pressing social problems. Should programs for school dropouts or teen pregnancy be preventive or rehabilitative? Any sensible program must be both. Should initiatives be public or private? Again the answer from the front lines is that public institutions like schools must work more closely than ever before with private business leaders and volunteer groups. Should we have national or local programs? Once again, realism demands both. Without an adequate and sustained flow of national resources, local initiatives in poor communities too often die for lack of funds; without the commitment of local leaders, the programs remain empty bureaucratic shells.

This chapter offers no blueprint for all communities to follow. However, the essential concept is clear enough: Expanding the future life options of young men and women who are troubled by multiple problems requires more than one-dimensional treatments of particular symptoms. Effective programs must offer help that embraces basic skills, training (including English as a Second Language for Hispanics and others), employment, pregnancy prevention, and realistic planning for the future. No program can prevent all individual misfortunes, but policies can and should try to prevent problems from compounding to the point at which any real hope of a better life is extinguished.

Even as we encourage this kind of multidimensional, community-based approach to investing in American youth, one area calls out for immediate attention—the vital need to rid our youth of the plague of drug and alcohol addiction. Although we have no easy answers, we recommend that drug and alcohol treatment on demand be made a reality in this country, not just for youths, but for all Americans. We have generally avoided recommending new entitlement programs in this report, but one entitlement we do need is the guarantee of help in overcoming addiction for all who seek it. We also recommend further research, demonstrations, and evaluations of innovative programs to help solve this critical problem.