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 February 25, 2004 Edith Fairman Cooper Analyst in Social Legislation 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 some previous years, data from the Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2003 study indicate that the nation’s schools are generally considered to be safe. School crime rates actually declined between 1992 and 2001, showing what the study terms, “sizeable improvements” in student safety. 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. There was a decline in 2001, however, in the percentage of students who felt unsafe at school. Such feelings depended on the racial and/or ethnic group of the students. Larger percentages of Black and Latino students feared attack or harm at school than White students. Also, females were more likely than males to report gender-related hate words, and Blacks were more likely than Whites to report race-related hate words. Students in public schools were more likely to report race-related hate words than those in private schools. The 2003 Monitoring the Future study conducted by the University of Michigan revealed an overall decline in drug use by all 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students. Results included significant decreases in the use of MDMA (ecstasy), marijuana, and LSD. Little change was noted in alcohol use among 8th and 10th graders. An insignificant alcohol use decline occurred among 12th graders. Cigarette use is slowly declining among teens, while no change occurred in heroin use in each grade level. Cocaine powder and crack use showed insignificant declines, while the use of inhalants increased among 8th graders, and OxyContin and Vicodin use increased among all three grades. Researchers concluded that these particular results showed reasons for concern. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 School Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 School Homicides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 The 1996 Study on School-Related Violent Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Update of the 1996 Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001 Reported Study . . . . 8 Source of Firearms Used in School-Related Violent Deaths . . . . . . . . . 9 Multiple Deaths and Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Drug Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Marijuana Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ecstasy Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Other Illicit Drug Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Alcohol Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Cigarette Smoking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Smokeless Tobacco Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 The SDFSC Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 State Chief Executive Officer’s Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 State and Local Educational Agencies Grant Allocations and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 State Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 LEA Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 LEA Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Principles of Effectiveness for State and Local Grant Recipients . . . . 24 National Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Federal Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Impact Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 National Coordinator Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Mentoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 The Gun-Free Schools Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Evaluation of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 List of Figures Figure 1. Any Illicit Drug Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders Within the Last 12 Months, 1992-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 2. Any Alcohol Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, Within the Last 30 Days, 1992-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Figure 3. 30-Day Prevalence of Any Cigarette Use for 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, 1992-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 4. 30-Day Prevalence of Smokeless Tobacco Use for 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, 1992-2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 5. The Program Formula to State and Local Schools, 2002-2003 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 List of Tables Table 1. Multiple School-Related Violent Deaths and Injuries, 1995-96 — 2000-01 (as of July 31, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 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 1997 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 DrugFree 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 The No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110) amended and reauthorized 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 FY2003, Congress appropriated $716 million7 for the program, which was $30.8 million less than for FY2002. For FY2004, the George W. Bush Administration has requested $694.3 million in funding for SDFSC program, a $50 million increase over the $644.3 million FY2003 request. Congress appropriated $674.203 million for the program,8 which is $20 million less than the President’s request. For FY2005, the Administration has requested $715.977 million, which is $41.774 million more than the FY2004 appropriation. 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. 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,9 it is one of several substance abuse and violence prevention programs funded by the federal government.10 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 (DHHS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) administered 48 of the programs.11 6 “Title IV — Safe Schools,” 1994 CQ Almanac, v. 50 (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1994), p. 394. 