Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Program Overview and Reauthorization Issues

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: Program Overview and Reauthorization Issues

Order Code RL34496
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act: Program Overview
and Reauthorization Issues
May 19, 2008
Gail McCallion
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act:
Program Overview and Reauthorization Issues
Summary
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), Title IV-A
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the federal government’s
major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around schools. It was
most recently reauthorized by the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act (P.L. 107-110), in January of 2002. Like all No Child Left Behind Act programs,
it is being considered for reauthorization in the 110th Congress.
The SDFSCA supports two major grant programs — one for states and one for
National Activities. State Grants are distributed to the states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico, by a formula that allocates 50% of the funds on the basis
of school-aged population, and 50% in proportion to ESEA Title I, Part A,
concentration grants for the preceding fiscal year. State governors are permitted to
use up to 20% of their state’s grant for comprehensive activities that deter youth from
using drugs and committing violent acts in schools. National Activities grants are
awarded by the Secretary for a variety of National Activities to prevent substance
abuse and support violence prevention. States award grants to local educational
agencies (LEAs) using a formula that allocates 40% of an LEA’s grant on the basis
of school enrollment and 60% on the basis of an LEA’s relative share of total Title
I-A grants for the preceding fiscal year. The statute permits LEAs to use funds for
a wide variety of activities intended to enhance violence prevention efforts and
reduce drug and alcohol abuse.
For FY2008, $513 million was appropriated for the SDFSCA. The majority of
these funds are provided for State Grants ($295 million), with the remaining funds
($219 million) supporting National Activities. For FY2009, the Administration has
requested $282 million for the SDFSCA. Under this proposal, appropriations for
State Grants would be reduced to $100 million, and appropriations for National
Activities would be decreased to $182 million. In justifying the requested reduction
in State Grant appropriations, the Administration has argued that the structure of the
State Grants program is flawed and spreads funding too broadly to support quality
interventions.
Many issues are likely to be considered during reauthorization of the SDFSCA
program. Issues discussed in this report include the Administration’s proposal,
recommendations of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Advisory
Board, recommendations of the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Education
(ED) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), following the Virginia Tech tragedy, and issues of
potential concern to Members of Congress.

Contents
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
State Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Governors’ Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Local Educational Agency Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Program Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
National Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reauthorization Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Administration’s FY2009 Reauthorization Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The SDFSCA Advisory Committee Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
State Grant Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The Secretary’s Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Reauthorization Status in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act: Program Overview
and Reauthorization Issues
Overview
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), Title IV-A
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), is the federal government’s
major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence in and around schools. The
SDFSCA supports two major grant programs — one for states and one for National
Activities. It was most recently reauthorized by the ESEA, as amended by the No
Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110), in January of 2002. Like all No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) programs, it is being considered for reauthorization in the 110th
Congress.1
State Grants
The SDFSCA supports two major grant programs — one for States and one for
National Activities. Of the funds authorized for State Grants, 1% or $4.75 million
(whichever is greater), is reserved for Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands,
and the Commonwealth of Mariana Islands; and the same amount is reserved for the
Secretary of the Interior to administer programs for Indian youth. In addition, 0.2%
is reserved to provide programs for Native Hawaiians. The remaining funds are
distributed to the states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, by a formula that
allocates 50% of the funds on the basis of school-aged population, and 50% in
proportion to ESEA Title I, Part A, concentration grants for the preceding fiscal
year.2 States are guaranteed to receive the greater of one-half of one percent of the
total allotted to all states, or the amount the state received for FY2001. State
governors are permitted to use up to 20% of their state’s grant allocation for
comprehensive activities that deter youth from using drugs and committing violent
acts in schools.
1 The SDFSCA was initially enacted in 1994 in response to concerns about increased school
violence and drug use among school-aged youth. This legislation extended, amended and
renamed the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1988 (DFSCA), extending the
DFSCA’s mission of drug abuse prevention to include violence prevention. For more
detailed information on the history of this program, see CRS Report RL30482, The Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program: Background and Context, by Edith Fairman
Cooper.
2 CRS Report RL33731, Education for the Disadvantaged: Issues for ESEA Title I-A Under
the No Child Left Behind Act, by Wayne C. Riddle.

