill 
development and/or other essential intervention components.
     Applicants must agree to allow researchers access to all 
process evaluation data, including those data that monitor the fidelity 
of implementation across sites, participation rates, and barriers to 
implementation.
     Over the course of the project, the researchers conducting 
the outcome evaluation will provide feedback to participating schools 
and agencies on the outcome evaluation, including interim and final 
reports.

Eligibility Requirements

    OJJDP invites applications from schools, local education agencies, 
local public health agencies, and public and private drug prevention 
agencies. Joint applications between schools or local education 
agencies and nonschool applicants are welcome. If the applicant is not 
a school or local education agency, the application must include a 
memorandum of understanding that documents the local education agency's 
formal commitment to cooperate with the applicant, participate in all 
training, and provide all necessary data over the course of the 
project.

Selection Criteria

    Because sites will not receive funding directly, but instead will 
receive training, curriculum materials, and technical assistance, OJJDP 
has modified its standard selection criteria.
    Applicants will be reviewed to determine that they are qualified 
based on the following criteria:
     Applicants' assessment of the juvenile drug use problem in 
their communities, particularly whether specific problem areas coincide 
with the requirements of the LST model.
     Applicants' understanding of the program's specific goals 
and objectives.
     Applicants' ability to restate the objectives in 
measurable terms.
     The local structure established to implement the project.
    Prior to the CSPV and LST team review process described above, 
applicants will be evaluated and rated by a review panel according to 
the criteria outlined below.

Problems To Be Addressed (15 points)

    Applicants must describe the targeted school or local education 
agency and explain why it would be a suitable site for replication of 
the LST program. This description should include the number of schools 
and students that will participate in the LST program and must explain 
the community assessment process, including the procedures used, the 
types and sources of data, and the relationship of the data to the 
target population. Emphasis should be placed on establishing baseline 
data that describe community risk and protective factors and general 
characteristics of the population to be served. Applicants should also 
describe other drug prevention programs (e.g., efforts to reduce 
underage drinking and community-based coalitions designed to reduce 
substance abuse by youth) in the community and explain how this program 
will be coordinated with them.

Goals and Objectives (5 points)

    Applicants must provide succinct statements demonstrating an 
understanding of the goals, objectives, and tasks associated with the 
project (see, for example, sections regarding evaluation and 
implementation design and also the appendix). Objectives must be 
quantifiable and measurable, and applicants must convey a clear 
understanding of the purpose, implementation, evaluation requirements, 
and expected results of the project.

Implementation Design (40 points)

    The LST program is a school-based intervention designed to be 
implemented in the classroom.
    Applicants must demonstrate that the LST program meets the drug 
prevention needs of the target population of students within the 
specific community. They must also provide a detailed description of 
the processes for planning and implementing the project

[[Page 34507]]

and for cooperating with the outcome evaluation grantee.
    Because successful prevention programs change students, schools, 
neighborhoods, and families in ways that reduce drug use by youth, 
proposals must be based on local objective data that identify 
characteristics and risk factors that need to be addressed and 
protective factors that show potential. Data collected about 
populations other than the specific populations that will receive 
direct services under the program (for example, national or State data 
on youth drug use) are not considered sufficient evidence that the 
program responds to the community-level needs of the target population. 
Applicants should provide evidence that they will work with the LST 
training and technical assistance provider to make the program 
culturally relevant to the target community and its population.
    Applicant schools and agencies also should consider that greater 
effectiveness is achieved when the core elements of the original 
research-based model are retained. Core elements are the basic 
structure, content, and delivery of the program. For example, the 
structure of the program includes the number of sessions during year 1 
and booster sessions during years 2 and 3 required to achieve the 
desired effect; the content includes the critical components such as 
normative education, refusal skills, and social skills training; and 
delivery includes the provision of appropriate staff training and 
resources to assist in implementation.
    Applicants must detail the number of schools and students within 
each school that will be involved in the replication effort during the 
3-year period. LST is ideally meant to begin in sixth or seventh grade 
(middle or junior high school) with booster sessions in each of the 
following 2 years. However, in the 2 years following the initial 
implementation, two new sixth grade cohorts may begin implementing LST, 
so that eventually the entire school is implementing the program. 
Although applicants may submit proposals with any number of 
participating schools and students, OJJDP reserves the right to hold 
sites to a limited number of participating students. Applicants must 
identify an equal number of students in nontreatment school sites to 
serve as control groups. Documentation for each participating school of 
a commitment to implement the program or serve as a control school for 
the participating schools should be included. Because the evaluation 
may involve random assignment to treatment or control groups, schools 
must be willing to commit to participate in either group.

