Archived Information

  ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image1.jpeg)   [Planning and Evaluation Service]{.smallcaps}

                           
  ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------

[Wide Scope, Questionable Quality:]{.smallcaps}

Drug and Violence Prevention Efforts in American Schools

[Report on the Study on School]{.smallcaps}

[Violence and Prevention]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image2.png){width="1.4618110236220472in" height="1.5in"}

**[U.S. Department of Education]{.smallcaps}**

**[Doc #2001-35]{.smallcaps}**

**[WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY:\
\
DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS\
\
IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS\
\
\
Report on the Study on School Violence and Prevention]{.smallcaps}**

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Contract No. EA96055001

Prepared by:

Scott Crosse

Michele Burr

David Cantor

Carol A. Hagen

Irene Hantman

Westat

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

In affiliation with:

Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

3239B Corporate Court

Ellicott City, MD 21042

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under
Contract No. EA96055001. The project monitor was Joanne Wiggins in the
Planning and Evaluation Service. The views expressed herein are those of
the contractor. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of
Education is intended or should be inferred.

**U.S. Department of Education**

Rod Paige

*Secretary*

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Elementary and Secondary Education Division**

Ricky Takai

*Director*

August 2002

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to produce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be the following:
Crosse, S., Burr, M., Cantor, D., Hagen, C.A. and Hantman, I. (2001).
*Wide Scope, Questionable Quality: Drug and Violence Prevention Efforts
in American Schools*. *Report on the Study on School Violence and
Prevention.* Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and
Evaluation Service.

To order copies of this report, write

ED Pubs

Editorial Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

or via electronic mail, send your request to <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>.

You may also call toll-free 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877
service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 8-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to
[www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html](http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html).

This report is also available on the department's web site at
[www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/eval.html](http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/eval.html).

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as
Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the Department's Alternate Format Center at\
(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Results from the Study on School Violence and Prevention indicate that,
while schools nationally experienced relatively low levels of serious
violent crime, some schools did experience serious violence and
disorder. In many schools, high levels of less serious violent crime and
property crime were common, particularly in middle schools. To prevent
such problem behavior and make schools more conducive to learning,
schools implemented many and diverse prevention activities. However, on
the whole, the quality of those prevention activities is poor. These
findings, which are for the 1997-98 school year, suggest that schools
need to improve the quality of prevention programming through attention
to needs assessment, planning, increased use of research-based
approaches, and monitoring of implementation.

#### [Study Background]{.smallcaps}

The study on which these findings are based, the Study on School
Violence and Prevention, was funded by the U.S. Department of Education
(and conducted in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice,
U.S. Department of Justice) to investigate the extent of problem
behavior in schools nationally and several aspects of delinquency
prevention efforts in schools, such as types and quality of prevention
efforts, how schools plan and use information about prevention options
to improve their own efforts and school management, and sources of
funding for school prevention activities.

During spring 1997, 886 elementary and secondary (i.e., both middle
school and high school) principals provided information about prevention
activities in their schools. During spring 1998, principals and
prevention program providers in many of these same schools provided
information on prevention efforts, their schools' discipline practices,
and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) funding for
prevention activities. In addition, students and teachers in many of the
participating secondary schools responded to surveys on their
experiences with school disorder and with prevention activities; school
district officials associated with these secondary schools also provided
information on SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA programs and funding. The patterns
of problem behavior found by the current study are generally consistent
with those found by other recent studies.

Although this study has many strengths, including the use of multiple
information sources to collect detailed information on characteristics
of school prevention programming and adequacy of program implementation,
it also has limitations, primarily with regard to response rates.
Methodological issues are discussed in detail in the report\'s
introduction and appendices.

In the remainder of this summary, we highlight main findings from the
study.

#### [Problem Behavior in Schools]{.smallcaps} 

During the 1997-98 school year, serious violent crime in schools was
relatively infrequent. However, schools did experience high levels of
less serious violent crime and property crime that compromised
instruction in many classrooms. Middle schools experienced more problem
behavior than other schools. On the whole, students and teachers felt
safe at schools, although about one-quarter had concerns about safety
and disorder.

**Schools Reporting Incidents to Police**

One measure of school safety and disorder is the number of crimes and
disciplinary incidents that come to the attention of school
administrators. The study asked principals about the number of crimes
that they reported to law enforcement officials. In general, elementary
schools tend to experience the lowest rates of serious incidents and
middle schools the highest rates.

-   According to principal reports, 66 percent of schools experienced
    one or more incidents of less serious violent crime or property
    crime (i.e., fighting without a weapon, vandalism, or theft) and 10
    percent experienced at least one serious violent crime (i.e.,
    fighting with a weapon or robbery).

-   Compared with elementary and high schools, middle schools had higher
    levels of many types of problem behavior. According to principal
    reports, 21 percent of middle schools had one or more incidents of
    physical attack or fight with a weapon, compared to 2 percent of
    elementary schools and 11 percent of high schools. Principals also
    reported that 72 percent of middle schools experienced fights
    without a weapon, compared to 34 percent of elementary schools and
    56 percent of high schools.

-   Schools with high levels of serious violent crime---"problem
    schools"---were similar to all other schools on characteristics such
    as urbanicity (percent urban, suburban, and rural), free and
    reduced-price school lunch, and enrollment. Problem high schools
    also did not differ from the other high schools in terms of the
    percentage of minority students. However, problem middle schools had
    a higher percentage of minority students than all other middle
    schools.

    **Victimization of Students and Teachers**

    Another measure of school safety and disorder is the amount of
    victimization experienced by students and teachers while at school.
    This measure provides an important complement to data obtained from
    principals about incidents reported to police, since administrators
    are not always aware of all the incidents that occur in schools. The
    study asked students and teachers in secondary schools (middle and
    high schools) about their experiences with various types of crimes
    and disorderly conduct. Middle school students and teachers were in
    many cases more likely to be victimized than their high school
    counterparts.

-   Approximately 18 percent of students in secondary schools were
    threatened with a beating, and 13 percent of students were attacked
    without a weapon. In terms of serious violent crime, 11 percent of
    students experienced at least one serious violent incident (robbery
    or threatened with a weapon) at school.

-   A slightly higher percentage of middle school students than high
    school students were the victims of robbery. For example, 8 percent
    of middle school students were robbed of \$1 or more in school,
    compared with 4 percent of high school students. Additionally, for
    all types of less serious violent crime and property crime, a higher
    percentage of middle schools students than high school students
    reported being victimized. For example, 19 percent of middle school
    students were physically attacked in school, compared with 10
    percent of high school students.

-   Approximately 62 percent of teachers experienced one or more
    incidents of less serious violent crime or property crime (i.e.,
    threatened in remarks by a student, received obscene remarks or
    gestures from a student, damage to property, or theft). Forty
    percent of teachers received obscene remarks or gestures from a
    student. Serious crime aimed at teachers was relatively rare. Only
    3 percent of teachers were attacked and received minor injuries,
    while even fewer (1%) were either confronted with weapons at school
    or were attacked and received injuries serious enough to require a
    doctor.

-   A higher percentage of middle school teachers than high school
    teachers received obscene remarks or gestures from a student (46% of
    middle school teachers versus 40% of high school teachers) and
    middle school teachers were more likely (24%) than high school
    teachers (20%) to be threatened by a student.

-   Although students and teachers in problem high schools and in other
    high schools reported similar levels of victimization, students and
    teachers in problem middle schools reported significantly higher
    levels of victimization for many specific types of crime than those
    in other middle schools.

    **Effects of Disorder on Teachers and Students**

    Members of the school community provide different perspectives on
    how the level of school safety and orderliness affects them.

-   While most students and teachers reported feeling safe in their
    schools, about one-fourth said they would avoid a specific place at
    school out of fear that someone might hurt or bother them.

-   More than one-quarter (27%) of teachers in middle and high schools
    reported that the behavior of some students kept them from teaching
    a fair amount or a great deal.

#### [Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior in Schools]{.smallcaps}

Schools are implementing a wide range of prevention and disciplinary
activities to address problem behavior. Unfortunately, the overall
quality of many of these activities is inadequate when assessed against
criteria established by the study for judging the quality of practices.

**Wide Scope of Prevention Efforts**

To reduce problem behavior, schools implemented many and diverse
prevention activities.

-   On average, each school used 9 out of 14 general types (e.g.,
    counseling and behavior modification) of prevention efforts.
    Although a few principals reported using no activities at all, many
    reported using a large number of separate, specific activities---one
    school reported using 61. The median number of specific prevention
    activities per school was 14. Approximately 20 percent of schools
    used at least 25 unique activities and 6 percent reported using at
    least 40 unique activities.

-   The most common type of activity aimed at changing individual
    behavior was prevention curriculum, instruction, or training (76%),
    followed by counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic
    services (74%). The most common type of school-wide prevention
    activity was simply providing students with information. More than
    80 percent of schools provided isolated information about alcohol,
    tobacco, and other drugs.

-   Compared with other middle schools, problem middle schools (those
    with high levels of serious violent crime) used fewer of the
    different types of activities available to reduce negative behavior.
    Each problem middle school used approximately six different types of
    efforts, while each of the other middle schools uses, on average,
    eight different types of efforts. Problem high schools and other
    high schools were similar on the number of different prevention
    efforts implemented.

#### Low Quality of Prevention Efforts

Judging the quality of prevention activities was a multi-step process
that entailed defining dimensions of quality and setting standards of
adequacy. The standards of adequacy established for these dimensions
were appropriate for the various types of activities. The dimensions and
standards were based on expert judgment and a review of the literature
on the effectiveness of prevention activities, including optimal
planning practices, content, methods, and frequency and duration of
activities. (For more detail, see Appendix B.)

While a large quantity of prevention activities were implemented in
schools, the quality of those activities needs improvement. In general,
activities designed to change the school or classroom environment were
higher quality than those directed at altering student behavior or
attitudes.

-   Prevention activities designed to change the school or classroom
    environment were generally of higher quality than programs aimed at
    changing individual student behaviors or attitudes. On one summary
    measure of quality (average percentage of quality measures judged
    adequate), scores for different types of activities designed to
    change the school or classroom environment ranged from 73 percent
    adequate (for security and surveillance) to 51 percent adequate,
    while scores for programs aimed at changing individual student
    behaviors or attitudes ranged from 51 percent adequate to 42 percent
    adequate (for services and programs for family members).

-   Compared to programs aimed at changing individual student behaviors
    or attitudes, activities designed to change the school or classroom
    environment tended to achieve higher ratings on several dimensions
    of quality, including level of use by school personnel, best
    practices for content, best practices for methods, duration, and
    frequency of operation.

-   The quality of prevention programs is lowest in rural areas and
    highest in urban areas, though the difference is modest.
    Approximately 55 percent of the prevention activities in rural areas
    were judged adequate, compared to 60 percent of the activities in
    urban areas.

-   For almost every type of program and each dimension examined, the
    quality of implementation was similar between the problem schools
    and other schools (at both the middle and high school levels).

    **Mixed Quality of Disciplinary Practices**

Schools successfully communicated rules to students and monitored and
recorded violations of those rules. However, schools need improvement on
the range of responses that they make to student conduct and on the
predictability and consistency of their disciplinary practices.

-   Most schools communicated rules to students and monitored and
    recorded violations of rules. More than 95 percent of schools
    provided teachers, students, and parents with a copy of the school
    rules. Some 93 percent of schools were following best practices for
    communication and documentation of school rules and for keeping
    track of student behavior.

-   Overall, schools used a variety of responses to desirable and
    undesirable student behavior. However, relatively few individual
    schools merited a "best practices" rating for the range of
    appropriate responses to misconduct (27%) and range of appropriate
    responses to desirable behavior (20%).

#### [Quality of Planning and Use of Research for Prevention Activities]{.smallcaps}

#### 

####  Mixed Picture on Quality of Planning 

#### 

Sound planning (including identifying goals, selecting activities, and
making decisions about how to target prevention efforts) is important,
in part, because it was associated with high quality prevention
activities. The planning that underlies prevention activities in schools
was frequently influenced by school districts. Planning to meet
school-wide prevention objectives tended to be of higher quality than
the planning of individual-level prevention activities.

-   The planning of prevention efforts was often influenced or shaped by
    the school district. Districts for almost one-half of middle and
    high schools required the schools to participate in needs
    assessments or an evaluation by administering district-sponsored
    surveys. Districts for 60 percent of these schools also required the
    schools to pick prevention activities from a list or at least offer
    this type of list. The majority of districts provided support for
    school planning of prevention activities in the form of assistance
    with conducting needs assessments, training on program planning and
    development, and training on program implementation. District
    involvement in school-level planning is important, in part, because
    districts often have greater expertise and resources to support
    planning than individual schools.

-   Planning for many of the individual level prevention activities was
    weak. Although many individual-level prevention activities meet some
    criteria of sound planning, less than two-thirds of these activities
    met all of the criteria. However, planning for school-wide
    prevention efforts appeared to be considerably stronger than the
    planning for individual level activities.

-   Problem schools (those with high levels of serious violent crime)
    and other schools tended to be similar on many aspects of program
    planning. However, problem middle schools were more often required
    to receive direction and assistance from their school districts, and
    are more often required to conduct some type of needs assessment or
    evaluation. Compared with other middle schools, problem middle
    schools are also more often required to prepare plans specifying how
    prevention resources will be used. For high schools, a higher
    percentage of problem schools than other schools receive training on
    program implementation.

    **Insufficient Use of Research**

Although schools generally consulted a number of sources in selecting
their activities, they typically placed a lower priority on
research-based sources.

-   On average, schools used two resources to select a given prevention
    activity. The resources most often used to select a prevention
    activity were other program providers (57% of activities) and
    meetings within the school district (51% of activities).

-   Research-based information was among the less frequently used
    sources for activity selection. Formal outcome evaluations and
    publications summarizing research were used in the selection of 28
    percent and 38 percent of activities, respectively.

-   Perhaps as a result of the limited use of research-based
    information, only one-third of the prevention activities used
    methods or approaches found to be effective in the research
    literature, while 61 percent of the activities used content whose
    effectiveness was supported by research.

#### [SDFSCA IMPORTANT TO FUNDING FOR SCHOOL PREVENTION EFFORTS]{.smallcaps}

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) Program was
the most common funding source for prevention activities in schools,
though districts and schools also drew on a variety of other funding
sources. Districts used SDFSCA funds to support diverse prevention
activities. This funding was very important to district prevention
programming.

-   Districts for approximately 98 percent of schools nationally, public
    and private, provided prevention activities that were funded at
    least in part by SDFSCA. Many districts also drew on a wide variety
    of other federal, state, and local funding sources to support their
    prevention efforts.

-   Districts used their SDFSCA funds for diverse prevention activities,
    including direct activities for students and indirect activities
    such as staff training. Activities that received a high degree of
    SDFSCA support include prevention instruction or training,
    counseling, and prevention activities to improve instructional
    practices in the classrooms.

-   In the schools for which principals reported using SDFSCA funds,
    almost one-half of the principals stated that these funds were very
    important to improving or maintaining the safety and orderliness of
    their school, or in preventing problem behavior.

#### [CONCLUSIONS]{.smallcaps}

Several conclusions follow from the study's findings. Although schools
in general were relatively safe, certain schools had significant
problems that affected instruction and made some teachers and students
feel unsafe. Clearly, approaches to preventing problem behavior in
schools need improvement, particularly in light of the central findings
that schools nationally were implementing a large number of prevention
efforts but the quality of those efforts was low overall.

The findings of relatively higher rates of discipline problems in middle
schools suggest that greater attention to prevention efforts in middle
school may be warranted. Attention to middle school problems may also
aid in preventing discipline problems in high school.