7 This figure reflects the required 0.65% across-the-board budget reduction for federal agencies as estimated by the ED Budget Service in its table entitled, Dept. of Education Fiscal Year 2004 President’s Budget, March 5, 2003. It includes all activities that are authorized under the SDFSC Act. Therefore, this total differs from the one reported in the ED Budget Office’s table, which lists appropriations for national program grants for community service for expelled or suspended students, and alcohol abuse reduction separately from the rest of the SDFSC Act. 8 This figure reflects the required 0.59% across-the-board budget reduction, as estimated by the ED Budget Service for the Department of Education. 9 “About Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program,” [http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/aboutsdf.html], visited February 08, 2002. 10 11 U.S. General Accounting Office, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, p. 8. 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 This report provides background information about the school safety and drug abuse issues, presents a detailed overview of the various aspects of the SDFSC program, as it exists under current law, as amended, and discusses an evaluation of the SDFSC program. 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 in some previous years. The Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2003 (Indicators Study), a joint publication by the Departments of Education and Justice, includes findings from the Violence in U. S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, published by the Department of Education.12 The Indicators Study shows that school violent crime13 victimization rates actually declined between 1992 and 2001 from 48 violent victimizations per 1,000 students in 1992 to 28 such occurrences per 1,000 students in 2001.14 Despite this decline, however, the study noted that violence, theft, bullying, drugs, and firearms are still commonplace in schools.15 Although dated, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) study, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report, stated that juveniles were at the highest risk of becoming victims of violence at the end of the school day (that is, in the 4 hours after the school day, between approximately 2 p.m. and 6 p.m., which included the time-frame when students were on their way home from school).16 In corroboration, the Indicators Study researchers found that a larger number of serious violent crimes occurred away from school than at school (see data below). It was found that in both 1999 and 2001, students were more likely to be afraid of being harmed at school, on the way to and from school, than away from school. On the other hand, 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 at school. The report revealed that feelings regarding safety at school depended on the racial and/or ethnic group of the students. In 1999 and in 2001, larger percentages of Black and Latino students feared attack or harm at school, or on the way to and 12 U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Violence in U.S. Public Schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, NCES 2004-314, by Amanda K. Miller and Kathryn Chandler, Washington, D. C., October 2003. 13 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. 14 J. F. DeVoe, et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2003, U.S. Depts. of Education and Justice, NCES 2004-004/NCJ-201257 (Washington: 2003), p. iii. 15 16 Ibid. 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. CRS-4 from school, and away from school than White students.17 In 2001, there was a decrease in the percentages of students who felt unsafe, that is, 6% of 12- to 18-yearold students had such fears in 2001, compared with 12% in 1995. Furthermore, it was found that students in lower grades generally were more fearful of harm at school, to and from school, or away from school, than students in higher grades. Additionally, the location of the school played a role in the percentages of students who were more likely to feel unsafe. Students in urban schools were more likely than those in suburban or rural schools to fear attack at school, or on the way to and from school. In 2001, 12% of 12- to 18-year-old students revealed that someone at school used hate-related words against them (that is, a derogatory word having to do with race, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation), and over 36% reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school (that is, such words or symbols written in classrooms, bathrooms, hallways, or on the outside of the school building). Females were more likely to report gender-related hate words than males, and Blacks, Hispanics, and students of other races were more likely to report race-related hate words than White students. Additionally, students in public schools compared to those attending private schools were more likely to report being called hate-related words and seeing hate-related graffiti. Hate-related words were more likely to pertain to race, ethnicity, or disability. The report noted that such discriminatory behavior creates a hostile environment that is not conducive to learning.18 For 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 study hoped to present a more valid picture of school crime and safety. Some other key findings of the report were as follows:19 ! ! From July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000, 32 school-related violent deaths occurred in the nation’s schools — 24 were homicides and 8 were suicides. Sixteen of the 24 homicides were school-aged children, which researchers stated were relatively few (that is, 1% of all youth homicides), compared with a total of 2,124 homicides of students ages 5- to 19-years occurring in the nation during the same time period that happened away from school. Six of the eight suicides were of students, and occurred at school. A total of 1,922 suicides of children ages 5- to 19-years occurred away from school during the same time period; From July 1, 1992 to June 30, 2000, 390 school-associated violent deaths occurred at elementary and secondary schools in the nation. Of those violent deaths, 234 were homicides and 43 were suicides of students ages 5- to 19-years. During the same period away from 17 DeVoe, et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2003, p. 36. 