Adolescent Substance Use Prevention: A Comprehensive Review of Evidence-Based Strategies and Societal Impact

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

Adolescent substance use represents a formidable public health challenge with far-reaching societal and economic consequences. This comprehensive report meticulously examines the multi-faceted landscape of youth substance use, delving into current epidemiological trends, the interplay of myriad risk and protective factors, and the theoretical frameworks underpinning effective prevention. It provides an in-depth analysis of evidence-based prevention strategies, categorised into universal, selective, and indicated interventions, encompassing school-based education, community-led initiatives, integrated mental health support, targeted family interventions, and early identification programs. Furthermore, the report explores diverse funding models essential for the sustainability and scalability of these programs, culminating in a detailed exposition of the profound long-term societal benefits derived from strategic investments in early intervention and prevention.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

Adolescence, a pivotal developmental epoch spanning roughly from ages 10 to 24, is characterised by profound neurobiological, psychological, and social transformations. It is a period of heightened vulnerability, where the nascent prefrontal cortex, responsible for executive functions like impulse control and risk assessment, is still undergoing significant maturation, while the limbic system, associated with reward-seeking and emotional processing, is highly active. This neurodevelopmental asymmetry contributes to a propensity for sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and susceptibility to peer influence, rendering adolescents particularly susceptible to the initiation of substance use (Casey, Jones, & Hare, 2008). Evidence consistently demonstrates that early initiation of substance use significantly amplifies the risk of developing substance use disorders (SUDs) in adulthood, alongside a myriad of other adverse outcomes, including academic failure, mental health comorbidities, engagement in risky behaviours, and involvement with the criminal justice system (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2020). Consequently, the proactive implementation of robust, evidence-informed prevention strategies during these formative years is not merely beneficial but an imperative public health undertaking. Such early intervention holds the promise of mitigating the profound individual suffering, societal burden, and economic costs associated with substance abuse across the lifespan, fostering healthier, more productive generations.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

2. The Landscape of Adolescent Substance Use

Understanding the contemporary patterns and contributing factors of adolescent substance use is foundational to designing effective prevention strategies. This section provides an overview of current trends and the complex interplay of risk and protective factors.

2.1 Current Trends and Epidemiology

Monitoring trends in adolescent substance use offers critical insights into emerging threats and the efficacy of public health interventions. Large-scale national surveys, such as the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study conducted by the University of Michigan and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), provide invaluable data on prevalence rates, perceived risks, and disapproval of various substances among youth.

Historically, substance use among adolescents has seen fluctuations. While alcohol remains the most commonly used substance, its use among youth has generally declined over the past two decades, with a notable decrease in binge drinking (Johnston, Miech, O’Malley, Bachman, Schulenberg, & Patrick, 2023). Similarly, traditional cigarette smoking has plummeted to historic lows. However, these positive trends are often offset by emerging challenges:

• Vaping (E-cigarettes): The rapid rise of e-cigarette use, particularly among adolescents, has become a significant public health concern. While often marketed as a safer alternative to traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes typically contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can harm the developing adolescent brain. The perceived lower harm and appealing flavours have contributed to widespread experimentation (U.S. Surgeon General, 2016). Recent data suggest a slight decline in vaping rates from peak levels, but they remain elevated, often surpassing rates of traditional cigarette use.
• Cannabis: Cannabis remains the most commonly used illicit substance among adolescents. Trends in cannabis use often vary with state-level legalisation of recreational or medicinal cannabis for adults. While some studies suggest no significant increase in adolescent use following legalisation, others indicate a decrease in perceived risk, which could portend future increases (Cerdá et al., 2017). Polysubstance use, combining cannabis with other substances, is also a concern.
• Prescription Drug Misuse: The misuse of prescription medications, including opioid pain relievers, stimulants (e.g., Adderall, Ritalin), and tranquilizers (e.g., Xanax), poses a serious threat. Adolescents may obtain these drugs from family medicine cabinets or peers, often unaware of the dangers or the high risk of dependence and overdose (Miech et al., 2015).
• Opioids and Stimulants: While opioid misuse rates among adolescents are lower than among adults, the devastating impact of the opioid crisis necessitates continued vigilance. Fentanyl-laced counterfeit pills represent an acute and growing danger. Similarly, the misuse of prescription stimulants, often perceived as ‘study drugs,’ is a concern, particularly among high-achieving students.

These epidemiological insights underscore the dynamic nature of adolescent substance use and the need for adaptable, evidence-based prevention strategies that can respond to evolving trends.

2.2 Risk and Protective Factors

Substance use initiation and progression in adolescence are not random events but are influenced by a complex interplay of risk and protective factors operating across multiple ecological levels. Risk factors increase the likelihood of substance use, while protective factors buffer against these risks.

• Individual Factors:

  • Genetics and Temperament: A family history of SUDs significantly increases an adolescent’s genetic predisposition. Certain temperamental traits, such as impulsivity, sensation-seeking, aggression, and low self-control, are consistently linked to a higher risk of substance experimentation and abuse (Tuvblad & Beaver, 2013).
  • Mental Health Conditions: There is a strong bidirectional relationship between mental health disorders and substance use. Adolescents with untreated depression, anxiety disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often turn to substances as a maladaptive coping mechanism (SAMHSA, 2020). Conversely, substance use can exacerbate underlying mental health issues.
  • Trauma History: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), including physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, neglect, household dysfunction, and exposure to violence, are strongly correlated with increased risk of early substance use and the development of SUDs (Felitti et al., 1998).
  • Low Self-Esteem and Poor Coping Skills: Adolescents who lack self-efficacy, struggle with emotional regulation, or possess inadequate coping strategies for stress or peer pressure are more vulnerable.