Schools also should consider focusing on improving the quality of their
activities. Schools might start by strengthening efforts to adopt,
retain, or discard prevention efforts based on research evidence on
program effectiveness. In general, schools need to be more consistent in
consulting the research literature and using that information to guide
their prevention efforts. Given limited resources for prevention,
focusing resources on strengthening promising, research-based
activities---even at the expense of discontinuing weaker
activities---may help schools and districts to better achieve their
prevention goals.

Another area where improvement could be addressed is in the area of
program planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Strengthening needs
assessments, including collecting information on the prevalence of
problem behavior, would assist schools and districts in identifying
problem areas to allow for better targeting of prevention efforts.
Greater emphasis on monitoring the implementation of prevention
activities would help to ensure that they remain consistent with program
models. Collecting information on the results of activities is critical
to gauging which activities are proving effective and which need to be
strengthened or discontinued.

Schools and districts can also focus on the predictors of program
quality. In their report on this study, Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Czeh,
Cantor, Crosse, and Hantman (2000) identified several predictors,
including extensiveness and quality of training of the staff that
implement the activities and supervision of the activities. The
increased costs associated with these and other factors could be offset,
in part, by decisions to fund fewer but stronger activities.

Ideally, along with a greater focus on research, schools will adopt a
"continuous improvement" process, whereby quality of implementation,
results of activities, and incidents of problem behavior are tracked to
serve as a basis for modifying activities and developing future plans.

**Resources for Improving Quality**

Districts and schools have a variety of sources available to them to
assist in identifying effective programs and activities. For example,
the 1999 Annual Report on School Safety, a joint publication of the U.S.
Departments of Justice and Education, provides descriptions of model
programs designated as promising or of demonstrated effectiveness, along
with resource lists of agencies, organizations, and websites for further
information. (See www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/InterimAR.pdf.) The U.S. Department
of Education's Safe and Drug-Free Schools program used an expert panel
process to identify exemplary and promising drug and violence prevention
programs based on evidence of effectiveness. (See
www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/2001exemplary_sddfs.html
and
www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/2001promising_sddfs.html.)
Additional information on developing high-quality school-based
prevention programs is available from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program website. (See www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/.)

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In preparing this report, we relied heavily on work completed by Gary
and Denise Gottfredson, which is reported in Gottfredson, G.,
Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S. B., & Hantman,
I. (2000). *National study of delinquency prevention in schools*. Final
report for the National Institute of Justice, U. S. Department of
Justice, Grant \# 96-MN-MV-008. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson
Associates, Inc.

Without the help of many people, this study would have been impossible.
School recruitment could not have been completed without assistance from
Katie Andrew, Julie Anderson, Betty Barclay-Hurley, Kristen Heavener,
Robin Hill, Galen McKeever, Pat McClure, Sheri Nicewarner, Parvis
Omidpanah, Jeff Roussos, and Fran Winter. The recruiters, along with Liv
Aujla, Kevin Jay, Steve Linz, Kim Standing, and Diane Steele, made data
collection happen. We received invaluable statistical and programming
support from Al Bishop, John Brown, Jason Grim, Ying Long, Lana Ryaboy,
and Gary Shapiro.

We also wish to thank our federal Project Officer, Joanne Wiggins, and
the members of our Working Group, which include Mark Lipsey, Jennifer
O'Day, Cyril Wantland, and Mary Weaver. They have all been extremely
supportive and helpful in developing and implementing this study.

Finally, we wish to thank the hundreds of schools and thousands of
school staff and students who, by participating in the study, helped to
make it a success.

**Table of contents**

Chapter Page

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i**

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x

1\. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND [1](#introduction-and-background)

Introduction [1](#introduction)

Study Objectives [3](#study-objectives)

Method [3](#method)

Strengths and Limitations [5](#strengths-and-limitations)

Report Organization [7](#report-organization)

2\. PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS [8](#problem-behavior-in-schools-1)

Although Schools Experience High Levels of Less Serious Violent Crime
and Property Crime,

Serious Violent Crime Is Infrequent
[8](#although-schools-experience-high-levels-of-less-serious-violent-crime-and-property-crime-serious-violent-crime-is-relatively-infrequent)

Middle Schools Experience More Problem Behavior than Other Schools
[10](#middle-schools-experience-more-problem-behavior-than-other-schools)

Students and Teachers Generally Feel Safe at School
[13](#students-and-teachers-generally-feel-safe-at-school)

Problem Schools: Characteristics and Problem Behavior
[15](#problem-schools-characteristics-and-problem-behavior)

3\. EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS
[26](#efforts-to-prevent-problem-behavior-in-schools-1)

Schools Are Implementing a Wide Variety of Prevention Activities
[26](#schools-are-implementing-a-wide-variety-of-prevention-activities)

Schools Are Using Many Prevention Activities
[31](#schools-are-using-many-prevention-activities)

Most Schools Communicate Rules to Students and Monitor and Record
Violations of Rules
[32](#most-schools-communicate-rules-to-students-and-monitor-and-record-violations-of-rules)

Schools Use a Variety of Responses to Desirable and Undesirable Student
Behavior
[32](#schools-use-a-variety-of-responses-to-desirable-and-undesirable-student-behavior)

Schools Are Following Best Practices and Policies on School Rules and on
Tracking Student

Behavior but Need Improvement on the Range of Responses to Student
Conduct and on

Predictable and Consistent Discipline
[33](#schools-are-following-best-practices-and-policies-on-school-rules-and-on-tracking-student-behavior-but-need-improvement-on-the-range-of-responses-to-student-conduct-and-on-predictable-and-consistent-discipline)

Problem Schools: Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior
[35](#problem-schools-efforts-to-prevent-problem-behavior)

4\. QUALITY OF EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS
[39](#quality-of-efforts-to-prevent-problem-behavior-in-schools)

Quality of Prevention Programming in Schools Is Low
[39](#quality-of-prevention-programming-in-schools-is-low)

Activities Designed to Change the School or Classroom Environment Are
Higher Quality Than

Those Aimed at Altering Student Behaviors or Attitudes
[41](#activities-designed-to-change-the-school-or-classroom-environment-are-higher-quality-than-those-aimed-at-altering-student-behaviors-or-attitudes)

Security and Surveillance Efforts Are Implemented with the Highest
Quality and Services to Family

Members Are Implemented with the Lowest Quality
[43](#security-and-surveillance-efforts-are-implemented-with-the-highest-quality-and-services-to-family-members-are-implemented-with-the-lowest-quality)

Problem Schools: Implementation of Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior
[45](#problem-schools-implementation-of-efforts-to-prevent-problem-behavior)

5\. PLANNING AND INFORMATION [48](#planning-and-information)

Many School Districts Influence the Planning of Prevention Activities at
Schools
[48](#many-school-districts-influence-the-planning-of-prevention-activities-at-schools)

revention Planning Is Weak for Many Individual Activities 50

Sound Planning Is Related to High-quality Prevention Activities
[51](#sound-planning-is-related-to-high-quality-prevention-activities)

Problem Schools: Planning and Information
[52](#problem-schools-planning-and-information)

6\. FUNDING FOR PREVENTION EFFORTS IN SCHOOLS 57

SDFSCA is the Most Widely Used Source of Funding for Prevention
Activities, though the Districts

for Many Schools Also Receive Funding from Other Sources
[56](#sdfsca-is-the-most-widely-used-source-of-funding-for-prevention-activities-though-the-districts-for-many-schools-also-receive-funding-from-other-sources)

Districts Use SDFSCA Funds to Support a Wide Variety of Prevention
Activities
[57](#districts-use-sdfsca-funds-to-support-a-wide-variety-of-prevention-activities)

SDFSCA Funding is Very Important to District Prevention Programming
[58](#sdfsca-funding-is-very-important-to-district-prevention-programming)

**TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)**

7\. CONCLUSIONS [59](#conclusions-1)

Shift Resources to Emphasize Quality over Quantity
[59](#shift-resources-to-emphasize-quality-over-quantity)

Improve Program Planning and Monitoring
[59](#improve-program-planning-and-monitoring)

Strengthen Factors Associated with Quality of Programming
[60](#strengthen-factors-associated-with-quality-of-programming)

**LIST OF** **APPENDIXES**

Appendix Page

A. STUDY METHODS 62

b\. METHODS AND CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE ADEQUACY OF PREVENTION

PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES 77

List of Tables

Table

> 3-1 Prevention activity categories and definitions 28
>
> 3-2 School-wide arrangements and definitions 29
>
> A-1 School-level response rates for the first phase of data collection
> 69
>
> A-2 School-level participation rates for the second phase of data
> collection 69
>
> A-3 Principal response rate 70
>
> A-4 Provider response rate 70
>
> A-5 Teacher response rate 70
>
> A-6 Student response rate 71
>
> B-1 Measures of program quality 78
>
> B-2 Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for quality
> measures that have
>
> similar criteria across program or activity types 81
>
> B-3 Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for quality
> measures that have
>
> different criteria across program or activity types 82
>
> B-4 Measures of quality for school-wide discipline practices and cut
> points for assessing
>
> adequacy 84

**TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)**

List of Figures

Figure Page

> 2-1 Percentage of schools in which one or more incidents of crime were
> reported to law
>
> enforcement -- 1997-98 school year 9
>
> 2-2 Percentage of students reporting one or more incidents of personal
> victimization this
>
> year in school -- 1997-98 school year 11
>
> 2-3 Percentage of teachers reporting one or more incidents of personal
> victimization this
>
> year in school -- 1997-98 school year 12
>
> 2-4 Percentage of teachers reporting on the extent to which student
> behavior prevents them
>
> from teaching -- 1997-98 school year 14
>
> 2-5 Characteristics of problem schools and other schools -- 1997-98
> school year 16
>
> 2-6 Characteristics of students in problem schools and other schools
> -- 1997-98 school year 17
>
> 2-7 Percentage of problem middle schools and other middle schools in
> which one or more
>
> incidents of crime were reported to law enforcement -- 1997-98 school
> year 19
>
> 2-8 Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools in which
> one or more
>
> incidents of crime were reported to law enforcement -- 1997-98 school
> year 20
>
> 2-9 Percentage of students in problem middle schools and other middle
> schools reporting
>
> personal victimization this year in school -- 1997-98 school year 21
>
> 2-10 Percentage of students in problem high schools and other high
> schools reporting
>
> personal victimization this year in school -- 1997-98 school year 22
>
> 2-11 Percentage of teachers in problem middle schools and other middle
> schools reporting
>
> personal victimization this year in school -- 1997-98 school year 24
>
> 2-12 Percentage of teachers in problem high schools and other high
> schools reporting
>
> personal victimization this year in school -- 1997-98 school year 25
>
> 3-1 Percentage of schools using each type of prevention activity --
> 1997-98 school year 30
>
> 3-2 Percentage of schools using specific responses to desirable
> student conduct -- 1997-98
>
> school year 34
>
> 3-3 Percentage of problem middle schools and other middle schools
> using each type of
>
> prevention activity -- 1997-98 school year 36
>
> **TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)**

Figure Page

> 3-4 Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools using
> each type of
>
> prevention activity -- 1997-98 school year 37
>
> 4-1 Percentage of programs or activities judged adequate for each
> quality measure --
>
> 1997-98 school year 40
>
> 4-2 Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for each
> type of prevention
>
> activity -- 1997-98 school year 44
>
> 4-3 Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for
> selected prevention activities
>
> for problem middle schools and other middle schools -- 1997-98 school
> year 46
>
> 4-4 Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for
> selected prevention activity
>
> for problem high schools and other high schools -- 1997-98 school year
> 47
>
> 5-1 Percentage of problem schools and other schools in districts
> reporting mandated school
>
> planning of prevention activities -- 1997-98 school year 53
>
> 5-2 Percentage of problem schools and other schools in districts
> providing support for school
>
> planning of prevention activities -- 1997-98 55

Wide Scope, Questionable Quality:\
Drug and Violence Prevention Efforts in American Schools\
\
Report on the Study on School Violence and Prevention

# 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Concern about youth violence has increased dramatically across the
country. This has been especially true for violence that occurs in
schools. Schools should provide disciplined and orderly environments
that are conducive to learning and provide safe havens from violence.
This report examines the status of school safety nationally and what
schools are doing to promote safety and prevent problem behavior.

##  Introduction

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) Program,
administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), is the largest
school-based federal program directed at preventing student drug use and
promoting school safety. As part of the 1994 reauthorization of SDFSCA,
Congress mandated that ED collect information on efforts to prevent
violence in schools nationally. ED initiated the Study on School
Violence and Prevention to describe the level of problem behavior,
including violence, in schools; to learn about the measures that schools
are taking to prevent problem behavior and promote school safety; and to
examine the use of funds allocated through SDFSCA.

In the last decade, several studies have investigated the prevalence of
problem behavior at schools and some of the factors associated with it.
For example, Katchur and colleagues (1996) reported on the number of
school-associated deaths that occurred from July 1992 through June 1994.
Other studies that have investigated problem behavior in schools (e.g.,
possession of weapons) include Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S.
Public Schools: 1996-97 (Heaviside, Rowand, Williams & Farris, 1998),
Violence-Related Attitudes and Behaviors of High School Students---New
York City, 1992 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993);
Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
1999); Monitoring the Future Survey (Johnston, O'Malley, and Bachman,
1998); and School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization
Survey (Chandler, Chapman, Rand, and Taylor, 1998).

However, very few studies have examined the types of prevention efforts
that schools are using and how well the schools are implementing these
efforts. One of the more comprehensive studies was conducted by the
Minnesota Department of Education (1992). This study defined and
described 26 promising prevention strategies and reported on the
utilization and perceived impact of these strategies in Minnesota public
schools. While useful, the study did not describe program
implementation. Moreover, the study had a state rather than a national
focus and was conducted more nearly ten years ago. More recently, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (1995) reported on a
nationwide search to find effective efforts to reduce school violence,
particularly gun violence. Although this study investigated efforts
nationwide, it focused solely on promising prevention strategies. An
intensive national effort undertaken by the National School Board
Association (1993) lists more than 750 prevention programs organized
into 30 different categories. This effort and others (e.g., National
School Safety Center, 1995; Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence, 1995) identified a multitude of prevention strategies, but
they neither provided national estimates of the types of prevention
strategies schools are implementing nor assessed how the programs are
being implemented.

The Study on School Violence and Prevention is the first study in more
than 20 years to examine in detail what schools nationally are doing to
promote school safety, as well as describe the level of problem behavior
in schools. Although its title implies that we focused exclusively on
violence, the study also encompasses other types of undesirable behavior
(e.g., drug abuse and property crime) in schools. We refer to all of
these types of illegal or prohibited behavior in schools, violent and
nonviolent, as "problem behavior."

The Study on School Violence and Prevention was a cooperative effort
between ED and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Department
of Justice. Mandated by Congress to investigate the extent of violence
in schools, as well as efforts to prevent violence, ED commissioned the
Study on School Violence and Prevention. At the same time, NIJ awarded a
grant to conduct the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in
Schools. To maximize resources and minimize the burden to schools, the
agencies and external researchers and evaluators agreed to merge many of
the study activities. In this report, we refer to the project as the
Study on School Violence and Prevention; in NIJ and other publications,
the project is called the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in
Schools.

##  Study Objectives 

We know that some schools are safer than others and that some schools
appear to be more successful than others in implementing efforts to
prevent problem behavior. Understanding the factors and processes that
contribute to school safety and the conditions under which prevention
programs are well implemented is critical to policymakers and school
officials. Hence, the study has focused on the extent and nature of
problem behavior in schools according to students, teachers, and
principals; and on the types of prevention efforts that are underway in
schools and how well schools are implementing these efforts. The study
has also investigated how prevention activities are funded and the role
of SDFSCA in these efforts. The following study questions have guided
the study.

-   What is the incidence of problem behavior in schools nationally?

-   What types of efforts are underway in schools to prevent problem
    behavior?

-   How well are efforts to prevent problem behavior implemented?