18 Ibid., p. 40. 19 Ibid., pp. vii-x, 2, 6. CRS-5 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! school, 24,406 children ages 5- to 19-years were murdered, while 16,735 such individuals committed suicide. During each school year, youth were at least 70 times more likely to be killed away from school than at school; From July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2002, the number of homicides occurring at school declined from 33 during the 1998-99 school year, to 14 during the 2001-2002 school year; In 2001, 12- to 18-year-old students were victims of about 1.2 million crimes of theft at school, while about 913,000 occurred away from school. Such students were victims of about 764,000 nonfatal violent crimes20 at school, including 161,000 serious violent crimes,21 and of about 758,000 violent crimes, including 290,000 serious violent crimes away from school. Between 1992 and 2001, the victimization rate for such crimes was lower at school than away from school. Younger students (ages 12- to 14-years) were more likely to be victims of crime at school, while older students (ages 15to 18-years) were more likely to be victimized away from school; In 2001, both males and females were more likely to be bullied at school within the last six months than in 1999 (that is, 8% of 12- to -18-year-olds in 2001, compared with 5% of such students in 1999); In 2001, males were more likely than females to report being bullied, (that is 9% and 7%, respectively). In 1999, both were equally as likely to have been bullied, at 5% each; In the 1999-2000 school year, 29% of public school principals reported that student bullying occurred daily or weekly. Also, 19% reported that disrespect for teachers occurred at the same frequency; From 1997 to 2001, teachers were victims of about 1.3 million nonfatal crimes at school. This number includes 817,000 thefts and 473,000 violent crimes. Senior high school and middle/junior high school teachers were more likely to be victims of violent crimes (mostly, simple assaults) than elementary teachers. Also, teachers who taught in urban schools were more likely to be violent crime victims than those who taught in suburban or rural schools; In the 1999-2000 school year, 9% of all elementary and secondary teachers were threatened with injury by a student, and 4% were physically attacked by a student; Between 1993 and 2001, there was a decline (from 12% to 6%, respectively) of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon (such as a gun, knife, or club) to school within the past 30 days; and In 2001, 20% of students reported that street gangs were present in their schools. Twenty-nine percent of students in urban schools gave such reports, while 18% and 13% of suburban and rural students, respectively, reported gang presence. 20 Nonfatal violent crimes included rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault. 21 Nonfatal serious violent crimes included rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. CRS-6 School Homicides The Indicators Study states that “violent deaths in schools are tragic events that affect not only the individuals and families directly involved, but also everyone in the schools and communities whey they occur.”22 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.23 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 (NSSC)24 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.”25 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 22 DeVoe, et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2003, p. 2. 23 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. 24 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. 25 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. CRS-7 sources.26 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 schoolaged 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.27 ! 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, 1999.28 Using a definition similar to the 1996 study, a school-related death case was defined as “a homicide, suicide, legal intervention29, 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.”30 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. 26 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. 27 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Facts About Violence Among Youth and Violence in Schools,” Media Relations Fact Sheets, April 21, 1999, [http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/fact/violence.htm]. 28 Mark Anderson, et al., “School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 19941999,” JAMA, v. 286, no. 21, December 5, 2001, p. 2695-2702. 29 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. 30 Anderson, et al., “School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States,” JAMA, v. 286, no. 21, December 5, 2001. CRS-8 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.”31 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.32 31 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, December 4, 2001, [http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r011204.htm]. 32 “Temporal Variations in School-Associated Student Homicide and Suicide Events — (continued...) CRS-9 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 under reporting 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.”33 Source of Firearms Used in School-Related Violent Deaths. In March 2003, CDC released findings regarding the source of firearms used by students in the violent deaths of elementary and secondary students that occurred from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1999. Information on the types of weapons and their sources was obtained by interviewing school and police officials and by reviewing official police reports. CDC found that the majority of weapons used in such school-related violent deaths were obtained from either the perpetrator’s home, or from friends or relatives. CDC concluded that, “The safe storage of firearms is critically important and should be continued. In addition, other strategies that might prevent firearm-related injuries and deaths among students, such as safety and design changes for firearms, should be evaluated.”34 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 32 (...continued) 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]. 