CRS-2
Of funds remaining after the governor’s share, states are permitted to use up to
3% of their allotment on state administrative activities, and up to 5% of their
allotment on other state activities. States must use 93% of their allotment to make
formula grants to local educational agencies (LEAs). Practically, this requirement
of allocating 93% of state allotments to LEAs means that states must reserve less
than the maximum percentage set-aside for state administration or other state
activities.
Governors’ Grants. Governors are to use their grants for comprehensive
activities targeted to children and youth not normally served by State Educational
Agency (SEA) or LEA programs, or to children and youth that need special services
or additional resources (such as children and youth who are in juvenile detention,
runaways or homeless, pregnant or parenting youth, or school dropouts.) Governors
award these funds as discretionary grants to LEAs, community based organizations
(CBOs), other private or public entities, or consortia thereof. Governors may reserve
up to 3% of their grant for administrative costs.
Local Educational Agency Grants. States award grants to LEAs according
to a formula that allocates 40% of an LEA’s grant on the basis of school enrollment3
and 60% on the basis of an LEA’s relative share of total Title I-A grants for the
preceding fiscal year. To receive an SDFSCA grant, all LEAs are required to submit
an application to their SEA that includes a detailed explanation of the LEA’s
comprehensive plan for drug and violence prevention. 4 The LEA must also provide
assurances that the LEA or the schools to be served have appropriate policies in place
to prohibit, among other things, the illegal possession of weapons and that the school
has prevention activities designed to create and maintain a safe, disciplined, and
drug-free environment. An assurance must also be included that the LEA or schools
to be served have a crisis management plan for responding to violent or traumatic
events on school grounds.5 LEAs may reserve up to 2% of their award for
administrative costs. No more than 40% of an LEA’s award after reservations may
fund school security activities. Of that amount, no more than 50% may be used for
security activities other than hiring and training security personnel.
The statute permits LEAs to use funds for a wide variety of activities.6 Because
the list of specifically authorized activities is quite lengthy, these activities have been
grouped here into six broad categories.
3 Allocations are based on relative enrollments in public and private nonprofit elementary
and secondary schools within the LEA’s boundaries compared to total such enrollment for
all LEAs within the state.
4 ESEA, Section 4114(d).
5 ED maintains a website that provides links to resources of potential use to school leaders
developing a crisis management plan. More information is available at [http://www.ed.gov/
admins/lead/safety/emergencyplan/index.html].
6 ESEA, Section 4115.

CRS-3
1. Security Activities
! Acquiring and installing metal detectors and related devices
! Reporting criminal offenses committed on school property
! Developing and implementing comprehensive school security plans
or obtaining technical assistance on such plans
! Supporting safe zones of passage for students to and from school
! Hiring and mandatory training, based on scientific research, of
school security personnel
2. Student Testing and Data Reporting
! Drug testing and locker checks (consistent with all legal
requirements)
! Establishing or implementing a system to transfer suspension and
expulsion records to other schools
3. Education Activities
! Drug and violence prevention activities designed to reduce truancy
! Violence prevention and education activities to reduce victimization
due to prejudice and intolerance
! Alternative education programs for violent or drug abusing students,
particularly students who have been or are at risk of being suspended
or expelled
! Developing and implementing character education programs as part
of drug and violence prevention that takes into account the views of
students’ parents
! Providing for community service and service learning projects
4. Counseling, Mentoring and Other Student Support Activities
! Expanded and improved school-based mental health services
including early identification of violence and illegal drug use,
assessment, and counseling services for students, parents, families,
or school personnel by qualified providers
! Conflict resolution programs, including peer mediation programs
and youth anti-crime and anti-drug councils and activities
! Counseling, mentoring, referral services, and other student
assistance practices and programs, including assistance from
qualified mental health service providers
! Programs that encourage students to confide in and seek advice from
trusted adults regarding violence and illegal drug use
! Establishing and maintaining a school safety hotline
! Programs that respond to the needs of students who are faced with
domestic violence or child abuse
5. Training and Monitoring of School Personnel
! Professional development and training in prevention education, early
identification and intervention, mentoring, or rehabilitation referral,
for school personnel, parents and interested community members
! Conducting background checks on all school personnel and
prospective employees to see whether they have been convicted of
a crime that bears upon the employee’s fitness

