Order Code RL30482
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Program:
Background and Context
Updated April 22, 2002
Edith Fairman Cooper
Analyst in Social Science
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Program: Background and Context
Summary
The No Child Left Behind Act (P. L. 107-110), amends and reauthorizes the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) as Part A of Title IV
– 21st Century Schools. The Department of Education administers SDFSCA through
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program, which is the federal
government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around
schools. Through the Act, state grants are awarded by formula to outlying areas,
state educational agencies, and local educational agencies in all 50 states, the District
of Columbia (DC) and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Also, funds go to a state’s
Chief Executive Officer (Governor) for creating programs to deter youth from using
drugs and committing violent acts in schools. National programs are supported
through discretionary funds for a variety of national leadership projects designed to
prevent drug abuse and violence among all educational levels, from preschool through
the postsecondary level.
There are other federally sponsored substance abuse and violence prevention
programs administered in the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services,
and other agencies. Those programs are not discussed in this report.
Despite the reports about violence in the nation’s schools and the surge in
multiple homicides in schools in recent years, the 2000 Annual Report on School
Safety indicates that the nation’s schools are generally considered to be safe. Also,
researchers found that reports of the presence of street gangs on school property,
which can cause students to feel less safe, have declined. Although crimes were still
occurring in schools, some students seemed to feel more secure at school now than
they did a few years ago, while many others seemed to feel less safe. Such feelings,
the report reveals, depend on the racial and/or ethnic group of the students. Larger
percentages of African American and Latino students feared attack or harm at school
than white students. At the same time, according to the U.S. Secret Service in its
Safe School Initiative report, in more than three-fourths of the school shooting cases,
the attackers were white.
The Monitoring the Future study conducted by the University of Michigan
revealed mixed results concerning drug use among the students. Cigarette use
declined from 2000 to 2001 among 8th, 10th, and 12th graders. The use of MDMA
(ecstasy), which had increased in the past few years, slowed from 2000 to 2001
among students in all grade levels surveyed. Similarly, heroin use decreased
significantly among 10th and 12th graders, and a gradual decline in the use of inhalants
continued in 2001, most notably among 12th graders. All other illicit drug use
remained stable from 2000 to 2001. Long-term available trends for illicit drug use in
12th graders, showed that current levels of illicit drug use were far below the 27-year
peaks that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
School Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
School Homicides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The 1996 Study on School-Related Violent Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Update of the 1996 Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001 Reported Study . . . 7
Multiple Deaths and Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Drug Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The SDFSC Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
State Chief Executive Officer’s Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
State Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
LEA Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
LEA Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Principles of Effectiveness for State and Local Grant Recipients . . . . 21
National Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Federal Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Impact Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
National Coordinator Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Community Service for Expelled or Suspended Students Grant
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Gun-Free Schools Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Evaluation of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
List of Figures
Figure 1. Any Illicit Drug Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders Within the
Last 12 Months, 1992-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 2. Any Alcohol Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, Within the
Last 30 Days, 1992-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 3. 30-Day Prevalence of Any Cigarette Use for 8th, 10th, and
12th Graders, 1992-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 4. 30-Day Prevalence of Smokeless Tobacco Use for 8th, 10th,
and 12th Graders, 1992-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 5. The Program Formula to State and Local Schools, 2002-2003
School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Multiple School-Related Violent Deaths and Injuries,
1995-96 — 2000-01 (as of July 31, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 2. SDFSC Appropriations Funds, FY1995-FY2003, by Grant Program . 26
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Program:
Background and Context
Introduction
Since 1986, drug abuse of students in school has been a congressional concern.
In 1994, this concern was expanded to include violence occurring in and around
schools. A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report stated that in 1994, when
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was enacted, about 3 million
violent crimes and thefts occurred annually in or near schools, which equaled almost
16,000 incidents per school day.1 The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS)
conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) indicated that in
the 1993-94 school year, violence in public schools was on the rise and schools
appeared less safe than in the 1987-88 school year. From the 1987-88 school year to
the 1993-94 school year, an increasing percentage of public elementary and secondary
school teachers reported that physical conflict and weapon possession among students
were moderate to serious problems in schools.2 Similarly, between 1992 and 1995,
drug use rates among school-aged youth increased for over 10 different drugs,
particularly marijuana, after declining in the 1980s.3
To address those concerns, on October 20, 1994, President Clinton signed into
law the Improving America’s School Act (P.L. 103-382), which reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and created the Safe and Drug-
Free Schools Act (SDFSCA) as Title IV. The 1994 legislation extended, amended,
and renamed the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-297,
DFSCA).4 Violence prevention was added to the DFSCA’s original drug prevention
purpose by incorporating the Safe Schools Act.5 Consequently, the SDFSCA was
1 U.S. General Accounting Office, Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Balancing Accountability
With State and Local Flexibility, GAO report GAO/HEHS-98-3 (Washington: October
1997), p. 1.
2 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National
Center for Education Statistics, “How Safe Are the Public Schools: What Do Teachers Say?”
Issue Brief, NCES 96-842, April 1996, p. 1.
3 Ibid.
4 The DFSCA was originally created by Title IV, Subtitle B of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1986, P.L. 99-570.
5 The Safe Schools Act was originally created by Title VII of The Goals 2000: Educate
America Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-227).
CRS-2
intended to help deter violence and promote school safety as well as discourage drug
use in and around the nation’s schools. Funding was authorized for federal, state,
and local programs to assist schools in providing a disciplined learning environment
free of violence and drug use, including alcohol and tobacco.6
On January 8, 2002, the President signed H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act,
into law (P. L. 107-110), which reauthorizes SDFSCA within ESEA as Part A of Title
IV – 21st Century Schools. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
is administered by the Department of Education (ED). Grants are awarded to states
and at the national level for programs to promote school safety and assist in
preventing drug abuse. For FY2002, $746.8 million was appropriated for the
program. For FY2003, the George W. Bush Administration has requested $644.3
million in funding for SDFSC program.
Although the SDFSC program is the primary federal government program
targeted to reduce drug use and violence through educational and prevention methods
in the nation’s schools,7 it is one of several substance abuse and violence prevention
programs funded by the federal government.8 In its 1997 report, GAO identified 70
federal programs authorized to provide services for either substance abuse prevention
or violence prevention. ED, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
and the Department of Justice (DOJ) administered 48 of the programs.9
This report discusses various aspects of the SDFSCA as it exists under current
law, as newly amended. It begins with background information about the school
safety and drug abuse issues, provides a detailed overview of the program, and
discusses an evaluation of the SDFSC program. For information about the
reauthorization and appropriations for the SDFSC program, see CRS Report
RS20532, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Reauthorization
and Appropriations.
School Safety
The nation’s schools are generally considered to be safe, despite the reports
about violence and the surge in multiple homicides in schools. The 2000 Annual
Report on School Safety (Annual Report), published by the Departments of Education
6 “Title IV — Safe Schools,” 1994 CQ Almanac, v. 50 (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly, Inc., 1994), p. 394.
7 “About Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program,”
[http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/aboutsdf.html], visited February 08, 2002.
8 U.S. General Accounting Office, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, p. 8.
9 U.S. General Accounting Office, Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention: Multiple Youth
Programs Raise Questions of Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO testimony before the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
GAO/T-HEHS-97-166 (Washington: June 24, 1997), p. 5.