• Family Factors:

  • Parental Substance Use: Children of parents who misuse substances are at a significantly elevated risk due to genetic predispositions, modelling of unhealthy behaviours, and dysfunctional family environments (Chilcoat & Breslau, 1996).
  • Parenting Styles and Practices: Lack of consistent parental monitoring, inconsistent or harsh discipline, low parental involvement, and a lack of clear family rules regarding substance use are significant risk factors. Conversely, warm, supportive parenting coupled with clear boundaries and consistent monitoring serves as a powerful protective factor.
  • Family Conflict and Disruption: High levels of family conflict, parental divorce, or family disorganisation can create stressful environments that increase adolescent vulnerability.

• Peer Factors:

  • Peer Pressure and Association: One of the strongest predictors of adolescent substance use is association with peers who engage in substance use. Social norms within a peer group can normalise or even encourage substance experimentation (Dishion & Loeber, 1991).
  • Perceived Norms: Adolescents often overestimate the prevalence and acceptability of substance use among their peers, leading them to believe that ‘everyone is doing it,’ which can influence their own behaviour.

• School Factors:

  • Academic Failure and Low School Bonding: Poor academic performance, truancy, and a lack of connection or engagement with school (low school bonding) are consistently linked to higher rates of substance use (Catalano et al., 2004).
  • Availability of Substances at School: The presence and accessibility of substances within the school environment can increase risk.

• Community and Environmental Factors:

  • Availability and Accessibility: Easy access to substances within the community (e.g., proximity of liquor stores, lack of enforcement of underage sales laws) is a significant risk factor.
  • Socioeconomic Disadvantage: Poverty, high unemployment rates, and limited access to resources within a community can contribute to stress and hopelessness, indirectly increasing substance use risk.
  • Lack of Prosocial Opportunities: Communities that lack safe, supervised recreational activities, after-school programs, or opportunities for positive youth development may see higher rates of substance use.
  • Media and Cultural Influences: Portrayals of substance use in media (movies, music, social media) that glamorise or normalise it, coupled with aggressive marketing by alcohol and tobacco industries, can influence adolescent perceptions and behaviours.

• Protective Factors: These factors mitigate risk and promote positive development:

  • Strong bonds with family, school, and community.
  • Clear and consistent family rules and parental monitoring.
  • Academic success and commitment to education.
  • Positive peer relationships and association with prosocial peers.
  • Development of social-emotional skills (e.g., self-efficacy, coping skills, refusal skills).
  • Perceived high risks of substance use and strong disapproval of substance use.
  • Engagement in prosocial activities (sports, clubs, volunteering).
  • Access to mental health support.

Effective prevention strategies acknowledge this multi-factorial etiology and typically target multiple risk and protective factors simultaneously across various ecological levels, aiming to strengthen protective influences while reducing vulnerabilities.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Theoretical Underpinnings of Prevention

Effective prevention programs are not merely collections of activities; they are grounded in robust theoretical frameworks that explain why adolescents initiate substance use and how behaviour change can be fostered. These theories guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of interventions.

3.1 Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977)

Social Learning Theory, later expanded into Social Cognitive Theory, posits that individuals learn behaviours through observation, imitation, and modelling. For adolescents, this means observing the substance use behaviours of parents, peers, and even media figures. The theory also emphasises the importance of self-efficacy – an individual’s belief in their capacity to execute behaviours necessary to produce specific performance attainments. In the context of prevention, programs based on this theory aim to:
* Provide Positive Role Models: Presenting examples of individuals who make healthy choices.
* Teach Refusal Skills: Directly training adolescents in how to effectively resist peer pressure and decline substance offers, thereby enhancing their self-efficacy in avoiding substances.
* Correct Misperceptions: Addressing the overestimation of peer substance use by providing accurate data on actual use rates, thus altering perceived social norms.
* Enhance Self-Management Skills: Teaching coping mechanisms, stress management, and decision-making skills to empower adolescents to navigate challenging situations without resorting to substances.

3.2 Social Development Model (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992)

The Social Development Model posits that healthy adolescent development and avoidance of problem behaviours, including substance use, are fostered when young people have:
* Opportunities for prosocial involvement (e.g., in school, family, community activities).
* The skills to succeed in these opportunities (e.g., social, academic, problem-solving skills).
* Recognition/Rewards for their prosocial efforts.

These three elements lead to bonding (attachment and commitment) to prosocial individuals and institutions (e.g., family, school, community). Strong bonding, coupled with clear and consistent healthy beliefs and clear standards (e.g., anti-drug attitudes, consistent rules), acts as a protective barrier against involvement in problem behaviours. This model is foundational to community-based prevention approaches like Communities That Care (CTC), which systematically assesses community-specific risks and protective factors and then implements programs designed to strengthen protective factors and reduce risks across these domains.

3.3 Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991)

The Theory of Planned Behavior suggests that an individual’s behaviour is primarily determined by their intention to perform the behaviour. Intentions are, in turn, influenced by three key constructs:
* Attitude towards the behaviour: An individual’s positive or negative evaluation of performing the behaviour (e.g., ‘substance use is harmful’).
* Subjective norms: The perceived social pressure to perform or not perform the behaviour, influenced by what important others (parents, peers) think and whether the individual is motivated to comply with those opinions (e.g., ‘my friends don’t think it’s cool to smoke’).
* Perceived behavioural control: An individual’s belief in their ability to perform the behaviour, akin to self-efficacy (e.g., ‘I am confident I can refuse drugs’).

Prevention programs drawing from this theory aim to modify attitudes by providing accurate information on risks, influencing subjective norms by correcting misperceptions of peer use and engaging influential role models, and enhancing perceived behavioural control through skill-building exercises.