CRS-4
! Creating an action plan and providing training to school personnel
on how to prevent youth suicide
6. Family, Community, and Emergency Activities
! Activities involving families, communities, and drug and violence
prevention providers that set expectations and explain the
consequences of illegal drug use and violence
! Dissemination of drug and violence prevention information to
schools and the community
! Community-wide planning and organizing activities which may
include gang activity prevention
Reporting Requirements. The SDFSCA requires states to establish a
Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) for the collection
and reporting of information related to school safety and drug prevention.7 Under
this system, states must collect and make publicly available the following
information:
! truancy rates;
! the frequency, seriousness, and incidence of violence and drug-
related offenses resulting in suspensions and expulsions in
elementary and secondary schools in the state;
! the types of curricula, programs, and services provided by the state’s
chief executive officer, the state educational agency (SEA), LEAs,
and other recipients of funds under the act; and
! the incidence and prevalence, age of onset, perception of health risk,
and perception of social disapproval of violence and drug use by
youth in schools and communities.
The first 2 items must be collected and reported on a school-by-school basis;
states determine the frequency of data collection. The SDFSCA also includes a gun-
free schools provision that requires all states receiving ESEA funds to have a law
imposing at least a one-year expulsion for any student who brings a firearm to school.
Each state must report data collected from LEAs on any such incidents to the
Secretary annually.8
States are also required to submit a report annually on the progress they have
made on their identified performance measures; this information is submitted as part
of the Consolidated State Performance Report required by NCLB. LEAs are required
to submit information which is needed by the state to complete this report. States
must make this information available to the public. In addition, the statute requires
NCES to collect data on the incidence and prevalence of illegal drug use and violence
in elementary and secondary schools. NCES does collect data regarding crime and
7 ESEA, Section 4112(c)(3).
8 ESEA Title IV-A, Subpart 3. The chief administering officer of a local educational agency
may modify this expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the LEA may
provide the student with educational services in an alternative setting (Section 4141).

CRS-5
violence occurring in schools.9 NCES does not collect data on drug use in schools
because three surveys are already collecting this data: The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Survey, HHS’s National
Survey on Drug Use and Health (formerly the National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse), and the HHS-funded University of Michigan Monitoring the Future study.
Program Performance. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is currently
conducting a study on the extent to which LEAs are implementing research-based
drug and violence programs; and whether the programs are being implemented
consistently with that research. Data for this study were collected from a nationally
representative sample of school districts for the 2004-2005 school year; follow-up
data are being collected for the 2007-2008 school year. These two questions also
serve as Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) measures for the State
Grant program. (Assessment of progress on meeting these goals cannot be made
until 2007-08 data are collected and analyzed).
There are five other GPRA measures for the State Grants Program. These five
are the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who were offered, sold, or given an
illegal drug on school property during the past 12 months; the percentage of students
in grades 9-12 who used marijuana one or more times during the past 30 days; the
percentage of students in grades 9-12 who had five or more drinks of alcohol in a row
one or more times during the past 30 days; the percentage of students in grades 9-12
who were in a physical fight on school property one or more times during the past 12
months; and the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who carried a weapon such as
a gun, knife, or club on school property one or more times during the past 30 days.
The 2005 targets (the latest data available) for the first 3 indicators were exceeded;
the remaining two indicators did not meet their 2005 targets (but the results were not
statistically significant). However, these data do not compare participants in
SDFSCA programs to non-participants, rather they are nationally representative data
from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System.10
In addition, ED is conducting a national evaluation of the impact of a particular
intervention on reducing middle school violence. This evaluation is assessing the
impact of combining a curriculum-based program (Responding in Peaceful and
Positive Ways) with a whole school program (Best Behavior), that among other
things, is intended to improve teachers’ classroom management skills. This
evaluation is to compare disruptive, aggressive and violent incidents in 20 middle
schools randomly assigned to participate in this program to 20 other middle schools
serving as the control group. The first year of data were collected for the 2005-2006
9 Currently it conducts a survey of school principals called School Survey on Crime Safety
and it has a supplement (School Crime Supplement) to the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s (DOJ)
National Crime Victimization Survey of students ages 12 through 18.
10 The program has also been evaluated with the Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) twice. The OMB issued the PART to
help assess the management and performance of executive agency programs. In 2002, the
SDFSCA State Grants program was rated “ineffective,” in 2006, the program was rated
“results not demonstrated.”

