Search Box


Advanced search

Life Skills Training, drug prevention, drug, educationKIDS DRUG EDUCATION/PREVENTIONLife Skills Training, drug prevention, drug, education

My cites.      Back to Enforcement of Drug policy.

1 2 3 4 5

The other major abstinence-only prevention program is Life Skills Training (LST). A 2001 study showed that students did not complete the complete three year program had a higher rate of drug use, than those who didn't go through the program. Another researcher found that LST were more likely to drink alcohol than students who never went through the program (16 ).

Studies have show the effects of drug prevention programs erode over time. Any prevention program showed have follow up sessions over time to increase the likelihood of sustaining any positive effects(17 ).

A study(18 ) discovered that substance abuse education/treatment programs actually implemented in boot camp facilities are not likely to result in the rehabilitation of boot camp participants. These five improvement were suggested:

  • Facility-specific programming and greater use of the therapeutic community models approaches.
  • Individualized treatment programming.
  • Use of qualified professional substance abuse treatment personnel
  • After care programs that link the imprisonment and community release phases of the boot camp sanctions
  • Evaluation to determine the effectiveness of treatment strategies

Researchers looked into many aspects of drug education(19 ).
They asked what students though would work.

  • A desire for more complete drug information, delivered through a different educational process.
  • More Panels and talks by those who have been through both substance use and substance abuse.
    secondary finding include
  • A minim number of focus groups wanted more harmful consequences to be taught (1/40[.25 percent]) because of their small numbers, they are further discussed.
  • percent of high school focus groups mentioned that they wanted harm reduction programs,smaller groups rather than assemblies, and more counseling.
    This is not to argue for promoting substance use. Rather, it is to argue for the end of labeling, for being "at risk for substance abuse," which as we have seen, has detrimental effects.
    Based on this study's findings and available research we make the following recommendations
1. Provide a developmentally appropriate set of prevention programs at all grade levels.
2. Discontinue primarily harmful consequences educational services.
3. Without condoning substance use, Shift to a harm reduction approach similar to that used
When delivering AIDS education.
A. Provide young people with factual information about drugs.
B. Help them examine their own attitudes about drugs, and drug user's.
C. Help them to understand people who experience drug problems and foster a caring attitude.
D. Help them avoid harmful the harmful consequences of drug use by explaining secondary prevention strategies.
E. Rise awareness of the legal, health and social implications of their own drug use.
F. Help them to understand the role of drug use in past and present societies and cultures.
4. Recruit outside drug educators to provide confidential educational services.
5. If "at" and "high" risk youth cannot be fully assisted, discontinued the use of the model.
6. Do not purge students in need of help from the educational system.
7. Bolster counseling services.
Drug education myths
1. Adolescents are naive: On the contrary, they are sophisticated individuals capable of making sophisticated decisions.
2. Any adolescent substance use is deviant: Putting legalities, and politics aside, because they mayexperiment withsubstances, adolescents are not inherently deviant.
3. Most adolescents go on to become substance abusers "abusers": In fact up to 70 percent of students in the highest risk conditions do not go on to become substance abusers.

Back Next