3.4 Resilience Theory

Resilience theory focuses on an individual’s capacity to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity, stress, or trauma. Rather than focusing solely on deficits, this perspective highlights internal and external strengths that enable positive outcomes despite exposure to risk factors. Key components of resilience include:
* Individual traits: Good self-regulation, problem-solving skills, positive self-concept, optimism.
* Environmental supports: Supportive relationships with adults (parents, teachers, mentors), strong community connections, access to resources.

Prevention efforts informed by resilience theory aim to bolster these protective factors, helping adolescents develop coping skills, emotional intelligence, and access supportive networks, thereby buffering the impact of risk factors and reducing the likelihood of substance use as a maladaptive coping mechanism (Masten, 2001).

3.5 Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory posits that human development is a dynamic process influenced by multiple interconnected environmental systems. These systems interact with each other and with the individual:
* Microsystem: Immediate environments (e.g., family, school, peer group).
* Mesosystem: Interactions between microsystems (e.g., parent-teacher conferences, peer influence on family rules).
* Exosystem: External environments indirectly affecting the individual (e.g., parents’ workplaces, community resources, media).
* Macrosystem: Broader cultural values, laws, and customs (e.g., societal attitudes towards substance use, minimum drinking age laws).
* Chronosystem: Changes over time (e.g., historical events, developmental transitions).

This theory underscores the necessity of multi-level prevention strategies that address individual vulnerabilities, strengthen family dynamics, enhance school environments, foster healthy peer norms, and influence community policies and cultural attitudes. Comprehensive prevention is rarely effective if it targets only one system in isolation.

These theoretical frameworks provide a robust scientific foundation for the design and implementation of evidence-based prevention programs, ensuring that interventions are not only well-intended but also strategically aligned with the underlying mechanisms of behaviour change and development.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Evidence-Based Strategies for Youth Substance Use Prevention

Effective youth substance use prevention is a dynamic, multi-pronged endeavour requiring a spectrum of strategies tailored to different levels of risk. These strategies are broadly categorised into universal, selective, and indicated prevention, each targeting a specific population with distinct needs.

4.1 Universal Prevention Strategies

Universal prevention strategies are designed to reach an entire population (e.g., all students in a school, all youth in a community) regardless of individual risk for substance use. Their goal is to prevent the onset of substance use by promoting healthy behaviours and strengthening protective factors across the board.

4.1.1 School-Based Education Programs

Schools serve as ideal platforms for universal prevention due to their direct access to a large proportion of the adolescent population. Effective school-based programs move beyond simple information dissemination to develop critical life skills.

• LifeSkills Training (LST): Developed by Dr. Gil Botvin, LST stands as one of the most rigorously evaluated and effective school-based prevention programs. Rooted in Social Learning Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, LST is a comprehensive, multi-year program typically initiated in middle school (Grades 6-8). The curriculum is structured to be delivered sequentially:

  • Level 1 (Grade 6/7): Consists of 15 core sessions focusing on foundational skills.
  • Level 2 (Grade 7/8): Includes 10 booster sessions to reinforce and expand upon earlier learning.
  • Level 3 (Grade 8/9): Contains 5 additional booster sessions for sustained reinforcement.
  • Supplemental lessons: Address specific topics or emerging trends.

  LST’s core components are:
  1. Personal Self-Management Skills: Teaches coping strategies for anxiety, anger, and stress; goal setting; decision-making; and self-esteem enhancement. This helps students manage emotions and make informed choices, reducing the reliance on substances as coping mechanisms.
  2. Social Skills: Develops effective communication, conflict resolution, assertiveness, and dating violence prevention skills. These skills improve interpersonal relationships and reduce susceptibility to negative peer influence.
  3. Drug Resistance Skills: Specifically teaches students techniques for resisting social pressure to use tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs. This includes identifying influence tactics and practising refusal skills.

  Delivery is primarily by classroom teachers who receive specific training. Extensive evaluations, including long-term follow-up studies, have consistently demonstrated LST’s efficacy. Research has shown significant delays in the initiation of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use, reduced rates of polydrug use, and even positive impacts on violence and delinquency (Botvin, Griffin, & Nichols, 2006; Botvin et al., 2011). Effects have been shown to persist for several years post-intervention, highlighting its sustained impact.

• Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programs: While not exclusively substance use prevention programs, SEL initiatives indirectly contribute significantly to prevention by fostering foundational skills that reduce risk. Programs like Positive Action and Second Step teach students self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2020). By equipping young people with emotional regulation, empathy, and problem-solving abilities, SEL programs enhance resilience and reduce the likelihood of turning to substances in response to stress or social challenges.

• Critique of Less Effective Programs (e.g., DARE): It is crucial to distinguish evidence-based programs from those lacking scientific support. The original Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program, widely implemented in the 1980s and 1990s, aimed to prevent drug use primarily through scare tactics and police officer-led lectures. Numerous meta-analyses and evaluations consistently found that the original DARE program had little to no significant effect on preventing substance use, and in some cases, was even associated with increased use (Ennett et al., 1994). This highlights the importance of relying on rigorous scientific evidence rather than intuitive appeal in prevention efforts. Subsequent iterations of DARE have attempted to integrate evidence-based components, but its initial shortcomings serve as a cautionary tale.

4.1.2 Community-Led Initiatives

Community-led initiatives leverage the collective resources and expertise of local stakeholders to create a comprehensive prevention infrastructure tailored to specific community needs. These approaches align with the Ecological Systems Theory, recognising that prevention must occur across multiple levels of influence.