CRS-3
and Justice, indicates that school crime10 rates actually declined between 1992 and
1998. Furthermore, the report qualifies the safety of most schools by stating that, ...
“notwithstanding the disturbing reports of violence in our schools, they are becoming
even safer.”11 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
study, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, states that juveniles
are at the highest risk of becoming victims of violence at the end of the school day.12
In addition, Annual Report researchers found that reports of the presence of street
gangs on school property, which can cause students to feel less safe, have declined.
Consequently, although crimes are still occurring in schools, some students seem to
feel more secure at school now than they did a few years ago, while many others seem
to feel less safe at school. Such feelings, the report reveals, depend on racial and/or
ethnic group of the students. In 1995 and in 1999, larger percentages of African
American and Latino students feared attack or harm at school than white students.13
At the same time, the U.S. Secret Service stated in its study, Safe School Initiative:
An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools, that in more
than three-fourths of the school shooting cases, the attackers were white.14
The companion report to the Annual Report, entitled Indicators of School Crime
and Safety 2001 (Indicators Study), found a mixed picture for school safety. Overall
crime rates in schools have decreased, but violence, gangs, and drugs remain evident
in some schools, which indicated, the report stated, that more work needs to be
done.15 The Indicators Study data were drawn from a variety of independent sources
including federal departments and agencies such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
the National Center for Education Statistics, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. With multiple and independent data sources combined, the authors of the
Indicators Study hoped to present a more valid picture of school crime and safety.
Key findings of the report were as follows:16
10 School crimes included serious violent crimes such as homicide, suicide, rape, sexual
assault, aggravated assault with or without a weapon, and robbery. Less serious or nonviolent
crimes included theft/larceny and vandalism of school property.
11 U.S. Dept. of Education and the U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2000 Annual Report on School
Safety, [http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/annrept00.pdf], p. iv.
12 Howard N. Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National
Report (Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999), p.
34.
13 2000 Annual Report on School Safety, p. 7.
14 U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment Center in
Collaboration with the U.S. Dept. of Education with support from the National Institute of
Justice, Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in
Schools, October 2000, p. 5.
15 P. Kaufman, et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2001, U.S. Depts. of Education
and Justice, NCES 2002-113/NCJ-190075 (Washington: 2001), p. vi.
16 Ibid., pp. v, viii-ix, 2, 4.
CRS-4
! From July 1, 1998, to June 30, 1999, 47 school-related violent deaths occurred
in the nation’s schools – 38 were homicides, 6 were suicides, two were killed
by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, and one was unintentional.
Thirty-three of the 38 homicides were school-aged children. A total of 2,407
homicides occurred between July 1, 1998, to June 30, 1999, of children ages
5 to 19 years. Of that total, 2,374 murders occurred away from school, while
33 murders and 4 suicides, out of a grand total of 1,854 in 1999, occurred at
school. Of the 6 suicides occurring between July 1, 1998 and June 30, 1999,
mentioned above, four were of school-aged children;
! In 1999, 12- to 18-year-old students were victims of over 2.5 million crimes
at school, a slight decline from 1998 data. They were, however, more than
two times as likely to be victims of nonfatal serious violent crime away from
school than at school, with 476,000 serious violent crimes perpetrated on such
students away from school compared with 186,000 such incidents at school.
The victimization rate for such crimes at school and away from school
generally declined from 1992 to 1999.
! In the 1996-97 school year, one serious violent crime was reported to the
police or law enforcement representative by 10% of all public schools; 47% of
public schools reported a less serious violent or nonviolent crime; and 43% of
such schools did not report any such crimes to the police;
! From 1995 to 1999, teachers were victims of 1,708,000 nonfatal crimes at
school. This number includes 1,073,000 thefts and 635,000 violent crimes.
Those data translate into 79 crimes per 1,000 teachers per year; and
! Between 1995 and 1999, the percentages of students ages 12 to 18 who
reported feeling unsafe at school decreased from 9% to 5%. Similarly, during
the same time period, the percentage of such students who feared that they
would be attacked while going to and from school declined from 7% to 4%.
School Homicides
The 2000 Annual Report on School Safety acknowledges that although
homicides at school remain extremely rare events, they do occur and affect the
perspective of all citizens, particularly children.17 Research reported by the Journal
of the American Medical Association (JAMA) discovered that less than 1% of
homicides and suicides among school-aged youth occur on school property or when
traveling to or from school or at school-sponsored events.18
The 1996 Study on School-Related Violent Deaths. In 1996, JAMA
published the first study investigating violent school-related deaths nationwide that
was conducted by researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Program at ED, the National School Safety Center
17 2000 Annual Report on School Safety, p. 9.
18 Nancy D. Brener, Thomas R. Simon, Etienne G. Krug, and Richard Lowry, “Recent
Trends in Violence-Related Behaviors Among High School Students in the United States,”
JAMA, vol. 285, no. 5, August 4, 1999, p. 440.
CRS-5
(NSSC)19 of Westlake Village, CA, and the National Institute of Justice of DOJ. The
period studied covered two consecutive academic years from July 1,1992, through
June 30, 1994 (specifically, July 1, 1992-June 30, 1993 and July 1, 1993-June 30,
1994). Over the two-year period, 105 school-related deaths were identified. The
researchers used a case definition for school-associated deaths as “any homicide or
suicide in which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary
or secondary school in the United States, while the victim was on the way to or from
regular sessions at such a school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to or
from an official school-sponsored event.”20 Deaths of students, non-students, and
staff members were included.
Two strategies were used in obtaining the data – deaths identified by study
collaborators at the ED and the NSSC through newspaper accounts and informal
voluntary reports from state and local educational officers, and a systematic search
of two computerized newspaper and broadcast media databases. The first strategy
revealed 78 possible cases and the second strategy revealed 160 possible cases. Out
of the total 238 probable cases, 52 duplicate cases were identified and eliminated,
leaving 186 possible cases. The probable cases were confirmed through various
sources.21 As a result, 81 cases were eliminated because they failed to meet the case
definition for various reasons. Consequently, the 105 cases were confirmed.
Researchers discovered the following:
! As mentioned above, less than 1% of all homicides among school-aged
children, 5 to 19 years, occur in or around school grounds or on the way to
and from school;
! 65% of school-related deaths were students, 11% were teachers or other staff
members, and 23% were community members who were killed on school
property;
! 83% of school homicide or suicide victims were males;
! 23% of the fatal injuries occurred inside the school building, 36% happened
outdoors on school property, and 35% occurred off campus; and
! The deaths included in the study occurred in 25 states across the nation and
took place in both primary and secondary schools and communities of all
sizes.22
19 The National School Safety Center was formerly a national clearinghouse for school safety
program information that was funded by ED and DOJ and housed at Pepperdine University
in Malibu, CA. In FY1997, federal funding ended and NSSC became a private, non-profit,
independent organization. Although NSSC is not a research-based group, it participated in
the 1996 released JAMA study on school-associated deaths. Discussed in a telephone
conversation with the Associate Director of NSSC on July 31, 2001.
20 S. Patrick Kachur, et al., “School Associated-Violent Deaths in the United States, 1992 to
1994,” JAMA, vol. 275, no. 22, June 12, 1996, p. 1729-1730.
21 At least one local press, law enforcement, or school official familiar with each case was
contacted and brief interviews were conducted to determine whether the case definition had
been met.
22 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Facts About Violence Among Youth and
(continued...)