-   To what extent do schools use sound planning processes and
    information on school prevention options to improve school
    management?

-   What sources of funding (including SDFSCA funds) do schools use to
    support prevention efforts?

-   What are the policy-relevant characteristics and processes that
    distinguish safe and unsafe schools?

Although this study did seek to assess the implementation of prevention
activities and to identify factors that may contribute to school safety,
rigorously evaluating the effectiveness of these activities and factors
was beyond its scope.

##  Method

The Study on School Violence and Prevention is based on three separate
data collection and analysis efforts.

-   For the national level of the study, we conducted secondary analyses
    of the data collected for the Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey
    on School Violence, which was sponsored by the National Center on
    Education Statistics (Heaviside et. al., 1998); this survey
    collected information on school crime and violence prevention
    efforts from administrators in a probability sample of public
    elementary and secondary schools.

-   The intermediate level of the study collected information on school
    crime and efforts intended to prevent problem behavior from multiple
    sources (e.g., school district administrators, principals, and
    program providers) in a probability sample of public and private
    elementary and secondary schools.

-   The intensive level of the study drew on detailed quantitative and
    qualitative information collected from multiple sources in a
    purposive sample of 40 public secondary schools that participated in
    the intermediate level.

This report presents what we have learned from the data collected for
the intermediate level of the study. We report on the national level and
intensive level of the study separately.

**Sample.** From all public and private (sectarian and nonsectarian)
schools in the United States, this study sampled 1,287 elementary
schools, middle schools, and high schools to participate in the study.
We stratified the sample by instructional level (elementary, middle, and
senior high school) and metropolitan status (rural, suburban, and
urban), because we hypothesized that both school problem behavior and
prevention activities were likely to differ greatly on both of these
factors. Using an equal probability of selection sampling method, we
selected 143 schools from each of the nine strata. We recruited schools
for the study through an extensive mail and telephone campaign.

**Data Collection.** We conducted the first phase of intermediate level
data collection, the principal screener survey, by means of mail survey
with telephone followup. For this phase, we asked principals to report
on the number and types of prevention activities in place at their
schools. Their reports were guided by a comprehensive taxonomy of
prevention efforts that classified activities into 19 different groups
ranging from individual-level prevention instruction or training to
school-level activities intended to change or maintain the culture or
climate of the school. (See Chapter 3 for more detailed information on
these activities.) Gottfredson Associates, Inc. developed the taxonomy
after conducting an extensive review of the types of prevention
activities implemented in schools nationally.

The second phase of the intermediate level data collection entailed a
second principal survey and surveys of individuals coordinating
prevention activities (program providers) in the same schools that
participated in the initial principal survey. The principal survey
collected information on principal leadership, organizational capacity,
discipline policy and management of student behavior, incidents of
problem behavior reported to police, and funding sources for programs.
The program provider survey collected information on provider background
and training, program selection and program implementation, including
type of students served and amount of services delivered, as well as the
use of best practices.[^1] For schools that reported more than one
prevention activity in a given category (i.e., prevention curriculum,
instruction, or training; security and surveillance), we used
probability sampling to select one of these activities, and collected
information on only the selected activity at the school.

At middle schools and high schools (secondary schools), in addition to
surveying principals and program providers, the second phase of data
collection included surveying all teachers and a probability sample of
students. (Student participation was voluntary; participating students
were anonymous, and parents had the opportunity to refuse participation
for their children.) The teacher questionnaire focused on school safety,
victimization, school climate, and level of implementation of prevention
programming. The student survey collected information on school safety,
victimization, problem behavior, and school climate.

The second phase of data collection also included a survey of officials
(primarily SDFSCA coordinators) in the districts associated with the
middle and high schools participating in the study. This survey covered
SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA programs and funding, as well as interactions
between the district and school personnel that operate prevention
programs.

**Analysis.** In this report, we present weighted estimates. That is,
the results reflect the probabilities of selection and nonresponse,
making it more likely that the results presented are representative of
schools nationally.

Where appropriate, we conducted tests of statistical significance to
check whether or not observed differences among groups are simply due to
chance. Except where noted, we highlight in the text only differences
that are statistically significant at a probability of less than or
equal to five percent.

##  Strengths and Limitations

The main strengths of the Study on School Violence and Prevention are
that it used multiple sources of information on problem behavior in
schools and collected detailed information on the types and
implementation of prevention efforts. This is the first study in more
than 20 years to obtain information nationally on problem behavior in
schools from multiple sources (i.e., students, teachers, and
principals). It is also the first study to collect detailed information
on how schools seek to prevent problem behavior and to promote safe and
orderly environments nationally.

Another strength is the extensive data collected on the implementation
of prevention efforts and analyses designed to evaluate the adequacy of
implementation. Additionally, the types of activities covered go beyond
what are typically considered prevention programs (e.g., prevention
instruction and training), to include all activities undertaken by
schools to prevent problem behavior and promote school safety (e.g.,
improvements to instructional practices).

The chief limitations of the study are the response rates achieved and
level of detail available. The study encountered much greater difficulty
than anticipated in obtaining the cooperation of schools. We obtained a
69 percent response rate in the screening phase of data collection, and
53 percent of the schools originally sampled participated in one or more
of the different data collection efforts during the detailed phase.
Forty-nine percent of schools participated in the principal survey; 50
percent of the secondary schools participated in the teacher survey; and
38 percent of the secondary schools participated in the student survey.
Nonresponse tended to be higher for schools predominantly located in
urban areas and for non-Catholic private schools. Hence, these types of
schools are underrepresented in the responding schools. We sought to
correct for the under-representation through nonresponse adjustments to
weights. However, to the extent that the nonresponding schools differed
from other schools on the variables of interest, their absence may still
influence the study results. (See Appendix A for a detailed discussion
of response rates and weighting.)

Additionally, although a great deal of information was collected from
program providers and other sources for the intermediate level, surveys
necessarily limit the extent to which we can learn about the processes
and reasons underlying some of the phenomena observed. With the
in-person interviews that we conducted for the intensive level of the
study (reported on separately), we were able to explore some issues in
greater depth, although for a much smaller number of schools.

##  Report Organization

This report is organized around the topics covered by the study
questions. The chapters are as follows.

-   **Chapter 1**, above, provides an introduction to and background
    about problem behavior in schools.

-   **Chapter 2** describes the extent of problem behavior in schools,
    including the types of victimization experienced by students and
    teachers, and how students and teachers perceive the safety of their
    schools.

-   **Chapter 3** discusses efforts used by schools to prevent problem
    behavior, including the number of efforts in place by instructional
    level and the number of different types of efforts in place.

-   **Chapter 4** covers the implementation of efforts to prevent
    problem behavior and assesses differences in quality of
    implementation by type of effort and type of school.

-   **Chapter 5** describes how schools and districts plan prevention
    activities and how they use information (i.e., on effectiveness) in
    doing so.

-   **Chapter 6** presents information on how districts and schools fund
    prevention programs and on the importance of SDFSCA funds to
    prevention activities.

-   **Chapter 7** discusses our conclusions and their implications for
    policy and practice.

In Chapters 2 to 5, we also contrast schools with high levels of serious
violent behavior with other schools on some of the topics covered in the
chapters. These results allow us to consider the characteristics and
processes that distinguish safe and unsafe schools.

In Appendix A, we provide additional information on our methodology. We
provide additional information on definitions and measures of program
quality in Appendix B.

# 2. PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS

Despite the publicity about school violence, elementary and secondary
schools nationally are relatively safe. Serious violent crime is rare,
relative to less serious violent crime and property crime. Middle
schools have higher levels of many types of problem behavior than other
schools. Although students and teachers generally perceive their schools
as safe, teachers report that problem behavior often interferes with
teaching.

This chapter is based on the results of surveys of principals, students,
and teachers in our national probability sample of schools. Elementary
school, middle school, and high school principals reported on the number
of incidents of problem behavior for their schools, during and after
regular school hours; we report the results in terms of the percentage
of schools nationally that experienced at least one incident of
different types of problem behavior. A probability sample of middle
school and high school students at the schools reported on whether or
not they were the victims of different types of crimes in school and on
whether or not they avoided certain locations, in and out of school,
because of safety concerns; we report the results in terms of the
percentage of students nationally. Middle school and high school
teachers at the schools reported on whether or not they were the victims
of different types of crimes in school, whether or not they avoided
certain locations in school because of safety concerns, and the extent
to which problem behavior interfered with their teaching; we report the
results in terms of the percentage of teachers nationally. The results
are for the 1997-98 school year.

##  Although Schools Experience High Levels of Less Serious Violent Crime and Property Crime, Serious Violent Crime Is Relatively Infrequent

Elementary, middle, and senior high schools experience high levels of
less serious violent crime and property crime. This problem behavior is
noteworthy because it can potentially interfere with learning. However,
serious violent crime, which can raise a high level of concern for the
safety of students and school personnel, is relatively rare in schools.

**Less serious violent crime and property crime.** Approximately
two-thirds of schools (66%) and students (66%) experienced one or more
incidents of any type of less serious violent crime and property crime
during the 1997-98 school year. Forty-four percent of schools reported
to police one or more incidents of fighting without a weapon. (See
Figure 2-1.) A similar percentage of schools reported

**Figure 2-1. Percentage of schools reporting one or more incidents of
crime to law enforcement \-- 1997-98 school year**

![](media/image3.wmf)

to police at least one incident of theft or larceny (44%), or vandalism
(49%) during the 1997-98 school year. Proportionally, fewer elementary
schools reported one or more of these types of problem behavior (58%)
than middle schools (85%) or high schools (77%).

During the 1997-98 school year, approximately 18 percent of students in
middle or senior high schools were threatened with a beating, and 13
percent of students were physically attacked. (See Figure 2-2.)
Forty-seven percent of students in middle and senior high schools
experienced theft of property worth less than \$1; 45 percent of
students experienced theft of property worth \$1 or more.

Approximately 62 percent of teachers experienced one or more incidents
of any type of less serious violent crime and property crime. (See
Figure 2-3.) Forty-two percent of teachers in middle and senior high
schools received obscene remarks or gestures from a student during the
past school year. A smaller number of teachers experienced damage to
personal property worth less than \$10 (28%), theft of property worth
less than \$10 (24%), and theft of property worth more than \$10 (12%).

**Serious Violent Crime.** During the 1997-98 school year, approximately
10 percent of schools and 11 percent of students experienced one or more
incidents of any type of serious violent crime. These levels of crime
are about one-sixth the levels of less serious violent crime and
property crime. Seven percent of schools reported to police one or more
incidents of physical attack or fight with a weapon; 6 percent of
schools reported one or more incidents of robbery.[^2]

Four percent of students were robbed of less than \$1, and 6 percent
were robbed of more than \$1. Approximately 5 percent were threatened
with a gun or knife.

Approximately four percent of middle and senior high school teachers
experienced one or more incidents of any type of serious violent crime
during the 1997-98 school year. These teachers were attacked and
received minor injuries (3%), attacked and received injuries that
required a doctor (0.7%), and confronted by weapons at school (0.5%).

##  Middle Schools Experience More Problem Behavior than Other Schools

Middle schools experienced higher levels of some types of problem
behavior than elementary schools or high schools. Compared with
elementary schools and high schools, a higher percentage of middle
schools reported to police one or more incidents of physical attack or
fight with a

**Figure 2-2. Percentage of students reporting one or more incidents of
personal victimization this year in school − 1997-98 school year**

![](media/image4.wmf)

**Figure 2-3. Percentage of teachers reporting one or more incidents of
personal victimization this year in school \-- 1997-98 school year**

![](media/image5.wmf)

weapon (21% of middle schools versus 2% of elementary schools and 11% of
high schools).[^3] A higher percentage of middle schools also reported
one or more incidents of fighting without a weapon (72% of middle
schools versus 56% of high schools and 34% of elementary schools).

A slightly higher percentage of middle school students than high school
students were the victims of robbery during the 1997-98 school year. For
example, 8 percent of middle school students were robbed of \$1 or more
in school, compared with 4 percent of high school students.
Additionally, for all types of less serious violent crime and property
crime, a higher percentage of middle school students than high school
students reported being victimized. For example, 19 percent of middle
school students were physically attacked in school, compared with 10
percent of high school students.

For some types of less serious violent crime and property crime, the
percentage of teachers that were victimized during the 1997-98 school
year was higher for middle schools than high schools. A higher
percentage of middle school teachers than high school teachers received
obscene remarks or gestures from a student (46% of middle school
teachers versus 40% of high school teachers) and experienced damage to
personal property worth less than \$10 (31% of middle school teachers
versus 26% of high school teachers). Middle school teachers also were
more likely than high school teachers to be threatened by a student (24%
of middle school teachers and 20% of high school teachers).

##  Students and Teachers Generally Feel Safe at School

Approximately 24 percent of students and teachers in middle and senior
high schools would avoid one or more places at school out of fear that
someone might bother or hurt them there. As many as 12 percent of
students would avoid a specific place at school (e.g., locker room). By
way of comparison, 16 percent of students would avoid a place in their
neighborhood other than the street where they live.

Approximately 27 percent of teachers in middle and senior high schools
rated one or more places at school other than their classrooms
(especially locker rooms or gym, and rest rooms) as relatively unsafe.
They did feel that their classrooms were quite safe. Perceptions of
safety, however, appear to be unrelated to student misbehavior in
classrooms: 27 percent of teachers in middle and senior high schools

![](media/image6.wmf)

reported that the behavior of some students keeps them from teaching a
fair amount or great deal of the time. (See Figure 2-4.)

## 

##  Problem Schools: Characteristics and Problem Behavior

To increase understanding of the characteristics and dynamics of schools
with the greatest safety concerns, we identified the middle schools and
high schools that had the highest levels of serious violent crime
(robbery and physical attack or fight with a weapon) among schools in
our national probability sample. We selected a school for this analysis
if its principal indicated that incidents of serious violent crime
reported to the police exceeded 2 per 1,000 students.[^4] This level of
crime in schools is substantially higher than we found nationally (on
average, 1.5 incidents per 1,000 students for middle schools and 0.9
incidents per 1000 students for high schools); it also is approximately
twice the level of serious violent crime detected in the study of
Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97
(Heaviside et. al., 1998). The middle schools in the analysis account
for approximately 16 percent of middle schools nationally; the high
schools account for approximately 8 percent of high schools nationally.

In this section and in each of the remaining chapters, we contrast the
problem schools with all of the other schools at the same instructional
level on their characteristics, problem behavior, types of prevention
activities in operation, quality of prevention programming, and
prevention planning. For these comparisons, we conducted tests of
statistical significance of the observed differences between the problem
schools and other schools. First, we examine the characteristics of the
problem schools and the patterns of problem behavior that we found.

**Characteristics.** Problem schools identified based on the principal
reports were very similar to other schools on several characteristics.
These characteristics include the percentage of schools that were in
urban, suburban and rural locations, and the number of students
enrolled. (See Figure 2-5.) The problem schools and other schools also
were similar on the percentage of students who were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch. (See Figure 2-6.) Although the problem high schools
were similar to (i.e.,

**Figure 2-5. Characteristics of problem schools and other schools \--
1997-98 school year**

![](media/image7.wmf)

> ![](media/image8.wmf)**Figure 2-6. Characteristics of students in
> problem schools and other schools \-- 1997-98**
>
> **school year**

not statistically different from) the other high schools on the
percentage of minority students, the problem middle schools had a higher
percentage of minority students (40%) than other middle schools
(24%).[^5]

**Problem Behavior.** For practically all types of crime reported by the
principal to the police, the problem schools had higher levels of crime
than other schools. This is true for middle schools and high schools.
(See Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8.) The differences are greatest on serious
violent crime by definition. (We identified the problem schools using
principal reports of violent crime.) For example, 100 percent of problem
middle schools experienced one or more incidents of any type of serious
violent crime compared with 15 percent of other schools. However, we
also found higher levels of less serious violent crime and property
crime for the problem schools than for other schools. For example, 98
percent of problem middle schools experienced one or more incidents of
any type of less serious violent crime and property crime compared with
82 percent of other schools. The only exception is that problem middle
schools and other middle schools were similar (statistically) on
vandalism.