33 34 Ibid. “Source of Firearms used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths — United States, 1992-1999,” MMWR, Vol. 52, no. 9, March 7, 2003, p. 169. CRS-10 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.”35 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 observing that copycat violence is common after high-profile school incidents.36 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 35 U.S. Dept. of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress, vol. I, p. C-115. 36 Scott Bowles, “Violence Threatens Schools Across U.S.: Arrests Made 2 Days After Calif. Shooting,” USA Today, March 8, 2001, p. 3A. CRS-11 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 2001.37 Table 1. Multiple School-Related Violent Deaths and Injuries, 1995-96 — 2000-01 (as of July 31, 2001) Number of deaths Number wounded Total victims School year City/town/state 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 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 11 36 103 139 1998-99 Totals 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. 37 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-12 Drug Abuse Since 1975, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research has conducted the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study and has been funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health of DHHS.38 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. For the 2003 MTF study, about 48,467 students in 392 public and private schools were surveyed about their use of illicit drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and smokeless tobacco within three prevalence periods, that is, lifetime, annual (or 12 months), past month (or 30-day), and daily use.39 Researchers reported that 2003 survey results revealed overall declines in drug use in all grade levels, with statistically significant declines in annual widespread use by 8th and 10th graders, and nearly a significant decrease among 12th graders. In addition, the proportion of students using any illicit drug (that is, marijuana, MDMA (ecstasy), LSD, amphetamines, and others), significantly declined among 8th-graders, but insignificantly among 12th graders. There was no further decline of any illicit drug use, however, among 8th graders.40 Little change was found in alcohol use from the 2002 survey, except for 12th graders who showed a slight decrease in such use within 30 days before the survey.41 The use of some illicit drugs, however, increased among all three grade levels. OxyContin use, a potentially addictive pain killer, and Vicodin use, also used for pain control, showed some increases, but none were statistically significant. Principal investigator and social psychologist, Lloyd Johnston, noted that such increases are of concern, particularly for OxyContin, because of the potential addictiveness of the drug. The use of inhalants, after a long continuous decline in all grade levels, significantly increased among 8th graders in 2003.42 Teen cigarette smoking continued to decline, but the rates of decline considerably slowed. Smokeless tobacco use, however, showed a substantial 38 DHHS sponsors two other major drug use-related studies — The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, which is the primary data source of illicit drug use of persons 12 and older in the nation that was periodically conducted from 1971 and taken annually since 1990, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey of students in grades 9 through 12 concerning health-related risk behaviors as well as drug abuse that began in 1990, and sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control. This report focuses on MTF results only. 39 Daily use of drugs, the MTF report states, usually refers to use on 20 or more occasions in the past 30 days. 40 “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second Year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, December 19, 2003, p. 3 [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org], visited December 30, 2003. 41 Ibid.,p. 7. 42 Ibid.,p. 6. CRS-13 decrease among all grade levels, particularly for any such use within the last 30 days before the survey.43 Johnston expresses particular concern about the drug use of 8th graders, and what the results might indicate. The 2003 survey shows that the decline in use of several substances by 8th graders has ended. He states that, “The eighth-graders have been the harbingers of change observed later in the upper grades. So, the fact that they are no longer showing declines in their use of a number of drugs could mean that the declines now being observed in the upper grades also will come to an end soon.”44 He attributes this change possibly to what he calls, “generational forgetting.” Past drug epidemics have been credited to “generational forgetting,” which means that knowledge about the hazards of drug use learned and appreciated by one generation of youth is not passed down to a new generation of youth who, with no knowledge of past hazards, are less deterred from drug use. It is possible, Johnston concludes, that the 2003 change in drug use by 8th graders is an early signal that generational forgetting, which occurred in the early 1990s, is imminent. “Therefore,” he states, “while most of the news from the survey this year is good news, it is worth attending to early warning signs of possible trouble ahead.”45 Survey findings of specific drugs are discussed below. Marijuana Use In 2003, the use of marijuana, the most widely used illicit drug among all grade levels, declined for the second year in a row among 10th and 12th graders, and for the 7th year among 8th graders. Researchers believed that a possible explanation for the decline could reflect significant increases in the perceived risk of marijuana use evident in all three grade levels that occurred for the first time in many years. Johnston states that the change could be the result of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (that communicated the dangers of using marijuana), which was launched in October 2002, by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.46 Ecstasy Use In 2001, there was a sharp increase in the proportion of students who believed that using ecstasy was dangerous. Also, the rate of use that increased between 1999 43 “Teen Smoking Continues to Decline in 2003, But Declines Are Slowing,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, December 19, 2003, pp. 1, 5 [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org], visited December 30, 2003. 