CRS-6
Update of the 1996 Study. The December 5, 2001 issue of JAMA contains
the results of an update of the 1996 study. Entitled, “School-Associated Violent
Deaths in the United States, 1994-1999,” the study continues where the 1996
research ended and describes the trends and features of such deaths from July 1, 1994,
through June 30, 1999.23 Using a definition similar to the 1996 study, a school-
related death case was defined as “a homicide, suicide, legal intervention24, or
unintentional firearm-related death of a student or nonstudent in which the fatal injury
occurred (1) on the campus of a public or private elementary or secondary school, (2)
while the victim was on the way to or from such a school, or (3) while the victim was
attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event.”25 Researchers
discovered that between 1994 and 1999, there were 220 events that led to 253
school-related deaths. Of the 220 events, there were 172 homicides, 30 suicides, 11
homicide-suicide occurrences, 5 legal intervention deaths, and 2 unintentional firearm-
related deaths.
Several emerging trends were noted in a CDC press release as follows:
! “School-associated violent deaths represent less than one percent of all
homicides and suicides that occur among school-aged children.”
! “Troubled teens often give potential signals such as writing a note or a journal
entry, or they make a threat. In over half the incidents that were examined,
some type of signal was given.”
! “While the rate of school-associated violent deaths events has decreased
significantly during the study time period, the number of multiple-victim events
has increased.”
! “More than fifty percent of all school-associated violent death events occurred
during transition times during the school day – either at the beginning or end
of the day or during lunch-time.”
! “Homicide perpetrators were far more likely than homicide victims to have
expressed previous suicidal behaviors or had a history of criminal charges; been
a gang member; associated with high-risk peers or considered a loner; or used
alcohol or drugs on a weekly basis. Among students, homicide perpetrators
were twice as likely than homicide victims to have been bullied by peers.”
! “The rate of school-associated violent deaths was over twice as high for male
students.”26
22 (...continued)
Violence in Schools,” Media Relations Fact Sheets, April 21, 1999,
[http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/fact/violence.htm].
23 Mark Anderson, et al., “School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1994-
1999,” JAMA, v. 286, no. 21, December 5, 2001, p. 2695-2702.
24 A legal intervention is assumed to mean that a student was shot by police. The available
information about the study that CRS has at this writing, however, does not define the phrase.
25 Ibid., [http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v286n21/abs/joc11149.html].
26 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, “Study Finds School-Associated Violent Deaths
Rare, Fewer Events But More Deaths Per Event,” CDC Media Relations, Press Release,
(continued...)
CRS-7
Researchers conclude and emphasize that such deaths remain rare events but
have occurred often enough to detect patterns and to identify possible risk factors.
Therefore, this information might assist schools in responding to the problem.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001 Reported Study.
The CDC, which has been involved in school-associated violent deaths research in
collaboration with ED and DOJ (as mentioned above), also collected data to assess
whether the risk for such deaths varied during the school year. The case definition for
school-associated violent deaths used in this study was the same one that was used
in the 1996 study discussed above. Researchers analyzed monthly counts of school-
associated homicides and suicides for seven school terms, from September 1, 1992,
to June 30, 1999, that occurred among middle, junior, and senior high school students
in the nation. For that 7-year period, 209 school-related violent deaths occurred that
involved either a homicide or a suicide of a student. An average of 0.14 school-
related homicide incidents occurred each school day, which translated to one
homicide every 7 school days. Homicide rates usually were highest near the beginning
of the fall and spring semesters, and then declined over the subsequent months. An
average of 0.03 suicide incidents occurred each school day, which was one suicide
every 31 school days. The overall suicide rates were higher during the spring
semester than in the fall semester, but did not vary significantly within semesters.27
The CDC researchers believe that these findings could be useful for school
personnel in planning and implementing school violence prevention programs. They
point out that possible explanations exist regarding why high school-related homicide
rates occurred at the beginning of each semester. One suggested explanation is that
conflicts that began either before or during the semester or holiday break might have
escalated into deadly violence when students returned to school for the start of a new
semester. Another suggestion was that the beginning of a new semester represented
a time of considerable change and stress for students when they have to adapt to new
schedules, teachers, and classmates. Such stressors might contribute to violent
behavior. For these reasons, they propose that schools should consider policies and
programs that might ease student adjustment during the transitional periods.
The researchers warn that the results of the study should be interpreted with
caution because incidents were identified from news media reports. Therefore, any
such event that was not reported in the news media would not have been included in
the study. Reports of suicides were of particular concern because media coverage of
such events might be limited or discouraged. If underreporting of suicides did occur,
the report states, “coverage probably did not vary by time of year and would not
account for the higher rate observed during the spring semester.”28
26 (...continued)
December 4, 2001, [http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r011204.htm].
27 “Temporal Variations in School-Associated Student Homicide and Suicide Events —
United States, 1992-1999,” MMWR Weekly, August 10, 2001, vol. 50, no. 31, pp. 657-660.
[http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5031a1.htm].
28 Ibid.
CRS-8
Multiple Deaths and Injuries
There has been an increase in high-profile multiple-victim school shootings since
1996. Those occurrences might tend to skew the public perception about the safety
of children and youth at school. On February 2, 1996, a 14-year-old male student
walked into a junior high school algebra class in Moses Lake, WA with a hunting rifle
and allegedly killed the teacher, two students, and injured a third student. A little over
one year later on February 19, 1997, another multiple shooting occurred in a Bethel,
Alaska high school when a 16-year-old male student opened fire with a shotgun killing
the principal and a student, and wounded two other students. Those incidents
appeared to begin a pattern of several multi-victim attacks at various schools across
the nation, from the 1995-96 school year through the 1998-99 school term. Using the
1996 study’s case definition for school-related violent deaths (see above), during
those academic periods, from various news accounts of the incidents, it appears that
about 34 students and teachers were killed at school. Also, a larger number of 75
individuals were wounded in the various incidents. One shooting occurred during the
1999-00 school year when four students were wounded, increasing the total to 79
injured. Two incidents occurred in the 2000-01 academic year, increasing the number
to 36 students killed and 103 persons wounded, for a total of 139 victims from 1995
through 1999. Multiple homicides in schools appeared to be sporadic during the
periods discussed, with the largest number of persons killed and wounded in one
incident, during the 1998-99 school session (see Table 1).
On April 20, 1999, during the 1998-99 school year, an incident that has been
called the worst school shooting tragedy in the nation’s history by some
commentators, occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Two male
students armed with handguns and rifles shot and killed 12 classmates, a teacher, and
wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. This incident stirred much concern and
questions about safety in the nation’s schools. For the 1998-99 school year, it was
reported that, “States and Territories ...expelled an estimated 3,523 students for
bringing a firearm to school.”29
On March 5, 2001, during the 2000-01 academic year, in what was described as
the worst episode of school violence since the Columbine tragedy, a 15-year-old male
student randomly shot and killed two students and wounded 13 others (including two
adults – a security guard and a student teacher) at the Santana High School in Santee,
California, a community about 10 miles northeast of downtown San Diego. It was
reported that the teenager had been belittled by his freshman classmates.
Prior to and shortly after the Santana tragedy, the news media reported that
similar acts of violence by disgruntled students had been averted because of quick
thinking youths who alerted authorities about violent threats that were made by
certain students. Notwithstanding, two days after the Santana High School shooting,
the USA Today newspaper reported six separate school-related violence threats made
across the nation, and mentioned a concern that possible “copycat” acts might
transpire. Edward Farris, a youth crisis counselor in Los Angeles was quoted as
29 U.S. Dept. of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to
the Congress, vol. I, p. C-115.