• Communities That Care (CTC): Developed by Drs. J. David Hawkins and Richard F. Catalano, CTC is a leading example of a coalition-based operating system for preventing youth problem behaviours, including substance abuse, violence, delinquency, and school dropout. CTC is not a single program but a structured process that guides communities through five phases:

  1. Get Started: Form a community coalition and secure commitment from key leaders.
  2. Get Organised: Train the coalition in the CTC process and establish a clear vision.
  3. Develop a Community Profile: Use epidemiological data (e.g., local youth surveys) to identify specific community risk and protective factors and determine local youth problem behaviour rates. This data-driven approach ensures interventions address actual community needs rather than assumptions.
  4. Create a Community Action Plan: Based on the community profile, the coalition selects evidence-based prevention programs from a rigorously evaluated menu (e.g., Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices) that are best suited to address their identified risk factors and strengthen protective factors.
  5. Implement and Evaluate: Oversee the implementation of selected programs and continuously monitor their effectiveness using ongoing data collection.

  Studies of CTC have consistently shown its effectiveness in reducing youth delinquency, including alcohol and tobacco use, and overall crime and violence rates in participating communities (Hawkins, Catalano, & Arthur, 2002; Oesterle et al., 2010). Its strength lies in its systematic approach, community empowerment, and commitment to evidence-based programming.

• Environmental Prevention Strategies: These strategies aim to modify the broader environment to make substance use more difficult, less appealing, or less accessible. Examples include:

  • Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) Enforcement: Strict enforcement of MLDA 21 laws is crucial, as raising the MLDA to 21 has been shown to significantly reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities and underage drinking (Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002).
  • Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) Training: Training for alcohol vendors and servers on how to avoid serving intoxicated patrons or minors.
  • Tobacco and Vaping Sales Restrictions: Regulations on sales to minors, age verification, restrictions on flavoured products, and zoning laws that limit the proximity of tobacco and vape shops to schools.
  • Counter-Marketing Campaigns: Public health campaigns designed to counteract the promotional messages of the substance industries by highlighting the true risks and negative consequences of substance use (e.g., ‘truth’ campaign for tobacco).
  • Media Literacy Education: Teaching adolescents to critically analyse media messages related to substance use, identifying manipulative advertising tactics and unrealistic portrayals.

4.2 Selective Prevention Strategies

Selective prevention strategies target subgroups of the population identified as being at higher risk for substance use due to specific risk factors (e.g., children of parents with SUDs, adolescents with early conduct problems, youth experiencing family conflict). These interventions are more intensive than universal programs and are tailored to the specific needs of these at-risk groups.

4.2.1 Mental Health Support and Integrated Care

Given the strong comorbidity between mental health disorders and substance use, addressing mental health issues proactively is a critical prevention strategy. Many adolescents turn to substances to self-medicate or cope with untreated anxiety, depression, trauma, or other psychological distress.

• The Good Behavior Game (GBG): While initially designed as a classroom behaviour management strategy, the GBG has demonstrated remarkable long-term effects on substance use prevention. Implemented by Grade 1 and 2 teachers, the GBG uses a team-based award system to reward children for appropriate behaviour during instructional periods (Barrish, Saunders, & Wolf, 1969). Students are divided into teams and earn points for following rules. This simple intervention fosters self-regulation, impulse control, and prosocial behaviour. Follow-up studies extending into adulthood have shown that individuals who participated in the GBG in elementary school had significantly lower rates of alcohol, other substance use, and substance use disorders at ages 19-21 and even into their mid-thirties, along with reduced rates of antisocial personality disorder and incarceration (Kellam et al., 2011; Poduska et al., 2008). Its effectiveness is attributed to its ability to teach early self-regulation and impulse control skills, which are foundational protective factors.

• Treating Co-occurring Disorders: For adolescents already exhibiting signs of mental health issues, integrated treatment that simultaneously addresses both mental health and substance use concerns is paramount. Providing accessible and youth-friendly mental health services reduces the likelihood of substance use as a coping mechanism. Therapies such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), adapted for adolescents, can teach emotional regulation, distress tolerance, interpersonal effectiveness, and healthy coping strategies, thereby reducing the vulnerability to substance use.

• Trauma-Informed Care (TIC): Recognising the strong link between Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and substance use, trauma-informed approaches are crucial. TIC involves understanding, recognising, and responding to the effects of all types of trauma. Instead of asking ‘What’s wrong with you?’, a TIC approach asks ‘What happened to you?’. It integrates knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, and practices across all settings (e.g., schools, healthcare, social services) to create safe and supportive environments that promote healing and prevent re-traumatisation, thereby reducing the need for self-medication through substances (SAMHSA, 2014).

4.2.2 Family Interventions

Families play a critical role in shaping adolescent behaviour, and interventions that strengthen family functioning, communication, and parenting practices are highly effective. These programs aim to enhance protective factors within the family unit and address family-level risk factors.

• Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) and Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT): These are behavioural therapies developed from the Community Reinforcement Approach (CRA), which focuses on making a sober lifestyle more rewarding than a substance-using one. A-CRA is adapted specifically for adolescents with substance use issues and their caregivers. It teaches communication, problem-solving, and prosocial skills, and helps identify and access alternative, non-substance-related reinforcers (Godley et al., 2001). CRAFT is a manualised treatment designed for concerned significant others (CSOs), typically family members, of individuals who are resistant to treatment (Meyers & Smith, 1995). CRAFT empowers CSOs to:

  1. Learn about their loved one’s substance use.
  2. Develop communication skills to positively interact with their loved one.
  3. Practise positive reinforcement for sober behaviours and natural consequences for substance use.
  4. Help their loved one access treatment.
  5. Improve their own well-being, regardless of whether their loved one seeks treatment.
     Both A-CRA and CRAFT have demonstrated efficacy in engaging reluctant individuals in treatment and reducing substance use.