CRS-6
school year. Three years of data are to be collected; results from the study are
expected to be released in 2010.
National Activities
The SDFSCA provides general authority to the Secretary to award grants for a
variety of National Activities to prevent substance abuse and support violence
prevention. The following programs are currently receiving SDFSCA funding under
National Activities.
! Alcohol Abuse Reduction. Grants to LEAs to develop and
implement innovative and effective programs to reduce alcohol
abuse in secondary schools. ED may transfer up to 20% of the
appropriation for alcohol abuse reduction to the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of HHS to
provide technical assistance to grantees. Grantees are required to
implement one of the programs that SAMHSA has determined to be
effective in reducing underage alcohol abuse.
! Mentoring Programs. Grants are provided to LEAs, non-profit
community based organizations (CBOs), or partnerships thereof, to
support mentoring programs for children at risk of: educational
failure; dropping out of school; involvement in criminal or
delinquent activities; or for children who lack positive role models.
Priority is to be given to programs that are school-based. Funding
must be used for (but is not limited to) training and hiring mentors
and other staff, and disseminating outreach materials. However,
mentors may not be paid out of grant funds.
! Impact Evaluation. Currently impact evaluation funds are used for
the study, described above, on the extent to which LEAs are
implementing research-based drug and violence programs, and
whether they are being implemented consistently with the research
based model. Other evaluations are being financed by general
National Activities funding.
! Project Serv (School Emergency Response to Violence). This
program provides education-related services to LEAs that have been
disrupted by a violent or traumatic crisis. Project Serv funds may be
used for a wide variety of activities, including mental health
assessments, referrals, and services for victims and witnesses of
violence; enhanced school security; technical assistance on
developing a response to the crisis; and training for teachers and
staff in implementing the response. Appropriations for this program
are requested on a no-year basis; funds remain available for
obligation at the federal level until needed. Thus, funds can be
carried over from year to year in the event that there are no school-
related crises in a given year.
! Drug Testing. Supports drug testing programs for K-12 students;
funds are also awarded to Institutions of Higher Education for drug
prevention and campus safety.