Management and Organizational Capability (35 points)

    Applicants must demonstrate that their management structure and 
staffing are adequate for the successful implementation of the project. 
They must present a workplan that identifies responsible individuals, 
major tasks, and milestones (timeline) for implementing the LST model 
in their school(s), with training beginning in late summer or early 
fall 1999 and implementation beginning in spring 2000. Applicants 
should specifically describe coordination and collaboration efforts 
related to the project.
    Applicants must demonstrate any existing programs or partnerships 
related to substance abuse prevention by submitting project 
descriptions or memorandums of understanding, interagency agreements, 
or other documentation. These materials may be attached as appendixes. 
However, the collaborative relationship must be clearly described in 
the application. Staff resumes or job descriptions should also be 
attached as an appendix.

Budget (5 points)

    Training and technical assistance funds for the replication of the 
LST model will not be awarded to individual schools and local education 
agencies, but rather to CSPV, which will use the money to provide all 
materials, training, technical assistance, and a process evaluation. 
Thus, applicants are required to submit budgets detailing only the in-
kind contributions they will make to ensure sufficient onsite 
coordination of and support for replication of the model. Examples of 
in-kind contributions include, but are not limited to, office space, an 
appropriate location for provider training and onsite technical 
assistance, personnel to serve as liaison with LST and CSPV and 
coordinate local site activities, and equipment that will be used to 
support the project.
    Applicants must provide as an in-kind contribution a mechanism for 
coordinating onsite training and technical assistance such as providing 
a suitable location for provider training by LST staff. Applicants 
should describe this mechanism. For example, a school might designate 
one or more individuals as training and technical assistance 
coordinator(s). Applicants should list and total the value of those in-
kind contributions required to implement this project and describe 
plans for institutionalizing the project. Applicants are advised that 
they must document the in-kind costs in accord with OMB Circular A-110 
or A-102.

Format

    The narrative portion of this application must not exceed 25 pages 
(excluding the budget narrative, forms, assurances, and appendixes) and 
must be submitted on 8\1/2\- by 11-inch paper, double-spaced on one 
side of the paper in a standard 12-point font. These standards are 
necessary to maintain a fair and uniform standard among all applicants. 
If the narrative does not conform to these standards, OJJDP will deem 
the application ineligible for consideration.

Project Period

    Sites selected will be provided technical assistance, program 
implementation training, and LST curriculum materials over a 3-year 
project period.

Project Sites and Level of Support

    Up to 50 projects will be selected to replicate the LST model 
locally over 3 years. Successful applicants will receive the training, 
curriculum materials, and technical assistance from CSPV and LST. In 
making final selections, the OJJDP Administrator will consider 
geographic distribution and balance in the number of each type of 
jurisdiction (urban, rural, and tribal) selected.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number

    For this program, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 
number, which is required on Standard Form 424, Application for Federal 
Assistance, is 16.729. This form is included in OJJDP's Application 
Kit, which can be obtained by calling the Juvenile Justice 
Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 or sending an e-mail request to 
[email protected]. The kit also is available online at 
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

Coordination of Federal Efforts

    To encourage better coordination among Federal agencies in 
addressing State and local needs, the U.S. Department of Justice is 
requesting applicants to provide information on the following: (1) 
Active Federal grant award(s) supporting this or related efforts, 
including awards from the U.S. Department of Justice; (2) any pending 
application(s) for Federal funds for this or related efforts; and (3) 
plans for coordinating any funds described in items (1) or (2) with the 
funding sought by this application.
    For each Federal award, applicants must include the program or 
project title, the Federal grantor agency, the