44 “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second Year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, p. 7. 45 Ibid.,p. 8. 46 Ibid.,p. 3. CRS-14 and 2001, began to slow among all students.47 In 2002, there was another marked rise in the proportions of teens who believed that using ecstasy was dangerous, and a decline in the drug’s usage occurred.48 In 2003, the trend continued with an even sharper decline in ecstasy use as the perceived dangers in using the drug continued to climb.49 The perception that there is a great risk associated with experimenting with ecstasy, Johnston believed, also reflects an impact of media coverage about adverse effects of the drug. Students reported that the availability of the drug leveled off in 2002, after previous years of sharp increases in availability. In 2003, MTF analysts report that the proportional decline in ecstasy availability has been much smaller than the proportional decline in use. Reduced availability, they noted, did not play a role in the recent decrease in ecstasy use.50 Other Illicit Drug Use Since 2000, student use of illicit drugs other than marijuana has shown evidence of some decline or has remained steady. 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).51 In both 2002 and 2003, heroin use remained steady among teens.52 In 2002, anabolic steroid use remained steady in all three grades.53 In 2003, steroid use among 8th graders continued to remain steady, while it dropped among 10th and 12th graders. Since 1996, LSD use has been declining in all three grade levels, but showed a sharp decrease in 2002 and in 2003. Also, LSD availability 47 “Rise of 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, 2002, p. 2. 48 “Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Drops for the First Time in Recent Years, and Overall Drug and Alcohol Use Also Decline in the Year After 9/11,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, December 13, 2002, p. 2. 49 “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, December 19, 2003, p. 1. 50 Ibid., p. 2. 51 “Rise of Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Begins to Slow,” The University of Michigan News and Information Services, December 19, 2001, p. 3. 52 “Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Drops for the First Time in Recent Years, and Overall Drug and Alcohol Use Also Decline in the Year After 9/11,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, December 13, 2002, p. 5; “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second Year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, December 19, 2003, p. 5. 53 “Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Drops for the First Time in Recent Years, and Overall Drug and Alcohol Use Also Decline in the Year After 9/11,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, December 13, 2002, p. 6. CRS-15 dropped considerably.54 Although both crack and cocaine powder showed some decline in all grades in 2003, most decreases were insignificant.55 After a long and significant decline in the use of inhalants by students in all grades, in 2003, the use by 8th graders significantly increased. Researchers warned that this increase might suggest the need to revive attention to the use of this class of substances. The belief in the dangers of inhalant use has decreased in the past two years, which might explain the increased use among 8th graders.56 Figure 1 depicts the usage levels of any illicit drug within the last 12 months by grade, from 1992 through 2003. Figure 1. Any Illicit Drug Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders Within the Last 12 Months, 1992-2003 Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future High School Drug Stats Table 2, [http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/03data/pr03t2.pdf]. Alcohol Use In 2002, some significant declines occurred in teen alcohol use. Quite large drops occurred in the proportion of students in all three grades who said that they had 54 “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second Year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, December 19, 2003, p. 3-4. 55 Ibid., p. 5. 56 Ibid., pp. 6-7. CRS-16 consumed any alcohol in the past year, or in the past 30 days. Those declines were statistically significant for 8th and 10th graders. Furthermore, there were decreases in the proportion of students in all three grades who indicated that they got drunk in the past year, and in the past 30 days prior to the survey.57 In 2003, only 12th graders showed further decreases in alcohol use in the past 30 days, although the decline was statistically insignificant (See Figure 2). Heavy drinking (that is, more than five or more drinks in a row), continued to slightly decline among all grade levels, although none reached statistically significant changes.58 Figure 2. Any Alcohol Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, Within the Last 30 Days, 1992-2003 Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future High School Drug Stats Table 2, [http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/03data/pr03t2.pdf]. Note: 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. 57 “Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Drops for the First Time in Recent Years, and Overall Drug and Alcohol Use Also Decline in the Year After 9/11,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, December 13, 2002, p. 7. 