• Multisystemic Therapy (MST): MST is an intensive, family- and community-based treatment model for adolescents with severe behavioural problems, including serious substance use, delinquency, and violence. It views adolescent problem behaviour as deeply embedded in a complex network of systems (family, peers, school, community) and intervenes directly in these systems (Henggeler et al., 1998). MST therapists work intensively with families in their homes and communities, addressing parenting skills, family communication, peer relationships, academic performance, and community support systems. MST has strong empirical support for reducing substance use, criminal activity, and out-of-home placements among high-risk youth.

• Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT): BSFT focuses on identifying and changing maladaptive family interaction patterns that contribute to adolescent substance use and other problem behaviours. The therapy aims to restructure family dynamics, improve communication, and establish clearer boundaries and hierarchies within the family. It is a time-limited intervention that directly addresses presenting problems and has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing adolescent substance use and associated problems (Robbins et al., 2011).

• Parenting Programs (e.g., Strengthening Families Program, Triple P): These programs aim to improve parenting skills universally or for parents of at-risk youth. They teach parents how to effectively communicate with their children, monitor their activities, set consistent limits, reinforce positive behaviours, and build strong parent-child bonds. By enhancing parental efficacy and creating more supportive and structured home environments, these programs serve as powerful protective factors against adolescent substance use (Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003).

4.3 Indicated Prevention Strategies

Indicated prevention strategies target individuals who are already exhibiting early signs of substance use or have elevated risk factors that indicate a higher likelihood of developing a full-blown SUD. The goal is to prevent the escalation of use and intervene early.

4.3.1 Early Identification and Brief Interventions (EIBI)

Early identification and intervention are crucial for preventing the progression of substance use issues.

• Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): SBIRT is a comprehensive, integrated public health approach to the delivery of early intervention and treatment services for persons with substance use disorders and those at risk of developing them. It is particularly effective in general healthcare settings (primary care, emergency departments), schools, and even juvenile justice settings (SAMHSA, 2016). The process involves:

  1. Screening: Universally asking validated questions about substance use (e.g., AUDIT-C for alcohol, ASSIST for multiple substances) to quickly assess the severity of use and identify individuals at risk. These screens are quick, non-stigmatising, and can be administered by various professionals.
  2. Brief Intervention (BI): For individuals identified as being at moderate or high risk but not yet dependent, a brief motivational and awareness-raising intervention is provided. This typically involves a short conversation (5-15 minutes) using motivational interviewing techniques to raise awareness about the risks of substance use, provide personalised feedback, and encourage a reduction in use or abstinence.
  3. Referral to Treatment (RT): For individuals identified with a substance use disorder or needing more intensive services, a referral is made to appropriate specialised treatment. This is not simply handing over a list of numbers but actively connecting the individual to services.

  SBIRT is effective because it normalises discussions about substance use, identifies problems early, and provides an opportunity for intervention before problems escalate. It is cost-effective and integrates prevention into routine care.

• The Fast Track Program: The Fast Track Program is an intensive, multi-component, long-term (10-year) indicated prevention program designed for children with high rates of aggression and conduct problems, identified in Grade 1. Recognising that early aggression is a strong predictor of later substance use and other antisocial behaviours, Fast Track intervenes comprehensively at multiple levels (family, school, individual). Key components include:

  • Child-Focused Interventions: Social competence training to improve social problem-solving skills, emotional regulation, and peer relations; academic tutoring (especially early reading) to enhance school success.
  • Parent-Focused Interventions: Parent training groups to improve parenting skills (e.g., positive reinforcement, discipline), home visits to provide individualised support, and family relationship building.
  • School-Based Components: Classroom curricula (e.g., Pathways to Prevention) to foster positive peer relations and emotional understanding; consultation with teachers to manage classroom behaviour.

  Long-term follow-up at age 25 demonstrated significant positive outcomes for individuals who received the Fast Track intervention. Participants showed decreased rates of alcohol and other substance misuse (with the exception of marijuana use), reduced serious violent crime, and lower rates of externalising problems (Dodge et al., 2015). This program exemplifies the power of early, intensive, multi-modal intervention for highly at-risk youth.

• Motivational Interviewing (MI): MI is a client-centred, directive method for enhancing intrinsic motivation to change by exploring and resolving ambivalence (Miller & Rollnick, 2013). It is particularly useful in indicated prevention contexts where adolescents may be reluctant or ambivalent about changing their substance use behaviour. MI helps young people identify their own reasons for change, build confidence, and commit to a plan of action. It avoids confrontation and instead focuses on collaboration, evocation, and autonomy, making it highly effective for engaging adolescents in discussions about their substance use.

In summary, effective prevention is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It requires a strategic combination of universal programs to foster resilience across the population, selective interventions for targeted at-risk groups, and indicated strategies for those already showing signs of problematic use. The common thread among all effective approaches is their basis in scientific evidence and their focus on building protective factors while reducing modifiable risk factors.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Implementation Science and Challenges in Prevention

The gap between what is known to be effective in prevention and what is actually implemented in real-world settings is a persistent challenge. Implementation science bridges this gap by studying methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice and policy (NIH, 2019). Key considerations and challenges include:

5.1 Fidelity and Adaptation

• Fidelity: Refers to the extent to which an intervention is implemented as it was designed in its original research. High fidelity is crucial for achieving the desired outcomes, as diluting or altering core components can render an evidence-based program ineffective. This includes adherence to the curriculum, dosage (number and length of sessions), quality of delivery (e.g., training and skill of facilitators), and participant engagement.
• Adaptation: While fidelity is important, rigid adherence may not always be feasible or appropriate in diverse real-world settings. Adaptation refers to modifying an intervention to fit local contexts, cultures, or specific population needs, while preserving the core components and theoretical mechanisms of change (Mihalic et al., 2004). Striking the right balance between fidelity and adaptation is a key challenge, requiring careful consideration to ensure the program remains effective.