CRS-7
! Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools. Previously
called the Emergency Response and Crisis Management Grant
Program. This competitive grant program provides funds to LEAs
to strengthen and improve their emergency response and crisis plans
at the district and school levels. LEAs are required to form
partnerships and collaborate with community organizations, local
law enforcement agencies, heads of local government, and offices of
public safety, health, and mental health as they review and revise
these plans. Plans are required to be coordinated with state or local
homeland security plans and must support the implementation of the
National Incident Management System (NIMS). Grants may be used
for training school safety teams and students, conducting facility
audits, informing families about emergency response policies,
implementing an Incident Command System (ICS), conducting drills
and simulation exercises, preparing and distributing copies of crisis
plans, and, to a limited extent, for purchasing school safety
equipment. Grantees under this program may receive support in
managing and implementing their projects and sustaining their
efforts over time from the Emergency Response and Crisis
Management Technical Assistance Center.11
! SDFSCA Advisory Committee. This committee was created by
ED’s Secretary, Margaret Spellings in June of 2006. The Committee
was given a mandate to examine several specific issues and has
issued a report providing its responses and recommendations
(discussed below).
! Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Grant Program. The
SS/HS is funded jointly by ED and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA). The program is administered by ED,
SAMHSA, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The SS/HS
initiative is a discretionary grant program that provides services for
students, schools, and communities with federal funding via LEAs,
to implement an enhanced, coordinated, comprehensive plan of
activities, programs, and services that focus on healthy childhood
development and the prevention of violence and alcohol and drug
abuse. Grantees are required to establish partnerships with local
law enforcement, public mental health, and juvenile justice
agencies/entities.
Additionally, specifically authorized programs that previously have received
SDFSCA National Activities funding are
! National Coordinator Program (funded from 1999-2004).
! Community Service Grant Program (funded in 2002 and 2003).
11 Additional information is available at [http://www.ercm.org/] and [http://www.ed.gov/
programs/dvpemergencyresponse/resources.html].

CRS-8
Specifically authorized programs that have never received SDFSCA National
Activities funding are
! Hate Crimes Prevention,
! School Security and Technology Resource Center, and
! National Center for School and Youth Safety.
Funding
For FY2008, $513 million was appropriated for the SDFSCA.12 The majority
of these funds are provided for State Grants ($295 million), with the remaining funds
($219 million) supporting National Activities. For FY2009, the President has
requested $282 million for the SDFSCA. Under this proposal, appropriations for
State Grants would be reduced to $100 million and appropriations for National
Activities would be decreased to $182 million. In justifying the requested reduction
in State Grant appropriations, the Administration has argued that the structure of the
State Grants program is flawed and spreads funding too broadly to support quality
interventions.13
Reauthorization Issues
The following discussion of SDFSCA reauthorization issues and proposals is
divided into 4 sections. Firstly, the Administration’s proposal for a major
restructuring of the SDFSCA program is discussed. Secondly, recommendations of
the Safe and Drug-Free Advisory Committee are summarized. This Committee was
convened by Secretary Spellings in June of 2006 to examine a variety of issues —
including the SDFSCA state grants program and data collection. Thirdly, the findings
of the Secretaries of ED and HHS, and the Attorney General, regarding proposals to
improve violence prevention in light of the Virginia Tech incident are summarized.
Finally, major reauthorization issues that are likely to be considered by Congress are
addressed.
The Administration’s FY2009 Reauthorization Proposal
The Administration has proposed restructuring the SDFSCA program by
significantly decreasing the role of State Grants and refocusing National Activities.
The Administration argues that currently State Grants are not targeted to LEAs most
in need of funding, and that the grants received by LEAs are often too small to fund
a quality program:
12 The House passed an amendment to the FY2008 Labor HHS Education Appropriations
bill that would shift $46.5 million in funding from Reading First to the SDFSCA program,
in order to maintain FY2008 funding ($513 million) at roughly the FY2007 level.
13 U.S. Department of Education. Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress:
Fiscal Year 2009, Volume I.