The problem high schools were similar overall to the other high schools
on the percentage of students who experienced crimes at school. For the
problem middle schools, the exceptions are that higher percentages of
students experienced one or more incidents of any type of serious
violent crime (16% for problem schools versus 13% for other schools) and
of robbery of \$1 or more (10% for problem schools versus 7% for other
schools). (See Figure 2-9.) We found no differences between the problem
high schools and other schools on less serious violent crime and
property crime. (See Figure 2-10.) However, the pattern, especially for
serious violent crime, suggests that students in problem schools may
experience higher levels of crime.

Students attending problem high schools were similar to students
attending other high schools in terms of feeling unsafe in one or more
school locations, on the street where they live, and in other parts of
their neighborhoods. However, more students attending problem middle
schools than other middle schools reported feeling unsafe in one or more
school locations and in parts of their neighborhoods.

**Figure 2-7. Percentage of problem middle schools and other middle
schools reporting one or more** ![](media/image9.wmf)**incidents of
crime to law enforcement \-- 1997-98 school year**

**Figure 2-8. Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools
reporting one or more**

**incidents of crime to law enforcement \-- 1997-98 school year**

![](media/image10.wmf)

**Figure 2-9. Percentage of students in problem middle schools and other
middle schools reporting**

**personal victimization this year in school \-- 1997-98 school year**

![](media/image11.wmf)

**Figure 2-10. Percentage of students in problem high schools and other
high schools reporting**

**personal victimization this year in school \-- 1997-98 school year**

![](media/image12.wmf)

Teachers in problem middle schools experience more crime and feel more
unsafe than teachers in other middle schools. (See Figure 2-11.) For
example, a higher percentage of teachers in problem middle schools than
other middle schools experienced damage to and theft of their personal
property. Teachers in problem middle schools were also more likely to
receive obscene remarks or gestures or be threatened by a student. In
addition, a higher percentage of teachers in problem middle schools
compared with other middle schools reported having a weapon pulled on
them and experiencing one or more incidents of serious violent crime.
Finally, middle schools teachers in problem schools more often reported
feeling unsafe in one or more places in their school, and a higher
percentage indicated that the amount of problem behavior in their class
prevented them from teaching. The problem high schools were similar
overall to the other high schools on the percentage of teachers who
experienced crimes at school. (See Figure 2-12.)

**Figure 2-11. Percentage of teachers in problem middle schools and
other middle schools reporting**

![](media/image13.wmf) **personal victimization this year in school \--
1997-98 school year**

**Figure 2-12. Percentage of teachers in problem high schools and other
high schools reporting**

![](media/image14.wmf) **personal victimization this year in school \--
1997-98 school year**

# 3. EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS

Schools are implementing a great number and variety of prevention
activities. In addition, most schools are communicating school rules to
students, and schools are monitoring and recording violations of school
rules. Schools also use a variety of responses to desirable and
undesirable student behavior. Schools perform best on communication and
documentation of school rules and on tracking student behavior. They
need the most improvement on the range of responses that they make to
student conduct and on maintaining predictable and consistent
discipline.

This chapter is based on the results of the screener survey of
principals in our national probability sample of schools. Middle school
and high school principals reported on whether or not they were
implementing in their schools any of 14 types of school prevention
activities. (See Table 3-1.) They also reported on whether or not they
were using any of five types of school-wide arrangements, such as
activities that influence the composition of their schools. (See Table
3-2.) Finally, the principals provided information on the approaches
they adopted to communicating and enforcing school rules and to
monitoring and tracking student behavior. We report the results in terms
of the percentage of schools nationally that implement different types
of prevention activities and that adopt certain other practices; we also
report findings on the numbers of activities that schools implement
nationally.

##  Schools Are Implementing a Wide Variety of Prevention Activities

Principals reported using highly diverse prevention activities within
the 14 types of activities. However, schools used some types of
activities much more frequently than they did other types.

**Categories of School Activities.** The most commonly used category of
school activities according to principals is prevention curriculum,
instruction, or training. Nationally, 76 percent of schools report using
activities in this category to prevent problem behavior and/or promote
orderliness in school. (See Figure 3-1.) This prevention activity is
followed in frequency of use by counseling, social work, psychological
or therapeutic services (74%) and use of external personnel resources in
classrooms (76%). More than 60 percent of schools also report using
culture, climate, or norm change; behavior programming or behavior
modification; recreation, enrichment, or leisure activities; and
improvements to instructional practices.

**Table 3-1. Prevention activity categories and definitions**

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  **Prevention activity category**  **Definition**

  Prevention curriculum,            Training or instruction in which the
  instruction, or training          content involves knowledge, skills,
                                    attitudes, or values intended to
                                    prevent problem behavior. Instruction
                                    or training may be brief (less than
                                    an hour) or of an extended duration.

  Counseling, social work, or       Provision of advice or guidance to
  psychological and therapeutic     remedy or prevent problems using
  interventions                     identifiable techniques of
                                    psychology, counseling, or social
                                    work.

  Use of external personnel         Includes the use of parent or
  resources in classrooms           community volunteers, authority
                                    figures (e.g., police officers),
                                    classroom consultants, aides, or
                                    older students.

  Culture or climate change, norm   Includes efforts to establish,
  change                            encourage, or sustain a special
                                    school climate or culture though
                                    symbols, ceremonies, or systematic
                                    procedures; communication of
                                    expectations; and use of social
                                    influence or attitude change
                                    techniques to obtain commitment to
                                    norms.

  Behavioral or behavior            Tracking student behavior, setting
  modification interventions        behavior goals, and feedback or
                                    punishment to decrease undesired
                                    behavior or rewards to increase
                                    desired behavior.

  Recreational, enrichment, and     Provision of, or access to,
  leisure activities                activities, play, amusement, or
                                    diversions; exploration outside the
                                    school; for fun or relaxation.

  Improvements to classroom         Activities applied to entire classes
  organization and management       to establish and enforce classroom
                                    rules, use rewards and punishments,
                                    improve the use or management of
                                    time, or change the way in which
                                    students are grouped for instruction
                                    by ability, achievement, or effort
                                    within the classroom.

  Services to families              Outreach or service to families to
                                    improve their child management and
                                    supervision practices or to provide
                                    other family services.

  Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or Provision of one-on-one attention to
  apprenticeships                   students other than counseling or
                                    behavioral programming.
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

**Table 3-1. Prevention activity categories and definitions
(continued)**

  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------
  **Prevention activity category**  **Definition**

  Improvements to instructional     Activities applied to entire classes
  practices                         that involve the adoption or
                                    expansion of improved instructional
                                    techniques or practices. Includes
                                    training, supervision, or assistance
                                    to improve instructional methods. Not
                                    included are curriculum changes.

  Intergroup relations, interaction Activities to promote interaction
  between school and community      among members of diverse groups and
                                    celebrate diversity, to promote
                                    relations between the school and the
                                    community, and improve intergroup
                                    relations or resolve or reduce
                                    conflict.

  Youth roles in regulating and     Student participation in making
  responding to student conduct     school rules, in resolving disputes,
                                    or in responding to problem behavior
                                    (e.g., student court, peer mediation,
                                    or student conflict resolution).

  Planning structure or process     Structured or facilitated planning
                                    activities, as well as activity to
                                    coordinate or manage change in the
                                    school. Includes the use of methods
                                    or processes for planning or program
                                    development, inclusion of a broad
                                    range of individuals or perspectives
                                    in planning, or the use of
                                    consultants to advise on school
                                    practices or solve problems.

  Security and surveillance         Application of procedures to make it
                                    difficult for intruders to enter the
                                    school; watching entrances, hallways
                                    and school grounds; making it easier
                                    to report problem behavior; searching
                                    for weapons or drugs; removing
                                    barriers to observation or
                                    inspection; action to avert potential
                                    unsafe events.
  --------------------------------- -------------------------------------

A higher percentage of middle schools than high schools used each one of
the following nine prevention categories: (1) prevention curriculum,
instruction, or training; (2) counseling, social work, psychological and
therapeutic interventions; (3) culture or climate change, norm change;
(4) behavioral or behavior modification interventions; (5) improvements
to classroom organization and management; (6) services to families; (7)
intergroup relations, interaction between school and community; (8)
youth roles in regulating and responding to student conduct; and (9)
planning structure or process.

**Table 3-2. School-wide arrangements and definitions**

  ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
  **School-wide arrangement**    **Definitions**

  Simple provision of            Information may be provided by using
  information regarding the      posters, newsletters, brochures,
  harmfulness of violence, drug  announcements, handouts, videos, slide
  use, or risky sexual behavior, shows, lectures, presentations,
  or about the availability of   readings, or other methods. Information
  services                       may be directed at students, parents,
                                 educators, or community members. Does
                                 not include instruction or training.
                                 Does not include information conveyed as
                                 part of any activity listed above.

  Reorganization of grades,      Include use of specially arranged school
  classes, or school schedules   schedules, group of students, formation
                                 of within-school units, or small class
                                 size to prevent problem behavior or
                                 promote school order. May also include
                                 within-school units such as "houses" or
                                 teams or special grade-to-grade
                                 promotion criteria.

  Activities that influence the  Include special student recruitment
  composition of the school's    efforts, school specialization in
  population                     attractive educational programs,
                                 selective admissions criteria,
                                 scholarships, assignment of students
                                 with educational or behavior problems to
                                 other schools, or a requirement of
                                 tuition or fees.

  Treatment or prevention        Include prevention or treatment of
  interventions for              alcohol, tobacco, or other drug use,
  administration, faculty, or    anger or self-control problems, or other
  staff                          health or mental health problems.

  Architectural design or        Include the use of fences, space,
  structural features of the     facilities, barricades, physical
  school                         arrangements, or artwork.
  ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------

**School-wide Arrangements.** The most common type of school-wide
prevention activity is simple provision of information. (A figure with
details on the frequency of school-wide arrangement is not shown.) More
than 80 percent of schools in the nation provide isolated information
about alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs as one of their prevention
activities. More than 75 percent of middle school principals and 71
percent of high school principals also report providing isolated
information on violence, compared with only 56 percent of elementary
school principals.

For middle and high schools, the most common organizational strategy was
mixing students of differing conduct or abilities (67% overall). This
strategy was followed by decreasing class sizes (32%), grouping students
by ability or achievement (30%), using stringent criteria for
grade-to-grade promotion (30%), and by assigning them to grade-level
"houses" or teams (25%). Although equivalent proportions of middle
schools and high schools used the other categories, middle schools
adopted the use

######## Figure 3-1. Percentage of schools using each type of prevention activity -- 1997-98 school year

![](media/image15.wmf)

of houses or teams much more often than high schools or elementary
schools (66% compared with 15% and 21%, respectively).

Altering the composition of a school is another way to avoid problem
behavior or promote orderliness in schools. This approach can mean
either that the school is selective in its recruitment or admission, or
that the school is a repository for problem children. Middle schools in
all urbanicity categories were equivalent on the extent to which schools
were the repository of students with problem behavior. However, suburban
and urban high schools are much more selective in admitting students to
their schools than rural high schools. For example, private schools and
public magnet schools can be selective by actively recruiting students
or establishing admissions criteria (e.g., good conduct, high test
scores or high grades).

Providing treatment or prevention interventions for administration,
faculty, or staff is another way schools try to prevent problem behavior
and promote orderliness in schools. Forty percent of schools provided
drug treatment and prevention services, 27 percent provided anger
management or self-control training, and 39 percent provided other
health or mental health services. More urban and suburban schools than
rural schools use this strategy to prevent problem behavior.

The architectural (design or structural) feature most often used by both
middle (68%) and high schools (56%) to prevent problem behavior is
cafeteria arrangements. One example of a cafeteria arrangement is using
multiple lunch lines to make lines move faster, which may avoid
conflicts in line.

##  Schools Are Using Many Prevention Activities

Schools nationally use an average of 9 prevention **categories** (out of
14). On average, middle schools implement 8 different categories of
prevention activities, while high schools use 10 different categories.

Within the 14 prevention categories, the number of separate or **unique
activities** or programs within a school reported by principals ranged
from 0 to 61. The median number of activities used by schools nationally
is 14, with middle schools reporting more activities than high schools.
Urban schools also used more activities than suburban or rural schools
(although this difference is not statistically significant).
Approximately 20 percent of schools used at least 25 unique activities,
and 6 percent reported using at least 40 unique activities.

##  Most Schools Communicate Rules to Students and Monitor and Record Violations of Rules

Establishing and communicating rules is another way that schools attempt
to prevent problem behavior. More than 95 percent of schools provide
teachers, students, and parents with a copy of the school rules. In
addition, 90 percent of all schools communicate rules or consequences
via handbooks or posters. More than 90 percent of all schools have
written rules regarding time for student arrival at school, drugs, and
weapons; more than 80 percent of schools have formal written rules about
students leaving the campus, visitor sign-in and registration, and
student dress code. More middle schools than high schools (62% compared
with 42%) have written rules on carrying items or wearing clothing in
which drugs or weapons could be concealed. Only about one-quarter of all
schools (public and private schools combined) have rules regarding
uniforms; rural schools are least likely to have such a policy.

Monitoring and recording violations of school rules may be as important
as having and communicating such rules. Most schools (92%) have records
or files on individual students (paper or computer), and 89 percent
currently use printed discipline forms, a referral system, or other
methods for identifying and recording rule violations when they occur.
Eighty percent of schools also have a system for investigating a
student's history, performance, or circumstances to help decide what
disciplinary action (if any) to impose.

##  Schools Use a Variety of Responses to Desirable and Undesirable Student Behavior

To promote orderliness, schools use a variety of responses to desirable
and undesirable conduct. The most common response to desirable behavior
(96%) across all schools is informal recognition or praise (e.g., oral
praise), followed by formal recognition or praise (95%), and job or
privilege reinforcers (87%) (e.g., allowing students to help the
teacher). (See Figure 3-2.) For many of the other responses (e.g.,
activity reinforcers, social rewards, material rewards, redeemable token
reinforcers), fewer high schools than other schools report using these
responses to positive behavior.

To prevent problem behavior, schools use many different types of
responses to undesirable behavior, but some types are much more common
than others are. Several of the responses to negative or undesirable
behavior are used by virtually all of the schools in the sample,
including notifying parents about student behavior, holding a conference
with the student, and holding a conference with parents. Ninety-four
percent of schools use brief exclusion of students from attendance in
regular classes (e.g., in-school suspension or "cooling off" room), and
93 percent use short-term withdrawal of a privilege (e.g., riding the
bus, playground access, participation in athletics, or use of the
library). The least common responses are corporal punishment (16%) and
Saturday detention (16%).[^6] Responses involving the legal system
(e.g., charging a student with a crime and court action against student
or parent) are more often used in middle schools, perhaps because
problem behavior is more prevalent at the middle-school level. The use
of various practices varies little by urbanicity. However, compared with
urban and suburban locations, corporal punishment is more likely to be
used in rural areas.

Nearly all schools suspend or expel students, though schools differ on
the types of offenses that warrant this extreme disciplinary response to
problem behavior. The majority of schools suspend or expel students for
possession of a gun (97%), drugs (96%), alcohol (91%), or a knife (91%).
Less common but still prevalent are suspensions or expulsions for
physical fighting (78%), possession of tobacco (70%), and use of profane
or abusive language (52%). It is more common in middle schools than in
high schools to suspend or expel students for fighting or possession of
tobacco.