5.2 Sustainability

Many prevention programs are initiated with grant funding but struggle to continue once initial funding ends. Sustainability refers to the long-term maintenance and institutionalisation of effective programs within organisations and communities. Factors influencing sustainability include:
* Funding Streams: Diverse, stable, and long-term funding sources are paramount.
* Political Will and Policy Support: Consistent support from policymakers at local, state, and national levels.
* Community Buy-in and Ownership: Strong commitment from community leaders, parents, and youth themselves.
* Trained Personnel: A cadre of well-trained and dedicated staff to deliver and manage programs.
* Integration: Weaving prevention efforts into existing community systems (e.g., schools, healthcare, social services) rather than operating them as standalone, time-limited projects.

5.3 Scaling Up

Scaling up involves expanding successful pilot or demonstration programs to a larger population or broader geographical area. This presents numerous challenges:
* Maintaining Quality: Ensuring that program quality and fidelity are maintained as the program expands.
* Resource Mobilisation: Securing sufficient resources (financial, human, infrastructural) for broader implementation.
* Training Infrastructure: Developing robust training and technical assistance systems to support new implementers.
* Contextual Differences: Programs that work well in one setting may need careful adaptation for others, as discussed above.

5.4 Addressing Disparities

Effective prevention must also confront existing health disparities. Substance use patterns and risks can vary significantly across different populations. Challenges include:
* Racial and Ethnic Minorities: Designing culturally sensitive interventions that address unique stressors, historical trauma, and community strengths.
* LGBTQ+ Youth: This population often faces higher rates of substance use due to discrimination, stigma, and lack of support. Prevention efforts must be inclusive, affirming, and address specific risk factors.
* Rural vs. Urban Differences: Rural areas may have limited access to services, unique cultural norms, and different substance use patterns compared to urban areas.
* Socioeconomic Status: Addressing the underlying social determinants of health that contribute to substance use disparities.

Successfully navigating these implementation challenges requires strong leadership, continuous evaluation, flexibility, and a commitment to integrating evidence-based practices into routine systems, rather than treating prevention as an add-on.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Funding Models for Prevention Programs

Sustainable funding is the bedrock upon which effective and scalable youth addiction prevention programs are built. Without consistent financial support, even the most rigorously tested interventions risk being short-lived, undermining long-term public health goals. Diverse funding models are increasingly employed to ensure the reach and longevity of these crucial initiatives.

6.1 Diversified Funding Streams

Reliance on a single funding source leaves programs vulnerable. A diversified funding portfolio enhances stability and allows for broader implementation.

• Government Allocations: This remains a primary source of funding, typically through federal, state, and local agencies.

  • Federal Grants: Agencies such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) award competitive grants to states, communities, and research institutions for prevention research and implementation. Examples include SAMHSA’s Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) grants, which support states and communities in building sustainable prevention systems.
  • State and Local Budgets: Many states and counties allocate funds for youth prevention through their public health departments, education departments, or dedicated substance abuse agencies. These funds often support school-based programs, community coalitions, and public awareness campaigns.
  • Opioid Settlement Funds: A significant and relatively new funding stream stems from settlements with opioid manufacturers and distributors. These funds, amounting to billions of dollars nationally, are increasingly being directed towards addressing the opioid crisis, with a substantial portion earmarked for prevention efforts. For example, West Virginia allocated ‘$10.4 million from opioid settlement funds to support child advocacy centers, recovery housing, and diversion programs, with a significant portion directed towards youth substance use prevention’ (West Virginia First Foundation, 2024). Similarly, Kentucky announced ‘over $12 million in funding to organizations combating drug addiction, emphasizing prevention, treatment, and enforcement efforts’ (Associated Press, 2023). These funds represent an unprecedented opportunity to scale up prevention initiatives.

• Private Sector Investments: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, private foundations, and philanthropic organisations play an increasingly vital role.

  • Foundations: Large philanthropic foundations (e.g., Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) often provide significant grants for public health initiatives, including youth prevention, particularly those that are innovative, evidence-based, or address health disparities.
  • Corporate Partnerships: Companies may invest in prevention programs as part of their CSR, recognising the long-term benefits of a healthy workforce and community. This can include direct financial contributions, in-kind donations, or employee volunteer programs.

• Community Fundraising and Volunteerism: Grassroots efforts at the local level are essential for sustaining programs and building community ownership.

  • Local Events: Fundraisers, charity runs, and community events can generate crucial financial support and raise awareness.
  • Volunteer Networks: Volunteerism provides invaluable human capital, reducing operational costs and strengthening community bonds around the prevention mission.

• Healthcare Reimbursement: Integrating prevention services into standard healthcare practice offers a sustainable funding mechanism. For instance, the widespread adoption of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is increasingly supported by health insurance reimbursement (e.g., Medicaid, private insurers). By making SBIRT a reimbursable service, it incentivises healthcare providers to routinely screen adolescents for substance use and deliver brief interventions, embedding prevention into the healthcare system rather than relying solely on grant cycles.

6.2 Return on Investment (ROI)

Investing in prevention is not merely a social expenditure; it is an economic investment with significant returns. Cost-benefit analyses consistently demonstrate that every dollar invested in evidence-based prevention programs yields substantial savings in future healthcare, criminal justice, and lost productivity costs.

• Reduced Healthcare Burden: Preventing substance use reduces the incidence of SUDs, which in turn leads to a decrease in costly emergency room visits, hospitalisations for overdose or substance-related complications, and the need for expensive long-term treatment and rehabilitation services. For example, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has estimated that every dollar invested in prevention can save up to $18 in costs related to substance abuse (SAMHSA, 2011).