CRS-9
observing that copycat violence is common after high-profile school incidents.30 On
March 22, 2001, two weeks and three days after the Santana High School incident,
an 18-year-old male student opened fire with two guns at the Granite Hills High
School in Cajon, California, an adjacent suburb of Santee, injuring at least seven
people, including two teachers before being shot in the face and subdued by the police
officer assigned to the school. A friend of the gunman stated that he believed the
shooter was upset because he did not have enough credits to graduate in Spring
2001.31
Table 1. Multiple School-Related Violent Deaths and Injuries,
1995-96 — 2000-01 (as of July 31, 2001)
Number of
Number
Total
School year
City/town/state
deaths
wounded
victims
1995-96
Moses Lake, WA
3
1
4
1996-97
Bethel, AK
2
2
4
1997-98
Pearl, MS
2
7
9
West Paducah, KY
3
5
8
Jonesboro, AR
5
10
15
Pomona, CA
2
1
3
Springfield, OR
2a
22
24
Richmond, VA
0
2
2
1998-99
Littleton, CO
15
23
38
Conyers, GA
0
6
6
1999-2000
Fort Gibson, OK
0
4
4
2000-2001
Santee, CA
2
13
15
Cajon, CA
0
7
7
Totals
11
36
103
139
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), compiled from various news accounts and based
on the 1996 JAMA published study’s case definition for school-associated violent deaths (see
discussion above). A similar table presented in earlier versions of this report relied on NSSC data
that reflected multiple school-related violent deaths compiled from various news sources, for which
a similar case definition was not applied.
a The alleged killer’s parents were later found shot to death in their home.
30 Scott Bowles, “Violence Threatens Schools Across U.S.: Arrests Made 2 Days After Calif.
Shooting,” USA Today, March 8, 2001, p. 3A.
31 Todd S. Purdum, “Gunman Fires on School Near Site of Earlier Shooting,” The New York
Times on the Web, March 23, 2001, visited March 23, 2001.
CRS-10
Drug Abuse
Researchers analyzing data from the 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Survey found
that students who used alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana on school property reported
more frequent drug use than students who used such drugs off of school property.
Furthermore, students who used those drugs at school were more at risk, than non-
drug users, to experience school violence.32 The Indicators Study stated that in
1995,1997, and 1999, nearly one-third of all students surveyed for the study, who
were in the 9th through 12th grades (between 30% and 32%), indicated that someone
had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property, which was an
increase from 24% of such students in 1993.33
Since 1975, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research has
conducted the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study. High school seniors and, since
1991, 8th and 10th grade youth have been canvassed annually about their behavior,
attitudes, values in general, and substance use. At each grade level, responses of
students surveyed were used to represent all students nationwide in public and private
secondary schools. In 2001, about 44,300 students in 424 schools participated and
were surveyed in categories about their lifetime use, past year use, past month use,
and daily use of drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.34
MTF researchers reported that results of 2001 surveys concerning drug use
among 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students, were mixed, similar to surveys taken in 1999
and in 2000. In 2001, the use of some illicit drugs decreased, while the use of several
others remained steady, and a few others showed increases. The use of marijuana, the
most widely used illicit drug among all grade levels, remained steady in 2001. There
was no change in marijuana usage among 8th graders in 2001, after a slow steady
decline in usage since reaching peak rates in 1996. Among 10th and 12th graders,
marijuana use remained steady at rates slightly lower than the peak rates reached in
1997.35
An increase in MDMA (ecstasy) use was noted in 1999 among 10th and 12th
graders, and continued in 2000 and in 2001 among all students, but the rate of
increase began to slow. MTF researchers believe that this slowing in the rate of
increase results from a sharp increase in the proportion of students who believe that
the drug is dangerous. Only 12th graders were asked the question about perceived risk
of using the drug. The perception that there is a great risk associated with
32 “Use of Illegal Substances Found to Be Related to School Violence,” Criminal Justice
Research Reports, v. 2, November/December 2000, p. 29.
33 P. Kaufman, et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2001, p. vi.
34 Daily use of drugs, the MTF report states, usually refers to use on 20 or more occasions in
the past 30 days.
35 Lloyd D. Johnston, P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, Monitoring the Future National
Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2001, (NIH Publication No.
02-5105), Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2002, p. 3-4.
CRS-11
experimenting with ecstasy increased from 38% in 2000 to 46% in 2001.36
Additionally, researchers found that there was a continuing sharp increase in the
availability of ecstasy. The proportion of 12th graders stating that they could get the
drug “fairly” or “very” easily, climbed from 40% in 1999, to 51% in 2000, to 62% in
2001.37 Principle investigator Lloyd Johnston commented that, “[t]his reflects an
extremely rapid spread in availability, which is due in part to the fact that this drug is
still reaching new communities.”38 African-American students, researchers found,
used ecstasy much less than white and Hispanic students. Only 2% of African-
American 12th graders surveyed reported using ecstasy in 2000, compared with 10%
of both white and Hispanic students.39 As a matter of fact, researchers reported,
“Contrary to popular assumption, at all three grade levels African American
youngsters have substantially lower rates of use of most licit and illicit drugs than do
Whites. These include any illicit drug use, most of the specific illicit drugs, alcohol,
and cigarettes. In fact, African Americans’ use of cigarettes is dramatically lower than
for Whites, and this is a difference that emerged largely during the life of the study
(i.e., since 1975).”40
In contrast to the increase in ecstacy use, several other drugs showed evidence
of some decline in 2001. Specifically, in 2000, use of heroin among 12th graders
reached its highest point since 1975 when the survey began, while such use
significantly fell among 8th graders. In 2001, for the first time, 10th and 12th grade
students showed a decline in heroin use. Nearly all of this improvement, researchers
found, occurred in the use of heroin without the needle (that is, in smoking or
snorting the drug).41
In 2000, an increased use of anabolic steroids was noted among 10th graders,
while such use remained steady among 8th and 12th graders. In 2001, steroid use
significantly increased among 12th graders, but showed no further increase among 8th
or 10th graders. In 2000, a notable drug use change occurred among 12th graders who
showed significant declines in using LSD, crack, and cocaine powder.42 In 2001, LSD
use dropped significantly in 10th graders, but non-significantly in 8th graders. No
further change occurred for LSD use among 12th graders. Although both crack and
cocaine powder were moderately down from peak levels of use in the 1990s, and far
36 “Rise in Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Begins to Slow,” The University of Michigan
News and Information Services, December 19, 2001, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
[http://www.monitoringthefuture.org], visited March 15, 2001, p. 2.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid., pp. 2-3.
39 Ibid., p. 3.
40 Lloyd D. Johnston, et al., Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug
Use, p. 39.
41 Ibid., p. 3.
42 Lloyd D. Johnston, P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, “`Ecstasy’ Use Rises Sharply Among
Teens in 2000; Use of Many Other Drugs Steady, But Significant Declines Are Reported For
Some,” University of Michigan News and Information Services, December 2000, Ann Arbor
Michigan, p. 3 [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org], visited December 20, 2000.
CRS-12
below peak use in the mid-1980s, only use of cocaine powder showed a significant
decline in 2001, and only among 10th graders.43 The use of inhalants, which began to
decrease in 1996 from peak levels in all three grades, continued to decline in 2001,
but significantly only among 12th graders.44
Figure 1 depicts the usage levels of any illicit drug within the last 12 months by
grade level from 1992 through 2001.