##  Schools Are Following Best Practices and Policies on School Rules and on Tracking Student Behavior but Need Improvement on the Range of Responses to Student Conduct and on Predictable and Consistent Discipline

Based on ratings of school practices in five areas (i.e., communication
and documentation, range of appropriate responses to misconduct, range
of responses to desirable conduct, disciplinarian consistency, and
disciplinary decisionmaking), we found that 93 percent of all schools
are following best practices for communication and documentation of
school rules and for keeping track of student behavior. (For an
explanation of best practices ratings for the five measures of
school-wide discipline practices, see Appendix B.)

However, few schools received a rating of following best practices under
the other four categories. For the range of appropriate responses to
misconduct and range of appropriate responses to

**Figure 3-2. Percentage of schools using specific responses to
desirable student conduct \--**

![](media/image16.wmf) **1997-98 school year**

desirable conduct, only 27 percent and 20 percent of schools,
respectively, are following best practices. This means schools are using
only a small percentage of the possible responses available for
undesirable and desirable conduct. Only 31 percent of schools in the
nation received a rating of following best practices for predictable
disciplinary decision making and only 48 percent for consistent
discipline.

##  Problem Schools: Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior

Higher percentages of problem schools (i.e., schools with high levels of
serious violent crime as described in Chapter 2) than other schools
tended to use several specific types of prevention activities than other
schools. Other middle schools tended to use a wider variety of
prevention activities than problem middle schools. Overall, problem
schools were more likely than other schools to have several different
types of school rules.

**Type and Amount of Prevention Activity.** Although a higher proportion
of the problem middle schools use several of the different types of
prevention categories, the other middle schools use a significantly
higher number of the prevention categories. In other words, other middle
schools use a wider variety of activities to reduce negative behavior,
while a higher proportion of problem schools use specific types of
violence prevention efforts.

A higher percentage of problem middle schools than other middle schools
use each of the following types of activities to prevent problem
behavior: (1) behavior modification, (2) counseling, social work, or
therapeutic activities, (3) mentoring, tutoring, coaching, (4)
recreational and enrichment, and (5) use of external personnel resources
(such as police officers or other authority figures). (See Figure 3-3.)
A similar percentage of problem middle schools and other middle schools
use prevention curriculums (84% compared with 81%) and provide simple
provision of information (97% compared with 95%). However, a higher
percentage of problem middle schools reorganize grades, classes, or
school schedules and use architectural features to try to reduce problem
behavior. On average, problem middle schools use about six different
types of prevention efforts, while other middle schools use
approximately eight different types of efforts.

Compared with all other high schools, problem schools were much more
likely to have counseling programs for the students (95% compared with
68%) and treatment or prevention services for the faculty and staff (80%
compared with 42%). (See Figure 3-4.) Problem schools were also more
likely to implement school-wide programs, such as activities targeting
culture or climate of the school;

**Figure 3-3. Percentage of problem middle schools and other middle
schools using each type of**

**prevention activity \-- 1997-98 school year**

![](media/image17.wmf)

**Figure 3-4. Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools
using each type of**

![](media/image18.wmf) **prevention activity \-- 1997-98 school year**

reorganization of grades, classes or schools schedules; and simple
provision of information. Both types of high schools were similar on the
number of different categories of prevention efforts implemented and on
most individual-level programs, including behavior modification,
mentoring, and recreation.

**School Rules.** We found a higher proportion of problem middle schools
compared with other middle schools had written rules about dress code
and about items (e.g., bags or clothes) in which drugs or weapons can be
concealed. At the middle school level, rules about uniforms are more
likely to be present in the problem schools than in other schools (27%
compared with 17%, although the difference is not statistically
significant). Close to 100 percent of all middle schools have rules
about drugs. Hence, the problem schools and other schools are very
similar on this measure. Problem middle schools and other middle schools
also are similar on whether or not they have rules about students
leaving campus during school hours, rules about hall wandering or class
cutting, or rules about visitor sign-in and registration.

All of the problem high schools in our sample have written rules about
bringing weapons to school, while a lower proportion of other high
schools have such rules (100% compared with 92%). Compared with other
high schools, problem high schools are also more likely to have written
rules about time for student arrival at school. Similar to the middle
school findings, problem high schools and other high schools are similar
with regard to students leaving campus, wandering the halls or cutting
class, or visitor sign-in and registration. However, contrary to the
middle school results, at the high school level rules about school
uniforms are more likely to be present in other schools than in problem
schools---20 percent compared with 13 percent (but again, this
difference is not statistically significant).

# 4. QUALITY OF EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS

Although the quantity of prevention programming in schools nationally is
high, the quality of this programming overall is low. Our analysis of
prevention activities revealed that activities designed to change the
school or classroom environment are generally of higher quality than
those directly aimed at altering student behaviors or attitudes.
Security and surveillance efforts are implemented with the highest
quality, and services to family members are implemented with the lowest
quality. The quality of programming is lowest in rural areas and highest
in urban areas. While we would expect higher quality programs to be more
effective, we did not directly examine program effectiveness.

This chapter is based on the results of surveys of program providers and
principals in our national probability sample of middle schools and high
schools. Program providers and principals reported on many different
aspects of the 14 categories of activities or programs described in
Chapter 3. For each type of activity, we used the data to develop the
following 10 measures of program quality: (1) level of use by school
personnel, (2) best practices for content, (3) best practices for
methods, (4) number of lessons or sessions, (5) duration, (6) frequency
of participation by students, (7) frequency of participation by staff,
(8) proportion of students exposed or participating; (9) ratio of
program or activity providers to students in the school, and (10)
frequency of program operation (i.e., how often the program is used or
operated.) For nine of the measures of quality, we also judged whether
or not the level of quality observed could reasonably be expected to
achieve a reduction in problem behavior or an increase in school safety.
Activities that achieved at least a minimum standard of quality were
designated as \"adequate.\" (See Appendix B for a description of the
minimum standards of quality required to achieve a rating of adequate.)
We report the results in terms of the percentage of activities
nationally.

##  Quality of Prevention Programming in Schools Is Low

We rated each program as either adequate or not adequate on up to nine
measures of program quality. (Note that not all of the quality measures
were applicable to each of the 14 program types.) This can be thought of
as giving up to nine pass/fail grades (pass is for adequate and fail is
for not adequate) for each program studied. Across all programs, the
percentage of activities judged adequate on the different quality
dimensions ranged from a low of 33 percent for use of best practices for
methods to a high of 75 percent for frequency of operation. (See Figure
4-1.) This means, for example, that only 33 percent of all programs and
activities, across all of the 14 program types, used best practices for
methods.

######## Figure 4-1. Percentage of programs or activities judged adequate for each quality 

########  measure − 1997-98 school year

![](media/image19.wmf)

Only 37 percent of activities across all 14 program types provided a
sufficient number of sessions and lessons to meet the adequacy criteria
and only 61 percent of activities used research-based content (best
practices for content). About 60 percent of activities across all
program types have adequate levels of staff and student participation.
On the more positive side, 70 percent of all activities meet the
duration criteria, and 75 percent are considered adequate on how often
the activity or program is used or operated (frequency of operation). As
explained in Appendix B, this means that most programs last for 1 month
or longer (duration criterion to be considered adequate), and most are
operated continually throughout the year (frequency of operation
criterion to be considered adequate).

Adequacy ratings vary by location. These ratings tend to be highest in
urban areas and lowest in rural areas. Overall, 60 percent of the
activities in urban schools were judged adequate, compared with 55
percent in rural schools.

##  Activities Designed to Change the School or Classroom Environment Are Higher Quality Than Those Aimed at Altering Student Behaviors or Attitudes

In general, activities designed to change the school or classroom
environment are higher quality than those aimed at altering student
behaviors or attitudes. For example, classroom organization and
management practices are more likely than many other categories of
activities (e.g., prevention curriculum, behavior modification,
counseling, and recreation programs) to be used by one or more school
personnel on a regular basis. Interventions involving improvements to
instructional practices and school planning are also used regularly by
one or more school personnel. (A program or activity that is used
regularly by one or more school personnel is considered adequate using
the criteria for the level of use by school personnel quality measure).

Seventy-six percent of prevention curricula have high levels of
research-based content, but the methods for nearly three-fourths (73%)
of these activities have tenuous standing in the research literature
(meaning that 27% of prevention curricula have achieved adequacy for
best practices for methods). Counseling and mentoring programs are
particularly weak on the use of best practices for methods. Only 8
percent of counseling, social work, and psychological or therapeutic
activities and 18 percent of mentoring, tutoring, coaching, and job
apprenticeship and placement programs use methods that are research
based and considered best practices. (For the former type of activity,
examples of those methods include written diagnosis or problem statement
prepared for each participant; for the latter activity, they include
tutors, mentors, or coaches helping students with social or
interpersonal situations or skills such as manners, self-control, or
grooming.) In comparison, a higher proportion of classroom organization
and management practices, a type of activity designed to change the
classroom, have high levels of research-based content and research-based
methods (60% and 63%, respectively).

Programs targeting individual behavior change are often implemented with
low levels of quality. For example, use of external personnel resources
for classroom management and instruction almost never (2%) meet the
lessons and sessions criteria for adequate program quality (which is
greater than or equal to 25 sessions), and only 8 percent of counseling
programs meet the best practices for methods criteria. While mentoring,
tutoring, coaching, and job apprenticeship and placement programs have
some positive aspects, they fall short in terms of the proportion of
programs with adequate sessions and lessons (25%) and use of best
practices for methods (18%). Similarly, only 23 percent of behavior
modification programs use best practices for methods.

The number of sessions also varies by the focus of the prevention effort
(changing the classroom or school versus changing the individual).
Mentoring programs have an average of 47 sessions, per school year
compared with improvements to classroom instructional methods, which
have an average of 101 sessions. For mentoring programs to be considered
adequate, at least 52 sessions must take place; for improvements to
instructional methods, 30 sessions is considered adequate. This example
indicates that, on average, mentoring programs fall short in terms of
the number of sessions per school year needed to be considered adequate;
and improvements to classroom instructional methods, on average, far
exceed the adequate number of sessions.

On the duration quality measure, school or classroom programs also
outperformed programs aimed at altering student behaviors. As an
example, only 47 percent of programs for families met the adequacy
criteria for the duration quality measure compared with 84 percent for
programs involving a school planning structure or process to manage
change.

Another way to view the quality of programming is in terms of the
***average* percentage of quality measures judged adequate** for each of
the 14 program types. To calculate this percentage, we first calculate
the **percentage of quality measures judged adequate** for each program
or activity. For example, programs in the prevention curriculum,
instruction, or training category use 6 of the 10 measures of quality.
(In other words, only 6 quality measures are applicable to the
prevention curriculum, instruction, or training category.) For a
specific program, we might find that the program is judged adequate on
three of the six quality measures. This means that the **percentage of
quality measures judged adequate** for the program is 50 percent.

To calculate the ***average* percentage of quality measures judged
adequate** for the category curriculum instruction, prevention, or
training, we added the percentages of all the programs or activities
judged adequate within this category and divided by the number of
programs or activities. In other words, we obtained the average.[^7] The
higher the percentage, the higher quality the program category is
considered.

Based on this approach, we found that improvements to classroom
organization and management and interventions involving school planning
structure or process to manage change are the two classroom- and
school-level categories (or types of programs) with the highest
***average* percentage of quality measures judged adequate** (71% for
both types of programs). (See Figure 4-2.) In comparison, the
***average* percentage of quality measures judged adequate** is only 51
percent for recreation, enrichment and leisure activities; 47 percent
for behavioral programming or behavior modification; 45 percent for
counseling, social work, psychological or therapeutic activities; and 42
percent for services or programs for families.

##  Security and Surveillance Efforts Are Implemented with the Highest Quality and Services to Family Members Are Implemented with the Lowest Quality

The best-implemented activity is security and surveillance. Ninety
percent of these activities meet the adequacy criteria for duration, and
95 percent meet the adequacy criteria for how often the program is used
or operated. More than 70 percent of security and surveillance programs
used best practices for methods and were rated as adequate on frequency
of participation by staff. The security and

######## Figure 4-2. Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for each type of prevention 

########  activity − 1997-98 school year

![](media/image20.wmf)

surveillance category also had the highest ***average* percentage of
quality measures judged adequate** (73%).

In contrast, only 31 percent of the services or programs for family
members met the adequacy criteria for student frequency of participation
and only 45 percent met the adequacy criteria for level of use by school
personnel. The services or programs for family members also had the
lowest percentage of programs meeting the duration criteria (47%) and
had the **lowest *average* percentage of quality measures judged
adequate** (42%).

##  Problem Schools: Implementation of Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior

We examined the quality of implementation for all programs combined and
for each of 8 types of prevention programs operating in problem middle
schools,[^8] other middle schools, problem high schools, and other high
schools. The eight specific types of prevention activities included (1)
prevention curriculum, instruction, or training; (2) behavioral
programming or behavior modification; (3) counseling, social work, and
psychological, or therapeutic activities; (4) mentoring, tutoring,
coaching, or job apprenticeships and placements; (5) improvements to
classroom organization and management; (6) interventions involving
school planning structures or process to manage change; (7) security and
surveillance; and (8) services or programs for family members.

We assessed overall program quality by examining the ***average*
percentage of quality measures judged adequate** across programs in both
problem and other schools. At the middle-school level, the results
indicate that problem schools and other schools are similar on quality
of programming for these eight program types (categories) and for all
programs combined (i.e., we found no statistically significant
differences between these two types of schools). (See Figure 4-3.) At
the high school level, problem schools implemented programs categorized
as prevention, curriculum, or instructional training with greater
overall quality than other high schools (83% compared with 60%). (See
Figure 4-4.) However, problem high schools and other high schools were
similar on the ***average* percentage of quality measures judged
adequate** across all program categories (55% compared with 53%).

![](media/image21.wmf)**Figure 4-3. Average percentage of quality
measures judged adequate for selected prevention**

**activities for problem middle schools and other middle schools \--
1997-98 school year\***

**Figure 4-4. Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for
selected prevention**

![](media/image22.wmf) **activities for problem high schools and other
high schools \-- 1997-98 school year**

# 5. PLANNING AND INFORMATION

Comprehensive planning of prevention activities in schools entails
assessing needs, setting objectives, selecting activities that can
achieve the objectives, and assessing progress toward the objectives. At
the school level, these planning elements are often influenced or shaped
by school districts. Planning for many individual prevention activities
is weak; school-level planning activities appear to be considerably
stronger. Sound planning is associated with several measures of
high-quality programming.

This chapter is based on the results of surveys of program providers in
and school district officials for our national probability sample of
schools. The information from school district officials is for middle
schools and high schools only; the information from program providers is
for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. School
district officials, typically the prevention coordinator or coordinator
for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) program,
reported on how the districts for the middle schools and high schools
participating in the study planned their prevention programs; we report
the results in terms of the districts for a given percentage of
secondary schools nationally. Program providers reported on aspects of
how they planned their activities or programs; we report the results in
terms of the percentage of schools nationally.

##  Many School Districts Influence the Planning of Prevention Activities at Schools

Schools rarely plan prevention activities in a vacuum. A variety of
forces and factors can influence planning in schools, especially for
local school districts. Specifically, districts often shape school
planning by restricting the range of prevention activities permissible
and by requiring and providing support for schools to engage in
planning.

First, some districts restrict the choice of SDFSCA-funded prevention
activities that schools have open to them. (As discussed in Chapter 6,
districts often draw on sources in addition to SDFSCA to fund their
prevention activities.) Districts for 20 percent of secondary schools
require schools to select prevention activities from a list offered by
the district. Districts for another 44 percent of schools offer a list
of SDFSCA-funded prevention activities from which schools can choose
activities. (Some of these schools have the option of adopting
activities other than those on the district list.) However, schools also
can influence district use of SDFSCA funds. For example, in districts
for 73 percent of schools, input from secondary schools is a great or
very great influence on the violence prevention efforts supported by the
district.