58 “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second Year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, p. 7. CRS-17 Cigarette Smoking 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, continued a decline in 2002 that began in 1998 (See Figure 3). Johnston and his associates emphasized that these significant reductions translate into the lengthening of many lives and preventing even a larger number of serious illnesses, such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, and emphysema.59 In 2003, the declines continued, but researchers found that the results showed the rate of decline slowing considerably.60 Furthermore, the decrease was statistically insignificant and the smallest drop observed among 8th and 10th graders in the past four or five years. Johnston believes that the 2003 results indicate that the improvements in teen smoking observed for the past eight years or so, may be nearing an end. He noted that, “While those declines have been substantial and important, it must be remembered that, to a considerable degree, they were simply offsetting the dramatic increases in teen smoking observed in the first half of the ‘90s. Even with the improvements, we still have a quarter of our young people who are actively smoking by the time that they leave high school, which is an unacceptably high rate for a behavior that so endangers their health and reduces their life expectancy.”61 One finding that analysts found to be the most promising was that the ratio of students who have ever begun smoking continued to drop significantly in all three grade levels.62 59 Lloyd D. Johnston, P. M. O’Malley, and J. G. Bachman, “Teen Smoking Declines Sharply in 2002, More Than Offsetting Large Increases in the Early 1990s,” University of Michigan News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org], visited March 5, 2003, p. 1. 60 “Teen Smoking Continues to Decline in 2003, But Declines Are Slowing,” The University of Michigan, News and Information Services, p. 1. 61 Ibid., p. 2. 62 Ibid. CRS-18 Figure 3. 30-Day Prevalence of Any Cigarette Use for 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, 1992-2003 Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future High School Drug Stats Table 1, [http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/03data/pr03cig1.pdf]. Smokeless Tobacco Use In 2003, smokeless tobacco use (that is, chewing tobacco) continued a decline that began around 1996/1997 among teens.63 Researchers found the declines to be substantial since those years, but for the first time in recent years, the decrease stopped in 8th and 12th graders (See Figure 4). Those results indicate, they concluded, that “the decline in the use of smokeless tobacco may be bottoming out, as well.”64 Analysts believed that one important reason for the considerable declines in smokeless tobacco use by teens in the late 1990s was that a growing portion of such youth believed that using the product could be dangerous.65 MTF 2003 survey data, however, indicated that the perceived risk in using smokeless tobacco increased 63 Ibid., p. 5. 64 Ibid. 65 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. 025105), Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2002, p. 34. CRS-19 among all grade levels, as well as the percentage of 8th and 10th graders who disapproved of its use. The 12th graders were not asked the question regarding their perceived risk of the product.66 Researchers found that smokeless tobacco was primarily used by boys, especially in rural areas. Also, some demographic differences in its use by teens indicated that 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, as implied above, such use tended to be more focused in non-metropolitan areas than in metropolitan regions. Furthermore, its use was negatively correlated with the education level of the parents, and tended to be higher among Whites than among Black or Hispanic youths.67 Figure 4. 30-Day Prevalence of Smokeless Tobacco Use for 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, 1992-2003 Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future High School Drug Stats Table 5, [http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/03data/pr03cig5.pdf]. 66 Table 8, “Trends in Attitudes about Regular Smokeless Tobacco Use for Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders” [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/03data/pr03cig8.pdf], visited December 30, 2003. 67 Lloyd, Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use, p. 34. CRS-20 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. How the program is administered is discussed below. 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 two 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. For FY2005, the Administration’s proposed budget request would require appropriations language to negate this provision. 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).68 The Governor may use not more than 3% of the funds for administrative costs. These aspects of the SDFSC program are discussed below. The distribution of state funds is depicted in Figure 5. 68 P.L. 107-110, section 4112(1). CRS-21 Figure 5. The Program Formula to State and Local Schools, 2002-2003 School Year The Congress Authorizes & Appropriates Funds to States Governors Funds Up to 20% of Total State Allotment U.S. Department of Education Allocates and Distributes State Educational Agencies (SEAs) 80% of the Total State Allotment* State Administration Up to 3% of SEA funds* State Level Activities Up to 5% of SEA Funds* Administration Costs Up to 3% of Governor’s Funds Legislated Set-Asides From Total State Allotment, 1% or $4.75 Million (Whichever is greater) for Outlying Areas and 1% of $4.75 Million (Whichever is greater) for Indian Youth, and 0.2% for Native Hawaiians Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) At least 93% of SEA Funds* 40% Based on Enrollment LEA Administration Up to 2% of LEA Total Funds* 60% Based on Relative Amount Received Under ESEA, Title I, Part A for Preceding 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. For the program’s appropriations and funding history, see CRS Report RS20532, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Reauthorization and Appropriations. 