Figure 1. Any Illicit Drug Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders Within the
Last 12 Months, 1992-2001
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future High
School Drug Stats Table 2, [http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/01data.html].
In 1998, the use of alcoholic beverages decreased among all three grade levels
as students’ beliefs about the harmfulness of weekend binge drinking began to change.
Also, 1998 was the first year of evidence of a decrease in alcohol use among 10th
graders since 1995. In 1997, alcohol use climbed for 12th graders, after slightly
declining in 1995 and in 1996. Alcohol use slightly dropped in 1998 for 12th graders,
although MTF analysts reported that it was not statistically significant. Among 8th
graders, 1998 was the second year for a decline in alcohol use. (See Figure 2.)
Furthermore, in 1998, one-third of all high school seniors reported being drunk at
43 Lloyd D. Johnston, et al., Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug
Use, p. 4.
44 Ibid.
CRS-13
least once within the 30 days prior to the survey.45 Lloyd D. Johnston, the principal
MTF analyst, concluded that such behaviors of students using both illicit drugs and
alcohol tended to change very slowly, and only after young people had assessed the
danger in using the various drugs, as well as how acceptable or unacceptable drug use
might be to their peers.46
In 1999, researchers concluded that although daily alcohol use declined among
seniors, and within the past 30-days use dropped for all grade levels, alcohol use
among all teenagers remained at unacceptably high levels.47 In 2000, teen alcohol use
remained relatively stable as in previous years. Almost a quarter of 8th graders
surveyed reported drinking alcohol within the past 30 days, while exactly one-half of
12th graders had done so. Also, 1 in 12 eighth graders reported being drunk at least
once in the past 30 days, as did one-third of the 12th graders surveyed.48 In 2001, the
rate of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders who reported drinking an alcoholic beverage within
the past 30 days prior to the survey were 22%, 39%, and 50%, respectively.49 Two
statistically significant changes occurred between 2000 and 2001 regarding teen
alcohol use – a decline among 8th graders who reported having been drunk in the past
year, but contrastingly, an increase among 12th graders in daily alcohol use.50
45 Lloyd D. Johnston, et al., “Drug Use By American Young People Begins To Turn
Downward,”The University of Michigan News and Information Services, December 18,
1998, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
[http://www.isr.umich.edu/src/mtf/pressreleases/mtfnar98.html], visited November 10, 1999.
46 Ibid.
47 “Drug Use Among Teenagers Leveling Off,” HHS News.
48 Lloyd D. Johnston, et al., “`Ecstasy’ Use Rises Sharply Among Teens in 2000 ...,” p. 7.
49 Lloyd D. Johnston, et al., Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug
Use, p. 30.
50 “2001 Monitoring the Future Survey Released: Smoking Among Teenagers Decreases
Sharply and Increase in Ecstacy Use Slows,” HHS News, NIDA Press Office, December 19,
2001, p. 4, [http://www.nida.nih.gov/MedAdv/01/NR12-19.html], visited February 4, 2002.
CRS-14
Figure 2. Any Alcohol Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, Within the
Last 30 Days, 1992-2001
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future High
School Drug Stats Table 2, [http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/01data.html].
Note: MTF researchers explained that in 1993, the question asked participants regarding their
alcohol use slightly changed. The term “drink” was defined to mean that they consumed “more than
a few sips.” What the term “drink” meant for students surveyed in 1992 was not indicated. It is
assumed that it might have meant to some participants the consumption of a “few sips” of alcohol.
Cigarette smoking (defined as smoking one or more cigarettes during the past
30 days), which showed a steady increase among all grade levels since 1992,
decreased between 1997 and 1998 with 10th graders showing the larger percentage
of decline.51 In 1999, there were no significant changes among all grade levels in
cigarette use.52 Cigarette smoking significantly declined in 2000, among all grade
levels. Researchers concluded that the improvements occurring would have
meaningful long-term consequences for the health and longevity of this generation of
youth.53 In 2001, cigarette smoking sharply fell among all teenage groups surveyed.
Researchers noted that this decline was statistically significant among 8th and 10th
graders, but not for 12th graders. (See Figure 3.) Lloyd Johnston observed that
“These important declines in teen smoking did not just happen by chance. A lot of
51 “Drug Use Among Teenagers Leveling Off,” HHS News.
52 Ibid.
53 Lloyd D. Johnston, P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, “Cigarette Use and Smokeless
Tobacco Use Decline Substantially Among Teens,” The University of Michigan News and
Information Services, December 2000, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
[http://www.monitoringthefuture.org], visited December 20, 2000, p. 1.
CRS-15
individuals and organizations have been making concerted efforts to bring down the
unacceptably high rates of smoking among our youth.”54
Figure 3. 30-Day Prevalence of Any Cigarette Use for 8th, 10th, and
12th Graders, 1992-2001
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future High
School Drug Stats Table 2, [http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/01data.html].
In 1998, smokeless tobacco use declined more among 10th graders compared
with 8th graders and 12th graders.55 In 1999, as with cigarette use, smokeless tobacco
use slightly declined among all students, but no significant changes occurred.
Researchers observed that the disapproval of regularly using smokeless tobacco
increased among 8th and 10th graders.56 In 2000, smokeless tobacco use substantially
declined among teens by an even larger proportion than cigarette use. Researchers
discovered that in 2001, smokeless tobacco use rates remained statistically unchanged
from 2000. According to Lloyd Johnston, these rates, however, reflect a decrease by
54 “Cigarette Smoking Among American Teens Declines Sharply in 2001,” The University of
Michigan News and Information Services, December 19, 2001, Ann Arbor, Michigan, p. 3.
55 Lloyd D. Johnston, et al., “Drug Use By American Young People Begins To Turn
Downward.”
56 “Drug Use Among Teenagers Leveling Off,” HHS News.
CRS-16
about 40% of smokeless tobacco use by teens from peak levels reached in the mid-
1990s.57 (See Figure 4.)
Researchers found that there were some demographic differences related to
smokeless tobacco use by teens. Such use tended to be higher in the South and North
Central regions of the nation than in the Northeast or in the West. Also, such use
tended to be more focused in non-metropolitan areas than in metropolitan regions,
such use was negatively correlated with the education level of the parents, and tended
to be higher among whites than among African American or Hispanic youths.
Analysts concluded that one important reason for the considerable declines in
smokeless tobacco use by teens in the late 1990s was that a growing portion of youth
believed that using the product could be dangerous.58
Figure 4. 30-Day Prevalence of Smokeless Tobacco Use for 8th, 10th,
and 12th Graders, 1992-2001
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future High
School Drug Stats Table 2, [http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/01data.html].
57 Lloyd D. Johnston, et al., Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug
Use, p. 34.
58 Ibid.
CRS-17
The SDFSC Program
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is administered by the
Department of Education. Grants are authorized for state programs and for a variety
of national programs to promote school safety and assist in preventing drug abuse in
the nation’s schools. For FY2002, a total of $746,750,000 was appropriated for
various authorities under the program. Of that total, $472,017,000 was reserved for
state grants to support violence and drug abuse prevention programs in practically
every school district and community in the nation. For national programs,
$34,733,000 was appropriated along with $10,000,000 for Project SERV (School
Emergency Response to Violence), $37,500,000 for the National Coordinator
Initiative, $100,000,000 for the Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) initiative,
$17,500,000 for mentoring programs, $50,000,000 for community service for
expelled or suspended students, and $25,000,000 for alcohol abuse reduction.