Second, districts can require or encourage schools to engage in planning
activities. Districts for 48 percent of secondary schools require
schools to participate in needs assessments or evaluations by
administering surveys sponsored by the district; districts for another
27 percent of schools permit schools to participate in these surveys at
their discretion. Districts for 60 percent of schools require their
secondary schools to prepare plans specifying how the schools will spend
their SDFSCA funds; districts for another 25 percent of schools permit
schools to develop plans at their discretion. Finally, districts for 60
percent of schools require schools to report on their progress on
SDFSCA-funded activities using forms or structures specified by the
district; again, districts for 23 percent of schools leave reporting
using district specified forms or structures to the discretion of the
schools. We are unable to judge the quality of these prevention planning
activities or the extent to which schools actively use them to improve
their prevention strategies.

Third, many districts provide support for school planning of prevention
activities. Districts for the vast majority of secondary schools
provided the following: (1) training on program implementation
(districts for 93% of schools), (2) assistance to schools on conducting
needs assessments (districts for 89% of schools), (3) training on
program planning and development (districts for 88% of schools), (4)
technical assistance on selecting prevention activities to implement
(districts for 84% of schools), and (5) assistance on conducting program
evaluations (districts for 84% of schools). In Chapter 6, we provide
additional information on the types of assistance that districts provide
to their schools.

##  Prevention Planning Is Weak for Many Individual Activities

Schools can engage in two types of planning of prevention activities.
They can plan individual activities or programs; they also can conduct
school-wide or systemic planning of prevention activities, which can
entail taking a broader view of school problem behavior and how to
reduce or prevent it. Fewer than two-thirds of individual prevention
activities are based on "sound" planning. (We discuss the criteria for
sound planning in the next section.) For the 57 percent of schools that
engage in it, school-level planning appears to be considerably stronger
than activity-level planning.

**Activity- or Program-level Planning.** Although planning for many
individual prevention activities meets some criteria of sound planning,
planning for fewer than two-thirds of these activities meets all of the
criteria. Our criteria for sound planning are as follows: (1) initiation
of activity by "school insiders" (e.g., school staff), (2) development
of activity by school insiders or researchers, (3) selection of activity
using research-based information sources, and (4) adoption of activity
based on approaches that have been demonstrated by research to be
effective.

**Initiation of prevention activities** is the starting point for a
school adopting or developing a given activity. It might follow, for
example, awareness of an unacceptable level or type of problem behavior
in a school and the willingness to address it. The impetus for new
activities can be local, for example, a committee of concerned parents
and school staff; at the other extreme, activities can be imposed by
outside actors, such as school districts. We consider initiation by
school insiders to be an element of sound planning because insiders are
most knowledgeable about the applicability of prevention activities to
their own schools; in addition, involving insiders in these roles can
increase school staff acceptance of and support for the activities.
Schools were as likely to adopt prevention activities that were
initiated by school insiders as activities that were initiated by school
districts or researchers. None of these types of initiators---school
insiders, school districts, or researchers---had substantial influence
on initiating activities.

**Development of prevention activities** follows the initiation of these
activities. It is the process of deciding what the prevention activities
will include. Involving insiders in the development is important for
some of the same reasons that insider initiation of prevention
activities can be important. Involving researchers in development helps
to ensure that the activities are tied to school needs and that the
activities are based on evidence of effectiveness. Prevention activities
were as likely to be developed by school insiders as by external
parties: Both were among the developers for 64 percent of the prevention
activities. Prevention activities were less likely to be developed by
researchers (26% of activities).

**Selection of prevention activities** using research-based information
is potentially valuable because that information can inform the fit
between the activities and school needs, and thereby increase the likely
effectiveness of the activities. On average, schools used two sources to
select a given prevention activity; however, research-based sources were
among the less frequently used sources. The sources that schools used
most often to select activities were: (1) other program providers (57%
of activities), (2) meetings within the school district (51% of
activities), and (3) meetings outside of the district (50% of
activities). Among the less frequently used sources were (1) formal
outcome evaluation (28% of activities), (2) publications summarizing
research (38% of activities), and (3) formal needs assessment (40% of
activities).

**Adoption of prevention activities** based on approaches that have been
demonstrated by research to be effective also can increase the chances
that an activity will be effective in a particular implementation.
Perhaps as a result of the limited use of research-based information on
effectiveness, only 33 percent of the prevention activities used methods
or approaches found to be effective in the research literature, and only
61 percent of the activities used research-based content.

**School-level Planning.** In addition to the planning of individual
prevention activities, many schools engaged in formal school-level
planning that successfully incorporated the elements of sound planning.
More than one-half of the schools (57%) have implemented "interventions
that involve a school planning structure or planning process to manage
change." These activities were more likely than other types of
activities to have as an objective improving school capacity for
self-management (e.g., by involving key individuals in planning for
school improvement).

The school planning structure or planning process activities include
many elements of strong planning. The vast majority of these activities
involve the following: (1) use of information about the school (91%),
(2) identification of goals (91%), (3) use of information about
effective practices (88%), (4) development of action plans (93%), (5)
monitoring of planned activities (88%), and (6) evaluation of outcomes
(91%). School planning activities were among the higher quality types of
activities, with 71 percent of the quality measures for these activities
being judged "adequate" (as opposed to 57% across measures for all
activities). (See Chapter 4.)

##  Sound Planning Is Related to High-quality Prevention Activities

As mentioned in Chapter 4, the use of certain planning approaches is
associated with higher quality prevention activities. Prevention
activities initiated by school insiders are more likely to be associated
with measures of higher quality programming than activities for which
the school district or researchers had greater responsibly for
initiation. Prevention activities that are developed locally or by
researchers also are more likely to be associated with measures of
strong implementation. Use of formal needs assessment and more extensive
searching for information about what will work best in the school is
associated with measures of stronger implementation. The latter type of
activities is especially likely to incorporate "best practices." (As
discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix B, Gottfredson Associates developed
criteria for best practices for a given type of prevention activity,
based on a review of the science-based literature.)

##  Problem Schools: Planning and Information

Problem schools and other schools tended to be similar on many aspects
of program initiation and original program development. (As discussed in
Chapter 2, problem schools were the schools with the highest levels of
serious violent crime reported to law enforcement.) An exception is that
school districts were more likely to start prevention activities for
problem middle schools than for other middle schools. Compared with
other middle schools, problem middle schools generally are more often
required to receive direction from school districts and are more likely
to receive some forms of assistance from them.

**Responsibility for Program Initiation and Original Development.**
School districts are more often responsible for starting prevention
programs or activities in problem middle schools than in other middle
schools. However, problem schools and other schools were similar on who
originally developed the school's prevention programs (local or external
parties or researchers). Problem high schools and other high schools
also were similar on all seven of the information sources used to select
prevention programs and on the average number of different information
sources used (2.5 for problem schools compared with 2.3 for other high
schools).

Problem middle schools and other middle schools were similar on
responsibility for starting school programs, original development of
school programs, and the type or amount of information sources sought to
select prevention programs.

**School District Direction and Influence.** In general, problem middle
schools are more likely than other middle schools to be located in
school districts that require schools to engage in certain types of
program planning and implementation activities. For example, when
selecting prevention programs or activities, 39 percent of problem
middle schools are located in districts that require schools to select
programs or activities from a district list compared with only 14
percent of other middle schools. (See Figure 5-1.) Problem middle
schools also are more likely to be located in districts require to

**Figure 5-1. Percentage of problem schools and other schools in
districts reporting mandated school**

![](media/image23.wmf) **planning of prevention activities \-- 1997-98
school year**

schools to conduct some type of needs assessment or evaluation (64%
compared with 35%). A larger percentage of problem middle schools (80%)
than other middle schools (52%) are located in districts that require
schools to prepare plans specifying how prevention resources will be
used. In contrast, a much lower percentage of problem high schools than
other high schools (28% compared with 63%) are located in districts that
require schools to write progress reports.

**Services and Resources Provided by School Districts.** Problem middle
schools are as likely as other middle schools to be located in school
districts that provide training to schools on program implementation.
However, a higher percentage of problem high schools than other high
schools are located in districts that provide training on program
implementation. (See Figure 5-2.) Roughly equal percentages of problem
schools at both the middle school and high school levels are located in
school districts that provide training on program planning and
development. A higher percentage of problem middle schools than other
middle schools also are located in school districts that provide
assistance with conducting needs assessments (96% compared with 83%).
While more problem middle schools are located in school districts that
provide program evaluation assistance (95% of problem schools compared
with 79% of other schools), approximately the same percentage of problem
high schools and other high schools are located in school districts
providing this assistance.

**Figure 5-2. Percentage of problem schools and other schools in
districts providing support for**

**school planning of prevention activities \-- 1997-98 school year**

![](media/image24.wmf)

# 6. FUNDING FOR PREVENTION EFFORTS IN SCHOOLS

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) program is
the most frequently used source of funding for district prevention
programming. Many districts also draw on a wide variety of other
federal, state, and local funding sources to support their prevention
activities. Districts use their SDFSCA funding for diverse prevention
activities, including direct activities for students (e.g., prevention
and instruction) and indirect activities (e.g., staff training).
Districts for the majority of schools believe that SDFSCA funding is
important to maintaining their prevention programming; a smaller
proportion of principals indicated that this funding actually helped to
increase the safety and orderliness of their school, or to prevent
problem behavior.

This chapter is based on the results of surveys of principals and
program providers and school district officials for our national
probability sample of schools. The information from school district
officials is for middle schools and high schools only; the information
from principals and program providers is for elementary schools, middle
schools, and high schools. School district officials, typically the
prevention coordinator or coordinator for the SDFSCA program, reported
on how the districts for the middle schools and high schools
participating in the study funded their prevention programs; we report
the results in terms of the districts for given percentages of secondary
schools nationally. Principals and program providers reported on aspects
of how they funded their activities or programs; we report the results
in terms of the percentage of schools nationally.

##  SDFSCA is the Most Widely Used Source of Funding for Prevention Activities, though the Districts for Many Schools Also Receive Funding from Other Sources

SDFSCA was the most widely used funding source for prevention activities
in schools. Districts for approximately 98 percent of schools
nationally, public and private, provided prevention activities that were
funded by SDFSCA. School principals and program providers within schools
often are unaware that their prevention activities are funded by SDFSCA.
For example, only 58 percent of principals knew that their schools
receive SDFSCA-funded resources. This information conflicts with reports
by school district SDFSCA coordinators (for 88% of schools nationally)
indicating that **all** public schools in their district provided
SDFSCA-funded prevention services to students. We view the discrepancy
as reflecting the difficulty school principals have in distinguishing
among different types of services and funding received from their
districts.

Students attending private schools are less likely to receive
SDFSCA-funded prevention activities than students attending public
schools. SDFSCA coordinators report that, although all or many students
received SDFSCA-funded services at 92 percent of public schools, all or
many students received such services at only 44 percent of private
schools.[^9]

In addition to SDFSCA, districts draw on many other sources of funding
for prevention activities in schools. The most frequent other sources
are general state funds (districts for 41% of schools), state funds
specially earmarked for prevention (districts for 31% of schools), and
federal funds besides SDFSCA funds (districts for 31% of schools). In
addition to these funding sources, 51 percent of districts received
in-kind contributions (e.g., photocopying of program materials); and, in
88 percent of districts, parents volunteered time (e.g., to assist with
mentoring efforts).

##  Districts Use SDFSCA Funds to Support a Wide Variety of Prevention Activities

School districts use SDFSCA funds to support a broad range of prevention
activities. To some degree, SDFSCA funds support all of the types of
prevention efforts described in Chapters 3 and 4. In districts for
nearly 50 percent of schools nationally (49%), SDFSCA funds supported
prevention instruction or training to a great or very great extent.
Other activities that received a high degree of SDFSCA support include
counseling (districts for 43% of schools), prevention activities to
improve instructional practices in classrooms (districts for 42% of
schools), training or staff development (districts for 40% of schools),
and behavioral programming or behavior modification (districts for 29%
of schools). Activities that focus on architectural or structural
features of the school were least supported by SDFSCA funds (districts
for 4% of schools). The type of effort that received the most SDFSCA
support from school districts was provision of information about
violence, drug use, other risky behaviors, or the availability of
prevention services (districts for 60% of schools).

Districts also used SDFSCA funds to support prevention-related
activities other than direct activities for students. These activities,
which were funded in whole or in part by SDFSCA, include team building
or organization development (districts for 45% of schools), assistance
with conducting needs assessment (districts for 51% of schools),
assistance in program planning (districts for 63% of schools), and
assistance with program evaluation (districts for 58% of schools).
Although many districts do provide these activities entirely without
SDFSCA funds---for example, districts for 42 percent of schools fund
team building or organization development with only non-SDFSCA
funds---SDFSCA funds play a major role in the needs assessment,
planning, and evaluation assistance that districts provide to their
schools

Districts varied on how they allocated SDFSCA resources across their
schools. Most often districts used these funds to make prevention
activities available to all schools districtwide (districts for 54% of
schools). Districts also targeted funds based on school needs (districts
for 22% of schools), used a formula to allocate funds (districts for 11%
of schools), and required schools to apply for funds (districts for 5%
of schools).

##  SDFSCA Funding is Very Important to District Prevention Programming

District officials for 82 percent of schools report that SDFSCA funding
has helped to continue useful programs to a great or very great extent.
Districts for 72 percent of schools also report that SDFSCA funding has
been a great or very great help with initiating new types of programs.

In the 58 percent of schools for which principals report that SDFSCA
funds are used, nearly one-half of the principals (48%) said that SDFSCA
funds are very important to improving or maintaining the safety and
orderliness of their school or are very important in preventing problem
behavior.

# 7. CONCLUSIONS

One of the central findings of the Study on School Violence and
Prevention is that while, on average, schools nationally are
implementing a large number of prevention efforts, the quality of those
efforts is low. In this chapter, we briefly examine the implications of
that finding for policy and research. We also suggest approaches to
increasing the quality of school-based prevention.

##  Shift Resources to Emphasize Quality over Quantity

As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, we were struck by both the large
number of prevention activities in operation in schools and by the low
quality of those efforts. For example, schools implemented a median of
14 different activities, but fewer than 60 percent of activities in
certain categories met adequacy criteria.

The balance between quality and quantity of prevention efforts seems to
have shifted to quantity. Given limited resources for prevention, we
urge a shift back to quality. Fewer but higher quality activities may
help schools and districts to achieve their goals better. For example,
one of the quality dimensions on which activities fared least well is
number of lessons or sessions: only 37 percent of activities were judged
adequate on these criteria. One can argue that directing resources to
increasing the number of lessons for the otherwise strongest
activities\--even if it means discontinuing weaker activities\--is
justified.

In our view, willingness to choose carefully among the activities to
adopt, retain, or discard is the starting point for improving
school-based prevention. The remainder of our conclusions assumes that
administrators, particularly at the school and district levels, have
this willingness.

##  Improve Program Planning and Monitoring

In addition to focusing resources on fewer but stronger activities,
administrators may be wise to increase the amount of resources allocated
to planning and monitoring prevention activities. We found that planning
for individual activities was fairly weak overall. For example, schools
used formal need assessments as a source in selecting only 40 percent of
activities; they used publications summarizing research as a source for
selecting only 38 percent of activities. Also, only 61 percent of
activities met adequacy criteria for using best practices for content;
only 33 percent met criteria for using best practices for methods.

To help make difficult decisions on adopting, retaining, or discarding
prevention activities, districts need to investigate better the research
evidence on the effectiveness of those activities. More and more guides
are becoming available that can facilitate these investigations,
including those developed by the Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence (1995), U.S. Department of Education (e.g., on exemplary and
promising programs), and Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (e.g., on
effective prevention programs). Besides using these guides to select new
effective activities, administrators should seriously consider using
them to critically examine ongoing strategies and eliminate those that
have little or no research support.

