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 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
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 U.S. General Accounting Office, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, p. 8.
11 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 Ibid.
16 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-year-
old 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 15-
to 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 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.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, 1994-
1999,” 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 Ibid.
34 “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
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.
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. 02-
5105), 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
State Administration
Up to 3% of SEA
funds*
Governors Funds
State Educational
U.S. Department of
Up to 20% of Total
Agencies (SEAs)
Education Allocates
State Allotment
80% of the Total State
and Distributes
Allotment*
State Level Activities
Up to 5% of SEA
Funds*
Legislated Set-Asides
Local Educational
Administration Costs
From Total State
Agencies (LEAs)
Up to 3% of
Allotment, 1% or $4.75
At least 93% of SEA
Governor’s Funds
Million (Whichever is
greater) for Outlying
Funds*
LEA Administration
Areas and 1% of $4.75
Up to 2% of LEA Total
Million (Whichever is
Funds*
greater) for Indian
Youth, and 0.2% for
Native Hawaiians
60% Based on
Relative Amount
40% Based on
Enrollment
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 research-
based 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 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.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.