For FY2003, the President has requested $644,250,000 for the SDFSC program.
Of this sum, $472,017,000 are requested for state grants and $172,233,000 for
national program activities. This request is a $102,500,000 decrease from the
FY2002 appropriation. It would eliminate three activities under national programs
– mentoring, community services for expelled or suspended students, and alcohol
abuse reduction.
State Grants
State grants are administered through a formula grant program. Funds for state
grants are disbursed as follows: From the total appropriation for state grants each
fiscal year, 1%, or $4,750,000 (whichever is greater) is reserved for outlying areas
(Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands); 1% or $4,750,000 (whichever is greater) is reserved for the
Secretary of the Interior to administer programs for Indian youth; and 0.2% is
reserved to provide programs for native Hawaiians. The remaining funds are
distributed to the states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico by a formula based 50% on school-aged population and based 50% on ESEA
Title I, Part A concentration grants for the preceding fiscal year. No state receives less
than the greater of one-half of 1% (0.5%) of the total amount allotted to all of the
states, or the amount the state received for FY2001. State grant funds in any amount
may be redistributed to other states if the Secretary determines that a state will not be
able to use the funds within 2 years of the initial award. Also, funds appropriated for
national programs may not be increased unless state grant funding is at least 10%
more than the previous fiscal year’s appropriation.
Of the total allotted to a state, up to 20% is used by the state Chief Executive
Officer (Governor) for drug and violence prevention programs and activities, and the
remainder is administered by the State Educational Agency (SEA).59 The Governor
may use not more than 3% of the funds for administrative costs. These aspects of the
SDFSC program are discussed below.
59 P.L. 107-110, section 4112(1).
CRS-18
The distribution of state funds is depicted in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The Program Formula to State and Local Schools,
2002-2003 School Year
* The sum of these percentages exceeds 100%. States will have to make some adjustments either
in Administration or State Activity costs to accommodate LEA percentages.
Source: Congressional Research Service. Adapted from Figure 1, “How Funding Reaches States
and Local Schools, Fiscal 1995,) in the GAO report, Safe and Drug-Free Schools..., p.2.
The FY2002 SDFSC state program funds will become available for distribution
in July 2002 for the 2002-2003 school year (see Table 3 below).
State Chief Executive Officer’s Funds. As mentioned above, of the total
state allotment, up to 20% goes to the Governor to award competitive grants and
contracts to local educational agencies (LEAs), community-based groups, other
public entities, private groups and associations. Grant and contracts are to be used
to support the comprehensive state plan for programs and activities that complement
an LEA’s drug and violence prevention activities. The Governor must award grants
based on the quality of the proposed program or activity, and how such program or
activity fulfill the principles of effectiveness.60
60 Ibid.
CRS-19
Funding priority for such programs and activities must be given to children and
youth who are not normally served by SEAs and LEAs, or to populations that require
special services, such as youth in juvenile detention facilities, runaway and homeless
children and youth, pregnant and parenting teens, and school dropouts. In addition,
when awarding funds, the Governor must give special consideration to grantees that
seek to accomplish a comprehensive approach to drug and violence prevention efforts
that include providing and incorporating into their programs mental health services
related to drug and violence prevention. Furthermore, funds must be used to
implement and develop drug and violence prevention programs that include activities
to prevent and reduce violence related to prejudice and intolerance, to disseminate
information about drug and violence prevention, and to develop and implement
community-wide drug and violence prevention plans. The Governor may use not
more than 3% of the funds for administrative costs.61
State and Local Educational Agencies Grant Allocations and
Activities. SEAs can reserve up to 5% of their allotted funds for statewide drug and
violence prevention efforts. Funds should be used for planning, developing, and
implementing capacity building, training and technical assistance, evaluating the
program, providing services to improve the program, coordinating activities for
LEAs, community-based groups, and other public and private entities that are
intended to assist LEAs in developing, carrying out, and assessing comprehensive
prevention programs that are consistent with the SDFSC mandated requirements.62
Such uses of the funds are required to meet the principles of effectiveness (discussed
below), should complement and support LEA funded activities, and should be in
agreement with the purposes of state activities.63 Funded activities may include, but
are not limited to, identifying, developing, evaluating, and disseminating drug and
violence prevention projects, programs, and other information; training, technical
assistance, and demonstration programs, to address violence associated with prejudice
and intolerance; and providing financial assistance to increase available drug and
violence prevention resources in areas that serve numerous low-income children, that
are sparsely populated, or have other special requirements. SEAs may use up to an
additional 3% of funds for administering the program. For FY2002 only, however,
in addition to the 3%, an SEA may use 1% of its allotment (minus funds reserved for
the Governor) to implement a uniform management information and reporting system
(UMIRS, discussed below).64
At least 93% of SEA funds must be subgranted to LEAs for drug and violence
prevention and education programs and activities. Of those funds, 60% are based on
the relative amount LEAs received under ESEA Title I, Part A for the previous fiscal
year, and 40% are based on public and private school enrollments. Of the amount
61 Ibid.,section 4112(2)(3)(5)(6).
62 U.S. Dept. of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, p.
C-112.
63 P.L. 107-110, section 4112(c)(2).
64 Ibid., section 4112(b)(2).
CRS-20
received from the state, LEAs may use not more than 2% for administrative costs.65
LEAs are required to use funds “to develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive
programs and activities, which are coordinated with other school and community-
based services and programs.”66 Such programs should nurture an environment
conducive for learning that is safe and drug-free and supports academic attainment,
should be consistent with the principles of effectiveness, and should be designed to
prevent or reduce violence, the use, possession, and distribution of illegal drugs, and
delinquency. Activities should be included to promote parental involvement in the
program or activity, coordination with community organizations, coalitions, and
government agencies, and distribution of information about the LEA’s needs, goals
and programs that are funded under the SDFSCA.67
Uniform Management Information and Reporting System. States are
required to create and maintain a uniform management information and reporting
system to provide the public with information about truancy rates, the frequency,
seriousness, and incidence of violence and drug-related offenses resulting in
suspensions and expulsions in elementary and secondary schools; the types of
curricula, programs, and services provided by the Governor, SEA, LEAs, and other
fund recipients; and about the incidence and prevalence, age of onset, perception of
health risk, and perception of social disapproval of drug use and violent behavior by
youth in schools and in communities.68 The data collected must include incident
reports by school officials, and anonymous student and teacher surveys.69 In addition,
the state must submit a report to the Secretary of Education (Secretary) every two
years on the implementation, outcomes, and effectiveness of its SEA, LEA, and
Governor’s SDFSC programs, and on the state’s progress toward achieving its
performance measures for drug and violence prevention efforts.70
State Application. To receive an allotment, a state must provide the
Secretary with an application that contains a comprehensive plan about how the SEA
and the Governor will use the funds for programs and activities that will complement
and support LEA activities to provide safe, orderly, and drug-free schools and
communities; how such programs and activities comply with the principles of
effectiveness; and that they are in accordance with the purpose of the SDFSCA. The
application must describe how funded activities will promote a safe and drug-free
learning environment that supports academic attainment; must guarantee that it was
developed by consulting and coordinating with appropriate state officials and others;
must describe how the SEA will coordinate its activities with the Governor’s drug and
violence prevention programs and with the prevention efforts of other state agencies
65 Ibid., section 4114(a).
66 Ibid.,section 4115(b)(1).
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid., section 4112(c)(3)(B).