CRS-9
SDFSC State Grants provide more than half of local educational agencies
(LEAs) with allocations of less than $10,000, amounts typically too small
to mount comprehensive and effective drug and school safety programs.14
Funding for State Grants would be reduced in FY2009 to $100 million (FY2008
funding equals $294.8 million) and would no longer be distributed by states to LEAs
by formula. The Administration proposes that SEAs use these funds to provide
training, technical assistance and information on effective programs to LEAs. States
could also use funds to provide competitive grants to a limited number of LEAs.
National Activities would be funded in FY2009 at $182 million (FY2008
funding was $218.6 million) and reorganized into a single flexible grant program
focusing on four broad areas: emergency planning; preventing violence and drug use,
school culture and climate; and emerging needs. According to the Administration
most of these grants would provide direct support to LEAs
... in sufficient amounts to make a real difference, for targeted projects that
address key national concerns and are structured in a manner that permits
grantees and independent evaluators to measure progress, hold projects
accountable, and determine which interventions are most effective.15
Related programs authorized under ESEA provisions other than Title IV include
Mentoring, Physical Education, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, and
Civic Education. All four would be eliminated under the Administration’s
proposal.16 In addition, Character Education would no longer be a distinct program
with its own authority (currently it is authorized by ESEA Title V-D, Subpart 3), but
it would continue to receive funding under the National Grants Program in the
FY2009 proposal.
The SDFSCA Advisory Committee Recommendations
The SDFSCA Advisory Committee was created in June 2006 by ED Secretary,
Margaret Spellings.17 The Committee is made up of representatives from several
Federal agencies, state and local government representatives, and individuals with
relevant expertise. The Committee was asked by the Secretary to examine the
SDFSCA State Grants Program, the NCLB unsafe school choice option (discussed
briefly below), and the collection of safety data. Following the Virginia Tech
tragedy, the Secretary asked the Committee to also examine three additional issues:
trauma; nonpublic schools; and urban/rural challenges.
14 U.S. Department of Education. Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress:
Fiscal Year 2009, Volume I, p. F-20.
15 U.S. Department of Education. Justifications of Appropriation Estimates to the Congress:
Fiscal Year 2008, Volume I, p. F-15.
16 Physical Education and Elementary and Secondary School Counseling are authorized by
ESEA, Title V, Part D, Fund for the Improvement of Education. Civic Education is
authorized by ESEA, Title II, Part C, Subpart 3.
17 It is authorized by ESEA, Section 4124.

CRS-10
On June 11, 2007, the Committee issued a report with its findings and
recommendations regarding the issues it was charged with examining.18 The
Committee held six meetings, conducted six conference calls, and heard testimony
from 38 witnesses. The Committee’s recommendations are summarized below by
issue (recommendations on trauma, nonpublic schools and urban/rural challenges are
incorporated within the discussion of the other issues).
State Grant Issues.
According to the Committee’s report:
Underlying all of the Committee’s recommendations is the need for clearer
standards for all recipients of grant funds, including the Governors portion of the
program.19
The Committee expressed support (with some reservations) for allowing states
to use a larger share of SDFSCA state grants for state purposes, in particular, to
provide technical assistance and help with data collection to LEAs. There was also
support for making changes to the Governors funds. Proposals included making the
funds contingent on the collection of data on school safety and drug abuse, or shifting
the funds back to the states.
The Committee noted that presently there is no consensus at the federal or state
level on the definition of safety and drug and alcohol problems, and as a consequence
no consensus on desired outcomes or measures of effectiveness. The Committee
report stated: “...at all levels, the current implementation of the State Grants Program
has not required the use of data to determine needs.” It recommended that ED
provide states and LEAs with clear measurable outcomes of success, encourage
improved program assessment, and provide clear guidelines on effective prevention
programs. These changes would require collection of uniform data on key indicators
of safety and drug and alcohol abuse from all schools and LEAs.
Because of limited federal funding for the SDFSCA program, the Committee
recommended that there be more incentives incorporated into the program to foster
local partnerships, possibly including a requirement for local matching funds. In
addition, there was significant support among the Committee members for changing
the program from the current system of allocating funds to all LEAs by formula), to
a system in which funds are controlled by states and grants are awarded competitively
to LEAs to fund priority needs.
The Committee recommended increased emphasis be placed on program
compliance with the SDFSCA “Principles of Effectiveness,” and on the identification
and testing of promising innovative programs. It encouraged ED to develop separate
guidelines for rural and urban schools appropriate to the unique challenges faced by
each in implementing drug and alcohol prevention programs and safety efforts. And,
it recommended the development of explicit guidelines on the requirements LEAs
18 U.S. Department of Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory
Committee, Enhancing Achievement And Proficiency Through Safe And Drug-Free Schools,
Washington, D.C., June 2007.
19 Ibid.