[[Page 34508]]

amount of the award, and a brief description of its purpose.
    ``Related efforts'' is defined for these purposes as one of the 
following:
     Efforts for the same purpose (i.e., the proposed award 
would supplement, expand, complement, or continue activities funded 
with other Federal grants).
     Another phase or component of the same program or project 
(e.g., to implement a planning effort funded by other Federal funds or 
to provide a substance abuse treatment or education component within a 
criminal justice project).
     Services of some kind (e.g., technical assistance, 
research, or evaluation) to the program or project described in the 
application.

Delivery Instructions

    All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile 
Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, 
Rockville, Maryland 20850; 301-519-5535.

    Note: In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, the 
applicant must clearly write ``Training and Technical Assistance for 
the Life Skills Training Drug Prevention Program.''

Due Date

    Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five 
copies of the application package are received by 5 p.m. ET on August 
9, 1999.

Contact

    For further information, call Eric Stansbury, Program Manager, 
Special Emphasis Division, at 202-307-5914, or send an e-mail inquiry 
to [email protected].

References

Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 
Prentice Hall.
Bentler, P.M. 1992. Etiologies and consequences of adolescent drug 
use: Implications for prevention. Journal of Addictive Diseases 
11(3):47-61.
Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., and Botvin, E.M. 1995. Long-
term follow-up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial 
in a white-middle-class population. Journal of the American Medical 
Association 273(14):1106-1112.
Botvin, G.J. 1995. Drug abuse prevention in school settings. In Drug 
Abuse Prevention With MultiEthnic Youth, edited by G.J. Botvin, S. 
Sckinke, and M. Orlandi. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bronfenbrenner, U., and Ceci, S.J. 1994. Nature-nurture 
reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological 
model. Psychological Review 101(4):568-586.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 1998. Blueprints 
for Violence Prevention, Book 5: Life Skills Training. Golden, CO: 
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
Cicchetti, D., and Garmezy, N. 1993. Prospects and promises in the 
study of resiliency. Development and Psychopathology 5:497-502.
Garmezy, N. 1993. Children in poverty: Resiliency despite risk. 
Psychiatry 56:127-136.
Glantz, M., and Sloboda, Z. In press. Analysis and 
reconceptualization of resilience. In Resilience and Development; 
Positive Life Adaptations, edited by M. Glantz and J. Johnson. New 
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Hawkins, J.D. 1998 (June). Moving to phase five in the prevention 
cycle: Collaborating with communities to make prevention science 
prevention practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 
Society for Prevention Research, Park City, UT.
Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., and Miller, J.Y. 1992. Risk and 
protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in 
adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse 
prevention. Psychological Bulletin 112(1):64-105.
Kandel, D.B., and Yamaguchi, K. 1999. Developmental stages of 
involvement in substance use. In Sourcebook on Substance Abuse: 
Etiology, Epidemiology, Assessment, and Treatment, edited by R.E. 
Tarter, R.J. Ammerman, and P.J. Ott. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. 1998. Development of competence 
in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on 
successful children. American Psychologist 53(2):205-220.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. 1997. Preventing Drug Use Among 
Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide. NIH Publication 
No. 97-4212. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug 
Abuse.
Pentz, M.A., Cormack, C., Flay, B., Hansen, W.B., and Johnson, C.A. 
1986. Balancing program and research integrity in community drug 
abuse prevention: Project STAR approach. Journal of School Health 
56(9):389-393.
Pentz, M.A., Dwyer, J.H., MacKinnon, D.P., Flay, B.R., Hansen, W.B., 
and Johnson, C.A. 1989. Primary prevention of chronic diseases in 
adolescence: Effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project on tobacco 
use. American Journal of Epidemiology 130(4):713-724.
Pentz, M.A., Trebow, E.A., Hansen, W.B., MacKinnon, D.P., Dwyer, 
J.H., Johnson, C.A., Flay, B.R., Daniels, S., and Cormack, C. 1990. 
Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug use behavior: 
The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Evaluation Review 14:264-
289.
University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. 1997 (December 
18). Drug use among American teens shows some signs of leveling 
after a long rise. Press release. Ann Arbor, MI: University of 
Michigan Institute for Social Research.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1997 (December 20). 
Drug use survey shows mixed results for nation's youth: Use among 
younger adolescents appears to be slowing. Press release. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Werner, E.E. 1995. Resilience in development. Current Directions in 
Psychological Science 4(3):81-85.