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.69 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 69 Ibid. CRS-22 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.70 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.71 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.72 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).73 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 received from the state, LEAs may use not more than 2% for administrative costs.74 LEAs are required to use funds “to develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive programs and activities, which are coordinated with other school and community- 70 Ibid.,section 4112(2)(3)(5)(6). 71 U.S. Dept. of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, p. C-112. 72 P.L. 107-110, section 4112(c)(2). 73 Ibid., section 4112(b)(2). 74 Ibid., section 4114(a). CRS-23 based services and programs.”75 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.76 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.77 The data collected must include incident reports by school officials, and anonymous student and teacher surveys.78 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.79 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 and programs, as appropriate; and must comply with several other additional requirements.80 75 Ibid.,section 4115(b)(1). 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid., section 4112(c)(3)(B). 78 Ibid., section 4112(c)(3)(C). 79 Ibid., section 4116. 80 Ibid., section 4113. CRS-24 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.81 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 four activities. An LEA, however, may use up to 40% of the funds for the first four activities, only if funding for those activities is not received from other federal government agencies.82 Principles of Effectiveness for State and Local Grant Recipients. A 1997 study83 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 researchbased drug and violence prevention programs for youth. The principles were adopted by the Secretary to ensure that SEAs, LEAs, Governors’ offices, and community- 81 Ibid., section 4114(c)(d). 82 Ibid.,section 4115(c)(1)(2). 83 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-25 based groups would plan and implement effective drug and violence prevention programs84 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.85 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 DHHS 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 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.86 84 U.S. Dept. of Education, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program,” Federal Register 63, no. 104, 1 June 1998: p. 29902. 85 Dept. of Education, Fiscal Year 2001 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, v. I, p. D-68. 86 Ibid. CRS-26 Federal activities are authorized to allow the Secretary to consult with the DHHS 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 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.87 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.88 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.89 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.90 87 P.L. 107-110, Section 4121(a). 88 Ibid., Section 4122. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid., Section 4125. CRS-27 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 DHHS), 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 startup 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.91 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.92 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 in middle schools. Mentors would assist such students in successfully making the transition to secondary school. 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.”93 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. 91 P.L. 107-110, Section 4129(a)(d). 92 Ibid., Section 4129(b). 93 Ibid., Section 4130(2)(B)(C). CRS-28 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.94 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.95 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 one 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.96 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.97 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 University98 concluded: 94 Ibid., Section 4130(b). 95 Ibid., Section 4130(b)(5). 96 Ibid., Section 4141 (b)(1). 97 Ibid., Section 4141(h). 98 The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Malignant Neglect: Substance (continued...) CRS-29 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.99 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.”100 In November 2000, a national evaluation of the SDFSC program by ED was released.101 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 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. 98 (...continued) Abuse and America’s Schools, Columbia University, September 2001, p. 17-18. 99 Ibid., p. 18. 100 The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Malignant Neglect: Substance Abuse and America’s Schools, p. 46-47. 101 “ED Finds Districts’ Drug, Violence Prevention Lax,” Education Daily, v. 33, November 22, 2000, p. 1, 4. CRS-30 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) PART is an instrument that was developed by the Administration to examine the performance of certain programs across federal agencies. It was used in 2004 for the first time, and the SDFSC State Grants component of the SDFSC program was selected to be rated by the instrument. The SDFSC state grants component was found to be “ineffective” by PART because it lacks significant outcome measures.102 ED plans to respond to PART’s assessment and to meet the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requirements by funding a National Study of SDFSC Program Quality in order to, (1) “identify the proportion of localities nationally that are implementing research-based drug and violence practices that scientific evidence has shown produce positive outcomes; and (2) assess the extent to which grantees that are implementing research-based practices are doing so with fidelity to the research on which they are based.”103 102 Dept. of Education, Fiscal Year 2005 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates, v. I, p. F-21. 103 Ibid.