CRS-11
must meet in working with nonpublic schools. In addition, the Committee
recommended that cooperation among the Federal agencies providing support for
drug and alcohol prevention and increased safety be improved and enhanced.
Unsafe School Choice Option (USCO). USCO is authorized by the
ESEA, Title IX-E-2, Section 9532, not as part of the SDFSCA. It requires states to
establish statewide policies under which any student who attends a persistently
dangerous public elementary or secondary school, or who becomes a victim of a
violent crime while in or on the grounds of the public elementary or secondary school
he or she attends, must be offered the opportunity to transfer to another public school
within the same LEA. (For information on USCO see CRS Report RL33371, K-12
Education, Implementation Status of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-
110). ) The Committee found the USCO “has not been as effective as the need it
addresses requires.” The Committee made several recommendations for
improvements including the following.
! Allowing, in addition to consideration of violent incidents, other
indicators (such as substance abuse, bullying, gang activity, racism)
of school safety to be factored into the determination of whether a
school is safe.
! The provision, by ED, of training for administrators, teachers and
other school personnel on how best to assist students who are victims
or victimizers, including transfer options.
! Reexamination of the term “persistently dangerous.” The Committee
felt that this terminology stigmatizes schools and unduly penalizes
schools that accurately report violent incidents. It recommended
using more neutral terminology; for example, schools might be put on
a “watch list” and given priority for SDFSCA state grant funding.
The Committee also recommended assistance be provided to schools
experiencing significant safety problems.
! The provision, by ED, of guidelines for schools with safety problems
on ways to improve safety including information on best practices.
ED could also provide support and technical assistance to these
schools.
! Improving the ability of schools to cope with potential tragedies by
educating school personnel on how these events can affect students
and on how to identify warning signs that a student needs intervention
(such as counseling). ED could provide assistance by distributing
information on best practices and providing training on how to
identify and refer students at risk for assistance early on.
Data Requirements. The Committee recommended that serious consideration
should be given to what data are most important and whether it is possible for states
and LEAs to collect it. Data collection could be coordinated by agencies working on
alcohol and drug abuse and safety to minimize the burden on states and LEAs. ED
could play an important role in coordinating data collection by federal agencies so that
only one set of data are being collected. Coordination between federal agencies and
state and local governments would also be useful. Consideration should be given to
formulating a uniform set of questions for states and LEAs to use for program
evaluation.

CRS-12
The Secretary’s Recommendations
Following the Virginia Tech tragedy, President George W. Bush asked Secretary
Margaret Spellings, Secretary Mike Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human
Services and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales of the Department of Justice to meet
with local officials and experts across the country, and to report on their findings on
issues raised by the tragedy. On June 13, 2007, the group issued its report that
included the following findings regarding important issues in need of local, state, and
federal action.
! Information sharing is critical in instances such as the Virginia Tech
tragedy. However, there is confusion among education, public safety,
and mental health staff regarding what information can be shared on
individuals who are a threat to themselves or others.
! Information regarding individuals who may not legally own a gun is
crucial, but currently is not always accurate and complete.
! Prevention of future tragedies requires improved awareness and
communication.
! People with mental illnesses must get the services they need —
currently some feel that there are insufficient resources available to
meet this need, especially at colleges and universities.
! Make better use of current knowledge of best practices in emergency
preparedness and violence prevention. Disseminate information on
examples of successful programs, and facilitate their
implementation.20
Reauthorization Status in the 110th Congress
As of the date of this report there has been no action on legislation to reauthorize
the No Child Left Behind Act in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate.
A draft House reauthorization bill was circulated for public comment, but a bill has
not yet been introduced. Some of the major SDFSCA reauthorization issues that may
to be considered by Congress include the following.
! Whether (absent significant increases in appropriations) the funding
level for the program is sufficient to support the allocation of funds
to all LEAs by formula. Currently more than half of LEAs receive
SDFSCA grants of less than $10,000. Questions have been raised
regarding whether such small grants can support effective programs.
! Although the last reauthorization adjusted the formula to put more
emphasis on awarding grants on the basis of poverty, some argue that
switching to competitively awarded LEA grants would allow for
better targeting of school districts most in need of SDFSCA funds.
! Strengthened data collection and reporting requirements. Currently
Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS)
data is collected by each state relying upon state definitions of
20 Michael Leavitt, Margaret Spellings, and Alberto Gonzales, Report To The President On
Issues Raised By The Virginia Tech Tragedy. June 13, 2007.