Appendix

    Applicants should contact The Center for the Study and 
Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University 
of Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 442, Boulder, Colorado 80309-
0442; 303-492-8465, to obtain copies of the Life Skills Training 
Blueprint. The cost is $10.
    Following is a brief description of the LST model, summarized 
from Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book 5: Life Skills 
Training.

The Life Skills Training Program

    The LST program is a primary prevention program that targets 
individuals who have not yet developed drug abuse problems. The goal 
of the program is to prevent gateway substance use among adolescents 
by making an impact on risk factors associated with tobacco, 
alcohol, and marijuana use, particularly occasional and experimental 
use. This goal is accomplished by providing adolescents with the 
knowledge and skills to:
     Resist peer and media pressure to smoke, drink, or use 
drugs.
     Develop a positive self-image.
     Make decisions and solve problems on their own.
     Manage anxiety.
     Communicate effectively and avoid misunderstandings.
     Build healthy relationships.
     Handle social situations with confidence.
    The LST program is a school-based intervention designed to be 
implemented in the classroom. This intervention often is referred to 
as a universal intervention in that it is designed for all 
individuals in a given setting. The program was developed to have an 
impact on drug-related knowledge, attitudes, and norms; teach skills 
for resisting social influences to use drugs; and promote the 
development of general personal self-management skills and social 
skills. The LST prevention program comprises three major components. 
The first component is designed to teach students a set of general 
self-management skills. The second component focuses on teaching 
general social skills. The

[[Page 34509]]