69 Ibid., section 4112(c)(3)(C).
70 Ibid., section 4116.
CRS-21
and programs, as appropriate; and must comply with several other additional
requirements.71
LEA Application. An LEA must submit an application to its SEA that has
been developed through timely and meaningful consultation with state and local
government representatives, as well as representatives from public and private schools
to be served, teachers and other staff, parents, students, community-based groups, and
others such as, medical, mental health, and law enforcement personnel with relevant
and demonstrated expertise in drug and violence prevention activities. The
application should contain, among other things, an assurance that the funded activities
and programs will comply with the principles of effectiveness, promote safe and drug-
free learning environments that provide for academic achievement, and contain a
detailed account of the LEA’s comprehensive plan for drug and violence prevention
activities.72
LEA Limitation. LEAs are authorized to use the funds for a wide range of
related activities. There is a limitation, however, on the use of funds by LEAs
regarding drug and violence prevention activities related to (1) “Acquiring and
installing metal detectors, electronic locks, surveillance cameras, or other related
equipment and technologies”; (2) “Reporting criminal offenses committed on school
property”; (3) “Developing and implementing comprehensive school security plans or
obtaining technical assistance concerning such plans ....”; (4) “Supporting safe zones
of passage activities that ensure that students travel safely to and from school ...”; and
(5) “The hiring and mandatory training, based on scientific research, of school security
personnel ....” Not more than 40% of LEA funds may be used to support these five
activities. Out of the 40% of LEA funds used for the five activities, not more than
one-half of those funds (that is, 20% of the LEA funds) may be used to support the
first 4 activities. An LEA, however, may use up to 40% of the funds for the first 4
activities, only if funding for those activities is not received from other federal
government agencies.73
Principles of Effectiveness for State and Local Grant Recipients.
A 1997 study74 authorized by ED to assess drug and violence programs in 19 school
districts across the nation, found that few districts weighed research results when
planning their prevention programs nor generally did they use proven prevention
approaches with the greatest potential to make a difference among students.
Therefore, to improve the quality of drug and violence prevention programs, ED
devised four principles of effectiveness for all grant recipients. On July 1, 1998, the
Principles of Effectiveness became operative. Under these principles, grantees are
required to use SDFSC State and Local Grants Program funds to support research-
71 Ibid., section 4113.
72 Ibid., section 4114(c)(d).
73 Ibid.,section 4115(c)(1)(2).
74 U.S. Dept. of Education, Planning and Evaluation Services, School-Based Drug Prevention
Programs: A Longitudinal Study in Selected School Districts, Final Report, 1997, by E.
Suyapa Silvia, Judy Thorne, and Christine A. Tashjian, Research Triangle Institute,
(Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 5-3.
CRS-22
based drug and violence prevention programs for youth. The principles were adopted
by the Secretary to ensure that SEAs, LEAs, Governors’ offices, and community-
based groups would plan and implement effective drug and violence prevention
programs75 and use funds as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Grant recipients must:
! Base their programs on a thorough evaluation of objective data about the drug
and violence problems in the schools and communities served;
! Design activities to meet goals and objectives for drug and violence
prevention;
! Create and implement activities based on research that provides evidence that
the strategies used prevent or reduce drug use, violence, or disruptive behavior
among youth; and
! Assess programs periodically to determine progress toward achieving program
goals and objectives, and use evaluation results to refine, improve, and
strengthen the program, and refine goals and objectives as necessary.76
National Programs
Under National Programs, funding is authorized for various programs to foster
safe and drug-free school environments for students and to assist at-risk youth. These
activities and programs are discussed below.
Federal Activities. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative has been
funded under the National Program’s federal activities since FY1999. This program
is jointly funded with HHS and DOJ to assist school districts and communities in
developing and implementing community-wide projects in order to create safe and
drug-free schools and to encourage healthy childhood development. For FY2002,
and for each fiscal year, the Secretary is required to reserve an amount necessary to
continue the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative. Other SDFSC National
Programs collaborative efforts include funding grants with DOJ’s Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) for projects to recruit and train adult
mentors to assist at-risk youth in avoiding alcohol, illegal drug use, participation in
gangs, and in acts of violence. Another joint project with OJJDP is supporting a
National Safe Schools Resource Center to provide training and technical assistance
to large urban school districts.77
Federal activities are authorized to allow the Secretary to consult with the HHS
Secretary, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and
the Attorney General, to administer programs aimed at preventing violence and illegal
drug use among students and promoting their safety and discipline. The ED Secretary
75 U.S. Dept. of Education, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program,” Federal Register 63, no.
104, 1 June 1998: p. 29902.
76 Dept. of Education, Fiscal Year 2001Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, v. I, p.
D-68.
77 Ibid.
CRS-23
must carry out such programs directly or through discretionary grants, contracts, or
cooperative agreements with public and private entities and persons, or by agreements
with other federal agencies, and coordinate such programs with other suitable federal
activities.78
Impact Evaluation. The Secretary may reserve up to $2,000,000 to conduct
a required evaluation every 2 years of the national impact of the SDFSC program and
of other recent and new enterprises to deter violence and drug use in schools. The
evaluation must report on whether funded community and LEA programs complied
with the principles of effectiveness, considerably reduced the usage level of illegal
drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, lowered the amount of school violence, reduced the level
of the illegal possession of weapons at school, conducted effective training programs,
and accomplished efficient parental involvement.79
Similar to the required uniform management information and reporting system
for states, under national programs, the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) must collect data to determine the incidence and prevalence of illegal drug
use and violence in elementary and secondary schools in the states. Such data must
include incident reports by school officials, and anonymous student and teacher
surveys. Furthermore, by January 1, 2003, and subsequently, biennially, the Secretary
has to submit a report on the findings of the impact evaluation to the President and
to the Congress. Along with such findings, the Secretary must provide NCES
collected data, and statistics from other sources on the incidence and prevalence of
drug use and violence in elementary and secondary schools, as well as on the age of
onset, perception of health risk, and perception of social disapproval of such behavior
among students.80
National Coordinator Program. In FY1999, the National Coordinator
Initiative was created under national programs allowing LEAs to recruit, hire, and
train persons to serve as SDFSC program coordinators in middle schools. ED
officials believed that middle school students were at the age where they were most
likely to begin experimenting with drugs and becoming more involved in violence and
crime. SDFSCA continues this permissive activity by expanding coverage for national
coordinators to serve as drug prevention and school safety program coordinators in
all schools with notable drug and safety problems. The coordinators are responsible
for developing, conducting, and analyzing assessments of drug and crime problems
at their schools and for administering the SDFSC state grant program.81
Community Service for Expelled or Suspended Students Grant
Program. The Secretary may use national program funds to make formula grants
available to states (which include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) for administering a new program that requires