Administrators may also wish to increase emphasis on monitoring the
extent to which the implementation of research-based activities remains
true to the program model, or be willing to conduct their own outcome
evaluation to ensure that program objectives are being met. Clearly, an
important issue is balancing attempts to achieve fidelity to a program
model with the desire to tailor programming to local needs and
conditions. This is an area in which additional research would be
helpful, for example, in identifying how and the extent to which
different activities can be adapted before they lose fidelity.

##  Strengthen Factors Associated with Quality of Programming

The Study on School Violence and Prevention raises serious questions
about the overall quality of school-based prevention programming. We
found, for example, that several types of prevention activities were
judged adequate on fewer than 60 percent of quality criteria. In line
with focusing efforts better and allocating resources more wisely,
educators may wish to concentrate on efforts to improve quality.
Gottfredson et al. (2000) discuss findings from our collaborative study
on predictors of the quality and extensiveness of prevention activity.
They conclude that the most important predictors are: (1) extensiveness
and quality of training of the staff who implement activities; (2)
supervision of the activity; (3) principal support for the activity; (4)
degree of structure or scriptedness of the activities; (5) local
responsibility for initiating the activity; (6) use of multiple sources
of information on the activity, including district personnel and
experts; and (7) activity is a part of the regular school program. (See
Gottfredson et al, 2000, for a detailed discussion of these findings and
recommendations.)

Some of these predictors emphasize program management at the school
level, such as the extent of staff training for implementing program
activities and supervision of those activities. While strengthening
these factors may be obtainable for many schools and districts, they
will have costs (e.g., for additional staff time). Again, the costs
potentially could be met by focusing on fewer but stronger prevention
activities.

**APPENDIX A. study methods**

In this appendix, we provide detailed information on the study method
including: (1) sampling, (2) recruitment, (3) questionnaires, (4) data
collection, (5) response rates, (6) data processing, (7) weighting, and
(8) analysis.

####  Sampling

The sample was drawn from a commercial list of all public and private
schools in the United States (excluding schools in Puerto Rico and other
territories) maintained by Market Data Retrieval. The list incorporates
data from the National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of
Data, adds private schools, and provides additional information (such as
principal names).

We drew a stratified probability sample of schools, with nine strata
defined by the three instructional levels (elementary, middle, and
senior high school) and three levels of metropolitan status (rural,
suburban, and urban).[^10] Stratifying the sample on instructional level
and metropolitan status was desirable because we expected that
prevention activities would be likely to differ greatly on both of these
factors.

From each of the nine strata, 143 public and private schools (or 429
schools for each instructional level) were selected. (Private schools
account for 19% of the total sample: 23% of elementary schools, 2% of
middle schools, and 31% of high schools.) We hoped for a response rate
of approximately 85 percent for each of the screener and the detailed
data collection efforts, which would have yielded an overall response
rate of just over 70 percent or approximately 300 schools from each
instructional level. The sample sizes were chosen based on an analysis
of the relationship between the standard error of the mean and sample
sizes for each instructional level, since our study design called for
separate analyses for each level. The analyses revealed that large and
moderate gains in the efficiency of sample statistics could be made with
sample sizes up to about 300 schools per instructional level. Beyond
300, the gains in efficiency would be much more modest per additional
100 schools.

The reader should note that during data collection and analysis we
discovered that approximately 7 percent of schools had been assigned
inappropriate urbanicity classifications. In addition, approximately 1
percent of schools had been assigned inappropriate educational levels.
We also discovered that eight of our sampled schools were no longer
functioning as schools. However, these inappropriate assignments had a
negligible effect on sampling, weighting, and data analysis.

####  Recruitment

Recruitment consisted of several steps, including recruitment for the
first phase of data collection (or principal screener survey); and
state, district, and school recruitment for the second phase of data
collection.

**Recruitment for Principal Screening Survey.** Sample recruitment for
the first phase of data collection began in spring 1997 with a principal
screening survey questionnaire that was mailed to all sampled schools.
The mailing included a letter from the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) describing the study, and letters of endorsement from the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) and the National
Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). Schools that did
not return completed questionnaires were prompted through the summer and
fall of 1997 by telephone and mail, including overnight mail service.

**State Recruitment.** For the second phase of data collection, the
first step in the recruitment process was to contact each state's
superintendent's office and the state SDFSCA coordinators. Materials
were mailed to both chief state school officers (CSSO) and all state
SDFSCA coordinators in October 1997. Each package included letters from
ED and NIJ describing the study, letters of endorsement from NASSP and
NAESP, list of the sampled districts and schools in their state, and
copy of the study brochure. Westat staff telephoned the CSSO offices to
confirm receipt of the materials and to follow up on any questions.

**District Recruitment**. Next, we approached the school districts in
which the sampled schools were located. Recruitment materials were
mailed to district superintendents in November 1997. Depending on
information previously gathered on district policies, different
recruitment packages were sent to districts. For most districts, the
mailing included a letter describing study activities and requesting
permission for the sampled school(s) to participate in the study; for
districts whose sampled school(s) indicated that it (they) had authority
to decide to participate, the mailing included a letter only describing
the study activities. (During the first phase of data collection,
principals had been asked to indicate whether or not they could approve
a student survey.) As needed, formal applications were submitted with
the other recruitment materials.

District recruitment was a lengthy and time-consuming process. Because
we had a probability sample of schools, without any clustering of
schools within school districts, we approached more than 500 districts
regarding participation of schools in their districts. In most cases,
only one school in a district had been sampled and the most
time-consuming part of recruitment was contacting the appropriate
district official. Another complication was that recruitment efforts
identified additional districts that should have initially been sent
formal applications.

Some recruitment was conducted by a refusal conversion team. After
recruiters had seemingly exhausted avenues of approach, the tough cases
were turned over to project staff who were more experienced in working
with school districts. These staff approached all refusing districts and
requested they reconsider their decision not to participate. Much
district-level refusal conversion was underway just after a tragic
school shooting; in light of those events, some officials did agree to
participate.

Recruitment of the formal application districts was also managed by
experienced project staff. Those districts were telephoned 10 days after
the applications were submitted and repeatedly telephoned until approval
was granted or refused. Some districts were very responsive to our
applications and made a decision within 6 weeks. Other districts
required repeated contacting.

**School Recruitment**. As soon as a district agreed to participate,
efforts to recruit the school(s) in that district began. Making initial
contact with principals was somewhat easier than reaching district
officials, though it was still time intensive. Once reached, the
principals were asked to participate. Some principals requested copies
of study materials before giving consent. Other principals expressed
hesitation about surveying students. Where necessary, recruiters were
permitted to drop the student survey component so as not to lose the
school's participation completely. After principals agreed to
participate, the recruiters explained what participation would involve
and asked the principal to name an individual who could act as school
coordinator. Principals were then sent a confirmation letter thanking
them for agreeing to participate. School coordinators were provided with
a stipend of \$100 to compensate them for work on the study that
occurred outside of regular business hours.

We successfully recruited 220 elementary schools and 458 middle and high
schools to participate in the study. An additional 80 schools had
initially agreed to participate, but were unable to do so.

####  Questionnaires

Data collection was primarily conducted using instruments developed by
Gottfredson Associates. The instrument used to collect information from
school district officials was developed by Westat. Specifics on the data
collected from each type of respondent are as follows:

-   **Principals** completed screening instruments[^11] that identified
    all prevention activities in the sampled school.

-   **Principals** provided information on the school's discipline
    policy and management of student behavior. They also reported on (1)
    discipline practices, (2) school demography, (3) their leadership
    style, (4) biographical information, (5) origins of programs, (6)
    costs and funding sources for programs, (7) staffing stability,
    and (8) organizational capacity.

-   **Program providers** completed activity detail questionnaires**.**
    Fourteen questionnaires\--one for each type of prevention
    activity\--collected detailed information on the implementation of
    each prevention effort. They also collected information on the
    formal planning efforts that schools initiate to improve school
    management and on the funding sources for violence prevention
    efforts. Topics included (1) content, (2) objectives, (3) level of
    use, (4) duration and frequency of exposure, (5) time and place, (6)
    target population, (7) size of group, (8) training, (9) cultural
    appropriateness, (10) sources of funding, (11) obstacles to
    implementation, (12) characteristics of provider, and (13)
    biographical information.

-   **Teachers**[^12] reported on student behaviors in class; personal
    safety; school climate, including the relationships between
    administrators and teachers, how they perceived administrators and
    the rest of the teaching staff, and ability of staff to collaborate
    and work together toward shared goals and objectives; and
    information on the school's programs and practices to prevent
    problem behavior or to increase school safety or orderliness.

-   **Students**[^13] also reported on their exposure to prevention
    efforts and on personal victimization at school and their
    perceptions of school safety. In addition, the student survey
    collected information on demographics; educational plans and
    efforts; students' access to, and experiences with, drug use,
    violence, and other delinquent behavior; school climate, including
    fairness of rules and their enforcement; and correlates of problem
    behavior.

-   **School district officials**[^14] provided information on
    interactions with schools and the school personnel that operate
    prevention programming; amount and sources of prevention funding
    received by the district, distribution of funds to schools in the
    district, and limitations on uses of funding; and planning and
    evaluation of prevention programs.

####  Data Collection for the Second Phase

Conducting principal, provider, teacher, student, and district surveys
was a complex task. Again, elementary schools were treated differently
than middle and high schools, in that elementary schools were excluded
from the teacher and student surveys.

**Surveying Elementary School Staff.** The principal was the first
contact at elementary schools. He or she was asked to confirm that
prevention activities reported in the screener survey were still in
place. The provider and principal surveys were then sent to the school.
Follow-up contacts were made when completed questionnaires were not
quickly returned. In some cases, project staff asked the principal to
name an individual to coordinate data collection efforts.

**Surveying Middle and High School Staff and Students.** When principals
committed their schools to participating, they were asked to name an
individual to serve as the school coordinator. In some cases, the
principal was able to identify a coordinator immediately or chose to
assume the coordinators' role themselves; in other cases, recruiters
called back to learn who would serve as the coordinator. Principals were
told that the coordinator could be anyone from a school counselor to a
parent volunteer; and, if necessary, we would send Westat field staff to
administer the surveys. No principals chose the Westat field staff
option.

Once coordinators were identified, they were asked to complete a program
review form to confirm that the prevention activities reported
previously were still in place and a coordinator checklist that
collected information about the student body (such as number of students
per grade, average daily attendance, and percentage of students unable
to read English at a sixth grade level). The checklist also collected
information on the number of teachers at the school, expected student
survey date, and last day of school. Finally, coordinators were asked to
send a copy of their student roster so that we could sample students to
be surveyed.

We began sending study materials to middle and high schools in March
1998, soon after the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance was
received. Data collection at elementary schools conducted by Gottfredson
Associates under the NIJ grant had begun earlier.[^15] These materials
included an instruction manual for the coordinator, parental consent
materials, questionnaires, answer sheets, cover letters to school staff,
confidentiality envelopes, and machine-readable pencils for the student
survey.

For the **staff survey,** the coordinator was instructed to distribute
teacher questionnaires with our cover letter, an answer sheet, and a
confidentiality envelope. They were given forms on which teachers were
supposed to enter their names after completing the questionnaire. The
coordinator's responsibilities also included distributing the principal
questionnaires, and questionnaires to individuals who coordinated
prevention activities (providers). For some schools, we selected a
subset of program questionnaires for providers to complete. This
generally was done where one person was responsible for coordinating
multiple prevention activities.

For the **district official survey,** questionnaires were sent to SDFSCA
coordinators as soon as school recruitment was complete. We only
requested the participation of district officials in districts where at
least one middle or high school was participating in the study. (The
original analysis plan called for only analysis of data from middle and
high schools for our report to ED. Information from elementary schools
is also presented in this report.) Before questionnaires were mailed,
every effort was made to identify the appropriate respondent. In a
number of cases, the individual we had been told was the appropriate
respondent was not, so we sent replacement questionnaires. District
questionnaires were sent with cover letters and postage paid return
envelopes. Respondents were prompted by mail and telephone to return
surveys.

For the **student survey,** Westat staff developed a sampling algorithm
that considered average daily attendance, percentage of students with
low English proficiency, and expected response rate, and computed how
many students needed to be sampled to yield 50 completed surveys. At
schools with fewer than 50 students, all students were surveyed. After
computing the sample size, the algorithm indicated which students should
be selected (e.g., students 1, 7, 12, and 18). To get as representative
a sample of the student body as possible, the roster was stratified by
gender (or grade where gender stratification was not possible), and
separate samples were drawn. We then selected the appropriate students
from the roster and typed up the list of sampled students for mailing to
the school with survey materials.

In accordance with Westat's IRB, the parental consent materials were
passive in nature. That is, if parents did not want their children to
participate in the study, they could either call Westat's toll free
hotline or return the consent postcard to us and we would notify the
school of their decision; some schools instructed parents to call the
coordinator directly to refuse consent. We asked that coordinators mail
parental consent letters to the parents of sampled students two weeks
before data collection was scheduled. We provided a letter to parents,
envelopes for the mailing, a return postcard, and stamps. We suggested
that, in addition to the letter from the study directors, schools
enclose a cover letter introducing the study, and we also included a
suggested format. Parents of approximately six percent of the sampled
students refused to allow their children to participate.

To minimize student absenteeism, we requested that students not be
surveyed on Mondays or Fridays and that they be surveyed toward the
middle of the school day. Another important instruction to the
coordinator was that students should be instructed to meet in place A
where they were to be read a description of the study and be invited to
go to place B if they agreed to participate. We asked coordinators to
take this step so that students would truly know that their
participation in the study was voluntary.

After allowing students the opportunity to refuse their consent, the
coordinators distributed the questionnaires, answer sheets,
confidentiality envelopes, and machine-readable pencils to the
participating students. To protect student confidentiality, we asked
that students [not]{.underline} record their names on the answer sheets.
In addition, we implemented procedures to discourage efforts to link
personal identifying demographic information and other questionnaire
responses. Demographic information was collected on the top part of the
answer sheet; all other information was collected on the bottom part of
the answer sheet. Students were instructed to separate the top and
bottom parts of the answer sheet, seal the bottom part in the
confidentiality envelope, and turn the top part in separately. While the
answer sheets could be linked in analysis via machine-readable symbols,
doing so manually would have been very difficult.

####  Response Rates

Of the 1,287 schools originally drawn from the Market Data Retrieval
list, 69 percent completed the principal screener questionnaire in the
first phase of data collection. The main reasons reported by principals
for nonresponse include lack of time or interest and excessive
respondent burden. These school-level response rates for the principal
screener questionnaire are shown in Table A-1.

**Table A-1. School-level response rates for the first phase of data
collection**

  ---------------------------------------- -------------- ---------------
  **Disposition**                          **Schools**    

                                           **Number**     **Percent**

  Complete                                 886            69

  Nonresponse                              401            31

  Total sample                             1,287          100
  ---------------------------------------- -------------- ---------------

Because of the late start of recruitment and our inability to start data
collection in middle and high schools until March when OMB clearance was
received, fewer schools than desired were able to participate in the
post-screener phase of data collection. Table A-2 illustrates the school
level participation rates for the post-screener data collection. The
response rate for schools that had previously completed the principal
screener questionnaire was 77 percent.

**Table A-2. School-level participation rates for the second phase of
data collection**

  --------------------- ------------ ---------- --------------- ------------
                        All schools             Schools         
                                                participating   
                                                in screener     
                                                survey\*        

                        Number       Percent    Number          Percent

  Participate           678          53         678             77

  Refuse                609          47         208             23

  Total sample          1,287        100        886             100
  --------------------- ------------ ---------- --------------- ------------

\*We excluded 101 schools from the second phase of data collection due
to district refusal.