third component includes information and skills that are 
specifically related to the problem of gateway substance use. The 
first two components are designed to enhance overall personal 
competence and decrease the motivation to use drugs and 
vulnerability to social influences. The problem-specific component 
is designed to provide students with material that relates directly 
to drug use (drug resistance skills, antidrug attitudes, and 
antidrug norms). Skills are taught using training techniques such as 
instruction, demonstration, feedback, reinforcement, and practice. 
In school districts that have a middle school structure, the program 
is implemented with sixth, seventh, and eighth graders. Where there 
is a junior high school structure, the program is implemented with 
seventh, eighth, and ninth graders.
    The LST prevention program is a 3-year intervention designed to 
prevent or reduce gateway drug use. The program comprises 15 
sessions in year 1, 10 booster sessions in year 2, and 5 booster 
sessions in year 3. The most natural and logical provider for a 
school-based prevention program is a regular classroom teacher. In 
addition to their availability, teachers are a logical choice 
because of their teaching experience and classroom management 
skills. Selection of program providers should be based on their 
interest, experience, enthusiasm, and commitment to drug abuse 
prevention; the extent to which they will be positive role models; 
and their willingness to attend the training workshop and implement 
the intervention carefully and completely according to the 
provider's guide.
    The LST program provides project personnel 1- or 2-day initial 
training on the curriculum. This training is designed to familiarize 
intervention providers with the prevention program, its rationale, 
and the results of prior studies and to provide them with the 
opportunity to learn and practice the skills needed to successfully 
implement the program. Onsite and telephone technical assistance 
also are available to school personnel implementing the program in 
the respective project sites. In addition, LST provides booster 
training sessions during the second and third years.
    There are two ways to implement LST in the classroom. The 
program can be scheduled so that it is taught at a rate of one class 
per week, or it can be programmed as a curriculum module or 
minicourse so that the entire program is conducted on consecutive 
class days. LST is a prescribed prevention program but has some 
implementation flexibility. It can be implemented in a number of 
different curriculum slots such as health education or drug 
education, if available, or through a major subject area such as 
science or social studies. Generally, it is implemented in a single 
subject area and taught by one teacher. However, some schools have 
implemented the program through more than one subject area where 
students are being taught by a team of teachers.
    Individual or district-level school sites may implement the 
school-based program, which is designed to serve between 330 and 
1,000 students in the school/district population who enter the 
program over a 3-year period in groups of equal size.
    LST is based on an understanding of the causes of gateway 
substance use. LST interventions are designed to target the 
psychosocial factors associated with the onset of drug involvement. 
The initiation of drug use is the result of a complex combination of 
diverse factors; there is no single pathway or single variable that 
serves as a necessary and sufficient condition for initiating drug 
use. The LST approach to drug abuse prevention is based on an 
interactive model of drug abuse; drug abuse is thought of as 
resulting from a dynamic interaction of an individual and his or her 
environment. Social influences to use drugs (along with the 
availability of drugs) interact with individual vulnerability. Some 
individuals may be influenced to use drugs by the media (television 
and movies that glamorize drug use or suggest that drug use is 
normal or socially acceptable and advertising efforts that promote 
the sale of alcohol and tobacco products), family members who use 
drugs or convey prodrug attitudes, and friends or acquaintances who 
use drugs or hold attitudes and beliefs supportive of drug use. 
Others may be propelled toward drug use or a drug-using peer group 
because of intrapersonal factors such as low self-esteem, high 
anxiety, other negative feelings, or the desire for excitement.
    The program focuses on drug-related expectancies (knowledge, 
attitudes, and norms), drug-related resistance skills, and general 
competence (personal self-management skills and social skills). 
Increasing prevention-related drug knowledge and resistance skills 
can provide adolescents with the information and skills needed to 
develop antidrug attitudes and norms and to resist peer and media 
pressure to use drugs. Teaching effective self-management and social 
skills (improving personal and social competence) can produce an 
impact on a set of psychological factors associated with decreased 
drug abuse risk (by reducing intrapersonal motivations to use drugs 
and by reducing vulnerability to prodrug social influences).
    Examples of the types of personal and social skills typically 
included in this prevention approach are decisionmaking and problem-
solving skills, cognitive skills for resisting interpersonal and 
media influences, goal setting and self-directed, behavior-change 
techniques, adaptive coping strategies for dealing with stress and 
anxiety, general social skills, and general assertiveness skills. 
This prevention approach teaches both these general skills and their 
application to situations related directly to tobacco, alcohol, or 
drug use. Building knowledge and skills in these areas can provide 
adolescents with the resources they need to resist peer and media 
pressures to use drugs and aid in developing a school climate in 
which drug use is not acceptable.
    More than one-and-a-half decades of research with the LST 
program have consistently shown that it can cut drug use in half. 
These reductions (relative to controls) in both the prevalence 
(i.e., proportion of persons in a population who have reported some 
involvement in a particular offense) and incidence (i.e., the number 
of offenses that occur in a given population during a specified time 
interval) of drug use have been reported primarily in tobacco, 
alcohol, and marijuana use. These studies have demonstrated that 
this prevention approach can produce reductions in drug use that are 
long lasting and clinically meaningful. For example, long-term 
follow-up data indicate that reductions in drug use by seventh 
graders can last up to the end of high school. Evaluation research 
has demonstrated that this prevention approach is effective with a 
broad range of students including white middle-class youth and poor, 
inner-city minority (African-American and Hispanic) youth. Not only 
has this approach demonstrated reductions in alcohol and marijuana 
use of up to 80 percent, but evaluation studies have shown that LST 
also can reduce more serious forms of drug involvement such as the 
weekly use of multiple drugs or the prevalence of heavy smoking (a 
pack a day), heavy drinking, and episodes of drunkenness.

    Dated: June 21, 1999.
Shay Bilchik,
Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
[FR Doc. 99-16252 Filed 6-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P