• Decreased Criminal Justice System Involvement: Adolescent substance use is strongly linked to delinquency, crime, and violence. Effective prevention programs can reduce arrest rates, juvenile detention, and incarceration costs, which are substantial burdens on taxpayers. By fostering prosocial behaviour and reducing aggression, programs like the Fast Track Program demonstrate clear links to reduced criminal justice involvement in adulthood (Dodge et al., 2015).

• Improved Educational and Workforce Outcomes: Adolescents engaged in substance use often experience academic decline, truancy, and higher dropout rates. Prevention programs that enhance social-emotional skills and school bonding can lead to improved academic performance, higher graduation rates, and greater engagement in post-secondary education or vocational training (Catalano et al., 2004). This translates into a more skilled workforce, higher earning potential, increased tax revenues, and reduced reliance on social welfare programs.

• Enhanced Public Safety and Quality of Life: Beyond quantifiable economic benefits, prevention programs contribute to stronger, safer, and healthier communities. They reduce traffic accidents, violence, and other societal harms associated with substance use, fostering a higher quality of life for all residents. By nurturing resilient, responsible, and engaged youth, these investments build social capital and strengthen the fabric of society.

• The Raising Healthy Children Program: This program, combining social and emotional learning with training for teachers and parents, serves as a compelling example of ROI. Evaluations revealed that participants had ‘38% lower rates of heavy drinking than students not receiving the program’ (Addiction Policy, Stanford University, n.d.). Such reductions in high-risk behaviours translate directly into avoided costs and improved life trajectories.

In essence, funding youth addiction prevention is a strategic allocation of resources that yields a substantial return on investment, benefiting individuals, families, communities, and the broader economy for generations to come. It shifts the paradigm from costly crisis intervention to proactive health promotion.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Long-Term Societal Benefits of Early Intervention

The profound impact of early intervention extends far beyond the immediate reduction of substance use rates, generating a cascade of positive long-term societal benefits. These benefits underscore the wisdom of prioritising upstream prevention strategies over downstream remedial approaches.

• Lifelong Health and Well-being: By preventing the early onset of substance use, particularly during critical periods of brain development, early interventions safeguard neurological health, cognitive function, and mental well-being. Reduced substance use in adolescence is associated with a lower risk of developing chronic diseases (e.g., liver disease, cardiovascular disease, certain cancers), mental health disorders, and infectious diseases (e.g., HIV, hepatitis C) later in life (NIDA, 2020). This leads to longer, healthier, and more productive lives for individuals.

• Fostering Resilience and Social-Emotional Competence: Many evidence-based prevention programs, such as LifeSkills Training and various SEL initiatives, are designed not just to deter substance use but to build foundational life skills. These include self-regulation, problem-solving, emotional intelligence, communication, and decision-making. These competencies are crucial for navigating life’s challenges, forming healthy relationships, and adapting to adversity throughout the lifespan. Individuals with stronger social-emotional skills are better equipped to cope with stress, manage conflicts, and make responsible choices, reducing the likelihood of engaging in risky behaviours of all kinds.

• Strengthening Families and Communities: Family-based interventions and community-led initiatives bolster the protective factors within these critical social units. Stronger family bonds, improved parenting practices, and cohesive, supportive communities create environments where young people can thrive. This translates into reduced family conflict, fewer instances of child maltreatment, and increased community safety and vibrancy. Communities with effective prevention programs often experience lower crime rates, improved neighbourhood cohesion, and a greater sense of collective efficacy.

• Breaking Intergenerational Cycles: Substance use disorders often run in families, creating intergenerational cycles of addiction, poverty, and trauma. Early interventions, particularly those that support at-risk families (e.g., Strengthening Families Program, MST), can break these cycles by equipping parents with better parenting skills and providing children with protective factors. This can prevent subsequent generations from following similar trajectories, leading to healthier family legacies.

• Increased Social Capital and Civic Engagement: Youth who avoid substance use and develop prosocial skills are more likely to complete their education, find stable employment, and contribute positively to their communities. They are more likely to participate in civic life, volunteer, and become engaged citizens, thereby increasing the overall social capital of a society. This collective human potential fuels innovation, economic growth, and social progress.

• Reduced Stigma and Enhanced Public Health Paradigm: A robust focus on prevention shifts the public health paradigm from one primarily focused on treatment and crisis management to one rooted in proactive health promotion and early intervention. This can help reduce the stigma associated with substance use disorders, promoting a more compassionate and understanding societal response to addiction as a health issue rather than a moral failing. By investing early, society affirms its commitment to the well-being and potential of all its young people.

In essence, investing in adolescent substance use prevention is an investment in human capital. It cultivates healthier individuals, stronger families, more vibrant communities, and a more prosperous society, yielding benefits that resonate for decades and transcend generations.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

Adolescent substance use remains a pervasive public health challenge, but one that is demonstrably preventable through concerted, evidence-based efforts. This report has underscored that effective prevention is not a singular strategy but a multifaceted, integrated approach that concurrently addresses individual vulnerabilities, fortifies family systems, enhances school environments, shapes healthy peer norms, and influences broader community and policy landscapes. The strategic deployment of universal, selective, and indicated interventions—from comprehensive school-based education like LifeSkills Training to empowering community initiatives like Communities That Care, integrated mental health support exemplified by the Good Behavior Game, and targeted family therapies such as A-CRA and MST, alongside vital early identification programs like SBIRT and Fast Track—forms the bedrock of a robust prevention ecosystem.

Crucially, the sustainability and scalability of these vital programs hinge upon diversified and consistent funding models. The increasing allocation of opioid settlement funds, alongside traditional governmental grants, private sector investments, and healthcare reimbursement mechanisms, signals a growing recognition of the economic and societal imperative to invest upstream. The compelling evidence demonstrating a substantial return on investment, manifesting in reduced healthcare expenditures, decreased criminal justice involvement, improved educational outcomes, and enhanced societal well-being, unequivocally validates prevention as a fiscally responsible and profoundly impactful public health strategy.