students expelled or suspended from school to perform community service. Grants
78 P.L. 107-110, Section 4121(a).
79 Ibid., Section 4122.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid., Section 4125.
CRS-24
would be made to states with 50% of allotted funds based on school-aged population
and 50% based on ESEA Title I, Part A concentration grants for the preceding fiscal
year. No state would receive less than one-half of 1% (0.5%) of the total allotted to
the states.82
The program is forward-funded, which means that funds will become available
on July 1, 2002 and remain available for 15 months through September 30, 2003.83
Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse. The Secretary may award competitive
grants, in consultation with the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMSHA, within HHS), to LEAs allowing school
districts to develop and implement new programs to reduce alcohol abuse in
secondary schools. The Secretary may reserve 20% of amounts used for these grants
to empower SAMSHA’s Administrator to provide alcohol abuse resources and start-
up assistance to LEAs receiving the grants. Furthermore, the Secretary may reserve
up to 25% of the funds to award grants to low-income and rural SEAs.84
To be eligible to receive a grant, LEAs must prepare and submit an application
to the Secretary containing the following required information –
! Describing activities that will be administered under the grant;
! Guaranteeing that such activities will include one or more of the proven
strategies that reduce underage alcohol abuse;
! Explaining how activities to be conducted will be effective in reducing
underage alcohol abuse by including information about previous effectiveness
of such activities;
! Guaranteeing that the LEA will submit an annual report to the Secretary about
the effectiveness of the programs and activities funded under the grant; and
! Providing any additional information required.85
Mentoring Programs. The Secretary may award competitive grants to
eligible entities, that is, LEAs, non-profit community-based groups, or a partnership
between an LEA and a non-profit community-based organization, for assistance in
creating and supporting mentoring programs and activities for children with greatest
need. The mandate defines a child with greatest need as “a child who is at risk of
educational failure, dropping out of school, or involvement in criminal or delinquent
activities, or who lacks strong positive role models.” A mentor is defined as “a
responsible adult, a postsecondary school student, or a secondary school student who
works with a child.”86
82 Ibid., Section 4126.
83 U.S. Dept. of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, p.
C-121.
84 P.L. 107-110, Section 4129(a)(d).
85 Ibid., Section 4129(b).
86 Ibid., Section 4130(2)(B)(C).
CRS-25
Grants, which will be made available for an obligation of up to three years, may
be awarded to eligible entities for mentoring programs that are designed to link
children with greatest need, especially those living in rural areas, high-crime areas,
stressful home environments, or children experiencing educational failure, with
mentors who have been trained and supported in mentoring; screened with
appropriate reference checks, child and domestic abuse record checks, and criminal
background checks; and who have been deemed as interested in working with such
children.
Mentors are expected to achieve one or more of several goals with respect to the
children including – providing general guidance; fostering personal and social
responsibility; increasing participation in, and enhancing the ability to profit from
elementary and secondary school; discouraging the illegal use of drugs and alcohol,
violent behavior, using dangerous weapons, promiscuous behavior, and other
criminal, harmful, or potentially harmful behavior; encouraging goal setting and
planning for the future; and discouraging gang involvement.87
When awarding grants, the Secretary must give priority to each eligible entity
that provides adequate service for children with greatest need who live in rural areas,
high crime areas, reside in troubled homes, or who attend schools with violence
problems; provides high quality background screening of mentors, training for
mentors, and technical assistance in administering mentoring programs; or that plans
a school-based mentoring program.88
Table 2 below provides a 7-year appropriation funding history of the SDFSC
program.
87 Ibid., Section 4130(b).
88 Ibid., Section 4130(b)(5).
CRS-26
Table 2. SDFSC Appropriations Funds, FY1995-FY2003,
by Grant Program
($ in thousands)
Program
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000a
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Pres.
Budget
Request
State Grants
$555,978
$531,000
$441,000
$439,250
$439,250
$472,017b
$472,017
National
0
$25,000
$27,003
$29,023
$28,000
$34,733
$45,000
Programs
Project SERV
-----
-----
-----
0
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Coordinator
Initiative
------
-----
$35,000
$50,000
$50,000
$37,500
$17,233
SS/HS
------
-----
$62,997
$81,727
$117,000
$100,000
$100,000
Mentoring
------
-----
-----
-----
-----
$17,500
0
Community
Service ...
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
$50,000
0
Alcohol Abuse
Reduction
-----
-----
-----
-----
$25,000
0
Total Funding
$555,978
$556,000
$566,000
$600,000
$644,250
$746,750
$644,250
Source: U.S. Department of Education Budget Service, February 4, 2002
a FY2000 funds reflect the requirement that agencies reduce their FY2000 appropriation by 0.38%.
ED rescinded a portion of the state grant appropriation (from the initial appropriation of $445
million by $5.7 million).
b The SDFSC is a forward-funded program. For FY2002, as for FY2000 and FY2001, the state
grant appropriation was split. Of the annual appropriation, $142,017,000 will become
available on July 1, 2002, and remain available through September 30, 2003. The remaining
allotment, $330,000,000, will become available October 1, 2002, and remain available through
September 30, 2003.
The Gun-Free Schools Act
The Gun-Free Schools Act, which was Title XIV, Part F of the ESEA, was
incorporated as part of SDFSCA because of its close relationship with the SDFSC
program. This provision calls for each state receiving funds under the No Child Left
Behind Act to have a law that requires LEAs to expel for 1 year any student bringing
a weapon to school. The chief administering officer of an LEA, however, can modify
the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.89
89 Ibid., Section 4141 (b)(1).
CRS-27
In order to receive funds under the SDFSCA, an LEA must have a policy
requiring that any student who brings a firearm or weapon to school will be referred
to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system.90
Evaluation of the Program
The purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act under the
ESEA prior to its reauthorization was to support, through federal, state, and local
programs, the National Education Goal Seven, which was to ensure by the year 2000
that every school in the nation would be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized
presence of firearms and alcohol, as well as tobacco, thereby offering disciplined
environments conducive to learning. There were few evaluations of the program
under prior law. One assessment of the program’s effectiveness concluded that it had
failed to meet its stated goal. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
(CASA) at Columbia University91 concluded:
A year past the year 2000 deadline and $4.3 billion Title IV federal dollars later,
drugs still infest our nation’s schools and rates of parental involvement in their
children’s education remain abysmally low. Efforts to attain Goal 7 – Safe,
Disciplined and Alcohol- and Drug-Free Schools – have failed and millions of
children at schools where drugs are available are in danger of being left behind.92
One positive aspect of the SDFSC program observed in CASA’s report is the
Middle School Coordinator Initiative effort (see National Coordinator Program
above). CASA terms this aspect of the program as one promising initiative for
effectively using SDFSC funds. The study stated that “the presence of a full-time
prevention coordinator can positively influence both the development of programs and
teacher motivation to implement a program curriculum. Active program coordination
led to program stability and careful planning and assessment activities.”93
In November 2000, a national evaluation of the SDFSC program by ED was
released.94 Surveyors found that the efforts of several LEAs to reduce school
violence and drug use through the program were haphazard, and federal funds might
be spread too thin. Also, it was found that only 50% of the 600 LEAs canvassed have
a definitive goal in place for prevention efforts, such as changing student behaviors
or attitudes toward violence and drug use; LEAs with a goal lacked quality data to
assess progress; and only 9% had implemented prevention programs based on
research. Others used programs like D.A.R.E., which has been found by some
90 Ibid., Section 4141(h).
91 The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Malignant Neglect: Substance
Abuse and America’s Schools, Columbia University, September 2001, p. 17-18.
92 Ibid., p. 18.
93 The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Malignant Neglect: Substance
Abuse and America’s Schools, p. 46-47.
94 “ED Finds Districts’ Drug, Violence Prevention Lax,” Education Daily, v. 33, November
22, 2000, p. 1, 4.
CRS-28
analysts to be ineffective. The ED concluded that it was questionable to what extent
LEAs were complying with the Principles of Effectiveness that require grantees to use
program funds to support research-based drug and violence prevention programs for
youth.