CRS-13
required data items. As a consequence data are not comparable
across states. States are required to report these data to the public,
but the frequency of collection and reporting is determined by each
state. ED has recently issued a publication providing definitions of
UMIRS reporting items titled The Uniform Data Set: A Guide to
Measures for the Uniform Management Information and Reporting
System. It would require states to report some required data items
using these definitions, to the extent feasible. ED may accelerate
these efforts once the data requirements adopted in a reauthorized
program are known. During reauthorization the issue of uniform data
standards may be considered. Reauthorization legislation may
require annual reporting of these data to ED, as well as to the public.
! An increased emphasis on programs to prevent bullying and
harassment (believed to be key to violence prevention). Bullying is
a serious problem at many schools; in 2005, approximately 28% of
12 to 18 year old students reported that they were bullied at school in
the last six months.21
! Provision of comprehensive mental health programs. The Virginia
Tech tragedy and similar events heightened awareness that access to
mental health services is an important component of preventing
school violence.
! How to improve performance measures for the program. ED is
currently collecting data on the extent to which LEAs are
implementing research based programs, and if the implementation of
those programs is consistent with the research based model. ED has
collected data for 2005, which is serving as the base year. Targets for
these measures have been set for 2008; these data are not yet
available. In addition, ED collects data for five measures tabulating
the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who (1) were offered, sold,
or given an illegal drug on school property during the past 12 months;
(2) had 5 or more drinks in a row during the past 30 days, (3) were in
a physical fight on school property during the past 12 months, or (4)
carried a weapon on school property one or more times during the
past 30 days. These data are from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance Survey, which is based on a nationally representative
biennial sample of students in grades 9-12. However, given the scope
of SDFSCA programs under current funding levels, only a small
percentage of students in grades 9-12 can be served by
comprehensive violence and drug abuse prevention programs. As a
consequence, some believe these national measures do not accurately
reflect the program’s performance.
! Emergency Management. Legislation to reauthorize the SDFSCA
may increase the emphasis on enhancing local emergency planning
for all potential hazards in and around schools through a variety of
mechanisms, including increased cooperation with first responders,
21 Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E., and Lin-Kelly, W. (2007), Indicators of School Crime and Safety.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Education and Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Dept of Justice. Washington, D.C.

CRS-14
and relevant local, state, and federal agencies. A recent Government
Accountability Office (GAO) report found that most school districts
would benefit from more federal guidance in developing emergency
plans.22 Its recommendations for ED (in cooperation with the
Department of Homeland Security and HHS, as appropriate)
included developing procedures for continuing student education
during a prolonged school closure due to an emergency; the
examination and identification of successful practices for evacuating
and sheltering students and staff with special needs during
emergencies; identifying the impediments to collaboration in
emergencies between LEAs, first responders, and community
partners, and the development and dissemination of strategies to
enhance such cooperation.
22 GAO-07-609, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT: Most School Districts Have Developed
Emergency Management Plans, but Would Benefit from Additional Federal Guidance. U.
S. Government Accountability Office, June 2007.