Ultimately, investing in early intervention is an investment in human potential. It safeguards the neurodevelopmental trajectory of adolescents, fosters lifelong resilience and socio-emotional competence, strengthens the foundational units of families and communities, and holds the promise of breaking intergenerational cycles of adversity. The long-term benefits accrue not just to the individuals whose lives are redirected from the path of addiction but to the entire fabric of society, paving the way for healthier, more productive, and more equitable futures. Continued support, political commitment, and dedicated resources for youth addiction prevention are therefore not merely optional expenditures but indispensable cornerstones of a thriving society.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

References

• Addiction Policy, Stanford University. (n.d.). Investing in evidence-based prevention programs for youth. Retrieved from https://addictionpolicy.stanford.edu/investing-evidence-based-prevention-programs-youth
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
• Associated Press. (2023, November 29). Kentucky awards over $12M to combat drug addiction with funds from opioid settlements. AP News. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/e75f58e1126028d08fd811d0ae6a8e9c
• Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
• Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 119–124.
• Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., & Nichols, T. D. (2006). Preventing youth violence and delinquency through a universal school-based prevention approach. American Journal of Public Health, 96(12), 2245–2251.
• Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., & Sinha, N. (2011). Preventing adolescent substance use and antisocial behavior with a universal social-cognitive skills-based prevention approach. Journal of Primary Prevention, 32(5-6), 181–193.
• Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2008). The adolescent brain: Self-regulation and risk-taking. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 239–244.
• Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the Social Development Research Group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252–261.
• Cerdá, M., Sarvet, A. L., Keyes, K. M., Galea, S., Deren, S., St George, A., & Hasin, D. S. (2017). Cannabis use in the United States: Epidemiologic evidence of its changes, effects, and consequences. Annual Review of Public Health, 38, 597-619.
• Chilcoat, H. D., & Breslau, N. (1996). The effect of parental psychiatric disorders on the risk of adolescent substance use disorders. American Journal of Public Health, 86(4), 543–548.
• Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2020). What is SEL? Retrieved from https://casel.org/what-is-sel/
• Dishion, T. J., & Loeber, R. (1991). Adolescent marijuana use and the ecology of peer relations. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 32(3), 443–456.
• Dodge, K. A., Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., & Fast Track Project Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2015). Impact of early intervention on adolescent substance use: A follow-up of the Fast Track randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54(4), 282–289.
• Ennett, S. T., Rosenbaum, D. P., Burchard, R. C., Dorsey, P. C., Dunworth, Q. T., Flewelling, I. C., … & Zador, S. (1994). Long-term evaluation of D.A.R.E.: Effects on drug use. Crime & Delinquency, 40(4), 574–590.
• Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., Koss, M. P., & Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258.
• Godley, S. H., Meyers, R. J., Smith, J. E., Godley, M. D., Titus, J. C., Karvinen, T., Dent, G., Passetti, L. L., & Kelberg, P. (2001). The Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) for adolescent cannabis users (DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 01-3489, Cannabis Youth Treatment (CYT) Manual Series, Volume 4). Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
• Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1992). Communities That Care: Action for drug abuse prevention. Jossey-Bass.
• Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting positive youth development. Journal of Primary Prevention, 22(3), 223–242.
• Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Pickrel, S. G., Rowland, M. D., Gordon, A. M., & Cunningham, P. B. (1998). Multisystemic treatment of adolescent substance abuse and dependence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5(4), 503–517.
• Johnston, L. D., Miech, R. A., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Patrick, M. E. (2023). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2022: Volume I, Secondary school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
• Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N. S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P., … & Anthony, J. C. (2011). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on antisocial personality disorder, drug abuse, and crime 20 years later. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118(2-3), 209–216.
• Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (2003). Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 457–465.
• Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238.
• Miech, R. A., Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Patrick, M. E. (2015). Trends in adolescent drug use: Monitoring the Future study, 1975-2014. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/monitoring-future-survey-high-school-youth-trends
• Mihalic, S., Fagan, A. A., & Argamaso, S. (2004). Selecting and implementing effective drug abuse prevention programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 25(3), 351–369.
• Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational Interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2020). Principles of Adolescent Substance Use Disorder Treatment: A Research-Based Guide. National Institutes of Health.
• National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2019). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health. Retrieved from https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/NCI_D_I_Report_2019.pdf
• Oesterle, S., Hawkins, J. D., Fagan, A. A., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2010). A test of communities that care in a community-randomized trial to prevent adolescent depression. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3), 247–261.
• Poduska, J. M., Kellam, S. G., Wang, W., Brown, C. H., Ialongo, N. S., & Anthony, J. C. (2008). Impact of a universal school-based intervention on adult rates of drug abuse and dependence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95(1-2), 92–10 universal.
• Robbins, M. S., Feaster, D. J., Alexander, L. A., & Lebow, B. A. (2011). A randomized trial of brief strategic family therapy for adolescent drug abuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(2), 172–183.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2011). Preventing drug abuse and excessive alcohol use. National Institutes of Health.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014). Concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884.
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2016). SBIRT: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment. Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/sbirt
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2020). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. HHS Publication No. PEP20-07-01-001.
• Tuvblad, C., & Beaver, K. M. (2013). Genetic and environmental influences on sensation seeking and their relation to antisocial behavior. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1279–1285.
• U.S. Surgeon General. (2016). E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• Wagenaar, A. C., & Toomey, T. L. (2002). Effects of minimum drinking age laws: Review and synthesis of the research evidence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(Suppl 14), 62–84.
• West Virginia First Foundation. (2024, February 15). Diversion and youth prevention are a focus of West Virginia’s initial opioid settlement awards. Associated Press. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/c33c992162dd398f96c5325d2f2b5fe8