Furthermore, not all the schools that participated were able to provide
all the requested types of data. Table A-3 shows that 72 percent of
eligible schools (i.e., those that had completed a principal screener
questionnaire) provided principal data. Table A-4 shows that the
provider response rate was 52 percent, Table A-5 shows the teacher
response rate was 67 percent, and Table A-6 illustrates that the student
response rate was 73 percent.

**Table A-3. Principal response rate**

  ------------------------------ -------------- --------------------------
  **Disposition**                **School**     

                                 **Number**     **Percent of eligible
                                                schools\***

  Complete                       634            72

  Nonresponse                    252            28

  Total schools                  886            100
  ------------------------------ -------------- --------------------------

\*Schools were eligible if they completed a screener survey form..

**Table A-4. Provider response rate**

  ----------------------------- -------------- ---------------------------
  **Disposition**               **Provider**   

                                **Number**     **Percent of eligible
                                               programs\***

  Completed                     3,691          52

  Nonresponse                   3,413          48

  Total sampled                 7,104          100
  ----------------------------- -------------- ---------------------------

\*Programs were eligible if they completed a screener survey form.

Reasons for provider nonresponse include the following:

-   Coordinator never distributed the questionnaires;

-   Appropriate respondent was ill; and

-   Could not locate appropriate respondent (e.g., appropriate
    respondent was not school staff and had completed work at the school
    for the year).

**Table A-5. Teacher response rate**

  -------------------------- -------------- ------------------------------
  **Disposition**            **Teachers**   

                             **Number**     **Percent of eligible
                                            teachers\***

  Complete                   13,842         67

  Refusal                    4,719          23

  Nonresponse                1,470          7

  Other                      746            3

  Total teachers             20,777         100
  -------------------------- -------------- ------------------------------

\*Six teachers were ineligible.

Most of the nonresponse was a result of questionnaires not being
distributed to all teachers. Reasons for "other" include the following:

-   Teachers, who were also program providers, completed only provider
    questionnaires,

-   Answer sheets completed in pen were unusable, and

-   Transmittal not returned explaining reasons for incomplete surveys.

**Table A-6. Student response rate**

  --------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------
                              **Students**     

  **Disposition**             **Number**       **Percent of eligible
                                               students\***

  Complete                    17,181           73

  Refusal                     762              3

  Parent refusal              1,307            6

  Absent                      416              2

  Nonresponse                 2,254            10

  Other                       1,629            7

  Total sampled               23,549           100
  --------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------

\*Six hundred and three students were ineligible.

Coordinators indicated that much of the student nonresponse was due to
teachers not releasing students from class to participate in the survey.
In addition, approximately 3 percent of students refused to participate,
in addition to those whose parents refused their consent. The exact
nature of nonresponse was not reported for nearly 7 percent of the
eligible sampled students.

We believe that both the student and teacher response rates would have
been higher had field staff gone to the schools to collect the survey
data; however, some schools might have refused to participate if a
condition of participating was having an outsider come into the school
to conduct data collection. We also believe that overall participation
would have been greater if we had been able to send survey materials to
these schools as soon as they had agreed to participate.

Relatively low response rates increase the potential for nonresponse
bias. To examine this issue, Gottfredson et al. (2000) analyzed the
associations between participating in several of the data collection
components (e.g., screener, principal, teacher, and student surveys) and
the characteristics of schools and the communities in which they are
located (based on 1990 Census data aggregated at the zip code level).
These associations indicate a relatively strong association between
nonresponse and urban location. That is, nonresponse tended to be higher
for schools located in predominantly urban areas. School auspices
(public, Catholic, or private sectarian or nonsectarian) also is
strongly associated with nonresponse: Private schools tended to have
higher levels of nonresponse than public or Catholic schools. Hence,
schools located in urban areas and private schools are underrepresented
in the responding schools. We sought to correct for the
underepresentation through nonresponse adjustments to weights. However,
to the extent that the nonresponding differed from other schools on the
variables of interest, their absence may still influence the study
results.

####  Data Processing

Processing the data that was returned from schools was done in three
steps. First, clerks sorted the contents of each box. This was somewhat
time intensive because all respondents had been instructed to seal
questionnaires in confidentiality envelopes that then had to be opened.
The second step was to log the contents of each box and note differences
between expected data and actual data. These differences were resolved
by the recruitment staff. In some cases, reasons for discrepancies were
noted; in other cases, replacement surveys were sent to the school.

The third data processing step was to actually process the data. The
principal and provider surveys were coded and keyed into a database at
Gottfredson Associates. The school district surveys were coded and keyed
into a database at Westat. The teacher and student answer sheets were
processed by an optical scanning machine (also at Westat). The student
forms were processed in their two component pieces. A program was
written to match both halves of each data form. The program was unable
to match all data forms, for example, because some students had marked
in the machine-readable identification code. A clerk sorted through all
of the data forms to resolve these problems.

####  Weighting

Weights were developed by project statisticians to reflect differential
probabilities of selection and to adjust for nonresponse. The study
weights are as follows:

-   Screener 1 school-level nonresponse adjusted weights---to describe
    school characteristics,

-   Screener 2 school-level nonresponse adjusted weights---to describe
    activity characteristics,

-   Screener 3 school-level nonresponse adjusted weights---to describe
    activity characteristics (these weights incorporated supplemental
    data gathered during the detailed phase of data collection),

-   Detailed principal questionnaire school-level nonresponse adjusted
    weights---to describe school and principal characteristics,

-   School district questionnaire school-level nonresponse adjusted
    weights (adjusted with respect to school and school district
    official response rates)---to describe school characteristics,

-   Student questionnaire **respondent-level** nonresponse adjusted
    weights---to describe characteristics of **students** nationally,

-   Student questionnaire **school-level** nonresponse adjusted
    weights---to describe characteristics of **schools** nationally,

-   Teacher questionnaire **respondent-level** nonresponse adjusted
    weights---to describe characteristics of **teachers** nationally,

-   Teacher questionnaire **school-level** nonresponse adjusted
    weights---to describe characteristics of **schools** nationally,

-   Activity (provider[^16]) questionnaire **activity-level**
    nonresponse adjusted weights---to describe characteristics of
    prevention activities nationally, and

-   Activity (provider) questionnaire **school-level** nonresponse
    adjusted weights---to describe characteristics of schools
    nationally,

The computation of these weights was a multistage process. First,
base-weights were developed for every sampled school based on the
probability with which the school was sampled. Then, a nonresponse
adjustment was applied to the base-weights for each type of set of
school-level weights (one for each instrument) to compensate for the
number of schools that did not participate in that aspect of data
collection. For the types of instruments that were completed by multiple
respondents at a school, a respondent base-weight (based on the number
of possible respondents) was created. Then, a second nonresponse
adjustment was applied to the respondent-level base-weights to
compensate for nonresponse within a school, in the case of student and
teacher weights; or within category, in the case of the activity
weights. Additionally, before the within respondent student and teacher
nonresponse adjustments, an algorithm was applied to help decide whether
or not each school had sufficient responses to consider the school
responding in that category.

**School-level Nonresponse Adjustment.** The nonresponse adjustments
were performed for all data types by forming nonresponse cells at the
school level based on sampling strata and the predictors of school-level
response propensity. The predictors of school-level response included
school size, type of school (i.e., public and Catholic schools versus
other types of private schools), and grade levels covered by the school
(i.e., whether a high school served 10th through 12th graders or some
other combination of grade levels).

**Multiple Respondent Response Rate Adjustment.** For students,
teachers, and program providers to represent their universes (i.e., all
middle and high school students, all middle and high school teachers,
all prevention activities nationally), the respondent level files were
adjusted based on within unit sampling fractions. As noted, student
samples were drawn with the intent of receiving 50 completed student
questionnaires, regardless of whether the school had 50 students or
5,000 students. Hence, each responding student typically represented a
number of other students in the school. Within each school, student
weights were also adjusted based on how many of the sampled students
actually responded.

We had asked that all teachers in each middle and high school complete
teacher questionnaires. Some schools did, in fact, return surveys for
100 percent of the teachers, but more typically, 60 percent to 80
percent of teachers participated. Within each school, the teacher
base-weights were adjusted for the nonresponding teachers.

As noted, more than 8,000 prevention activities were named by school
principals. Project staff decided to ask a school to complete one
provider survey within a given category. Hence, only 7,104 provider
surveys were actually sent to schools. In addition, within a school, we
sometimes drew a subsample of surveys so as not to overburden program
providers. Weights were adjusted for these factors and for nonresponse
within each of the 14 categories of prevention activities.

**Respondent-level Nonresponse Adjustment.** The respondent-level,
nonresponse adjustment was done separately for the student, teacher, and
provider (activity) surveys. For the student survey, the
respondent-level, nonresponse adjustment was a multistage process.
Student sampling had generally been performed by stratifying students by
either grade or gender; hence, these were critical values for the
weighting process. In some cases, because of data loss from the
perforated student response forms, a respondent's grade and gender were
not known. Missing values for grade and gender were "replaced" with
imputed values. We then dropped students who had responded to less than
80 percent of the data items. After dropping these deficient records, a
nonresponse adjustment was performed based on either gender or grade
level, depending on how the sample was drawn. Hence, the responding male
students in a school, for example, represented all male students in that
school. This adjustment was performed only on schools judged to have a
sufficient response rate. The response criterion was as follows: (1)
total number of students in a school is 11 or more and the estimated
proportion of responding students is more than 40 percent, or (2) total
number of students in a school is less than 11 and the proportion of
responding students is more than 70 percent.

In computing weights for the teacher survey, teachers who responded to a
low number of items in the teacher questionnaire (less than 60%) were
treated as nonrespondents. Then school response status was assigned
based on the number and proportion of responding teachers in each
sampled school. A school was defined as a responding school with regard
to the teacher survey if (1) total number of teachers in a school is 12
or more and the proportion of responding teachers is 25 percent or more;
or (2) total number of teachers in a school is less than 12 and the
proportion of responding teachers is 50 percent or more. By this rule,
we defined about 5 percent of schools with at least one responding
teacher as nonrespondents.

The procedure for the activity-level nonresponse adjustment was similar
to the procedure for the respondent level non-response adjustment.

####  Analysis

Once the data were cleaned and weighted, Gottfredson Associates and
Westat staff conducted three types of analyses. These are: (1) data
reduction and psychometric analysis (e.g., reliability and validity
analysis); (2) descriptive statistics (e.g., measures of central
tendency, dispersion, maximum and minimum values, and frequencies); and
(3) inferential statistics (e.g., tests of differences between groups).
Although each technique is potentially very useful, regardless of the
statistical procedures used, none can be used to establish cause and
effect relationships.

One of the first steps in conducting the data analysis was to create
composite measures made up of several different questions from a given
questionnaire. Many of these measures had been used in earlier studies
or designed as part of instrument development by Gottfredson Associates.
Gottfredson Associates staff also performed psychometric (reliability
and validity) analyses to assess the reliability and validity of the
measures. They examined internal consistency measures such as Cronbach's
alpha and/or split-half correlations on the measures.

In order to describe characteristics of the prevention activities,
schools, and the districts, we computed descriptive statistics. These
statistics, which primarily used weighted data, included frequencies and
measures of central tendency (such as the mean or median) for individual
questionnaire items and composite scores. The descriptive statistics
were also broken down by instructional level, urbanicity, and other
variables of interest.

In addition to descriptive statistics, we computed inferential
statistics to examine whether or not a statistical relationship occurred
by chance. While some of the research questions for the study were
easily answered using descriptive statistics, others can only be
answered using inferential statistics. These analyses focused on
associations between continuous variables (e.g., correlations) and
differences between groups (e.g., chi-square tests and t-tests). To
perform the inferential analyses correctly with weighted data, we used
WesVar^®^ for Complex Samples, which is a special software application
that was designed by Westat to correctly calculate standard errors when
using weighted data.

**APPENDIX B. METHODS AND CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE ADEQUACY OF
PREVENTION PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES**

This appendix describes our approach to assessing the quality of
school-based prevention programs or activities and the quality of
school-wide discipline practices. It includes a description of the
adequacy cut points (criteria) that we used in the assessment of
quality.

####  Quality of School-Based Prevention Programing and Criteria Used to Judge Adequacy

For the Study on School Violence and Prevention, Westat and Gottfredson
Associates (GA) sought to assess the quality of school-based prevention
programming. This entailed several critical steps, including: (1)
defining 10 dimensions that are on rational or empirical grounds
expected to influence the likelihood that a program will achieve a
measurable effect; (2) within each dimension and separately for 14
categories of prevention programs (e.g., prevention curriculum,
instruction, or training; recreation, enrichment, or leisure; and
mentoring), establishing criteria for the designation of "adequate"
quality; and (3) comparing implementer reports about operating programs
against the criteria. In other words, we conducted a criterion-based
assessment, judging quality by comparing program performance against
standards.

Concern with the measurement of quality is based on the findings of
research that indicates that the quality of program implementation, in
prevention programs and educational innovations more broadly, can be
highly variable and is critical to achieving desired effects. For
example, G. D. Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Czeh, Cantor, Crosse, and
Hantman (2000) refer to research conducted by Botvin, Baker, Dusenbury,
Tortu, and Botvin (1990) that found tremendous variability in the
fidelity of implementation of Life Skills Training and the deleterious
effects of poor implementation. More extensive discussions of the
problem of poor program implementation and program ineffectiveness may
be found in reports by D. C. Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Skroban (1998);
D. C. Gottfredson, Fink, Skroban, & Gottfredson, 1997; G. D.
Gottfredson, Jones, & Gore (in press); and Jones, Gottfredson, &
Gottfredson (1997).

No comprehensive measures of program quality applicable to all kinds of
programs have ever been developed. To meet the need for survey-based
measures of quality in the present research, we have defined quality in
terms of 10 indicators that capture both program intensity and adherence
to best practices. These dimensions are as follows: (1) level of use by
school personnel, (2) best practices for content, (3) best practices for
methods, (4) frequency of operation, (5) number of lessons or sessions,
(6) duration, (7) frequency of student participation, (8) frequency of
staff participation, 9) ratio of providers to students in the schools,
and (10) proportion of students exposed or participating. Hence, an
adequate or "good" prevention program (i.e., program that is likely to
achieve measurable effects) is one that achieves a specific minimum
threshold on each of these dimensions. These 10 measures of program
quality and the range of responses appear in Table B-1.

**Table B-1. Measures of program quality**

  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------
  **Measures**             **Possible range of responses**

  Level of use by school   Ranges from "1" (at least one person in the
  personnel                school knows something about it) to "5" (one
                           or more persons is conducting the activity on
                           a regular basis)

  Best practices for       Ranges from 0 to 100 percent\*
  methods                  

  Best practices for       Ranges from 0 to 100 percent\*
  content                  

  Frequency of operation   Ranges from "1" (special occasions once or
                           twice a year) to "3" (continually throughout
                           the year)

  Number of lessons and    This question had an open response category in
  sessions                 which the respondent could write in the exact
                           number of lessons or sessions

  Duration                 Ranges from "1" (less than a day) to "7" (more
                           than a full school year)

  Frequency of             Ranges from "1" (monthly or less often) to "6"
  participation by         (more than once a day)
  students                 

  Frequency of             Ranges from "1" (monthly or less often) to "6"
  participation by staff   (more than once a day)

  Ratio of providers to    100 (ln(*N*~p~/*N*~s~+1)), where *N*~p~=
  students in the school   number of persons providing the service and
                           *N*~s~= the number of students in the school

  Proportion of students   Generally, N~e~/N~s~, where N~e~= number of
  exposed or participating students exposed or participating and N~s~=
                           number of students in the school. For the
                           category youth participation in school
                           decision making, N~e~= disciplinary incidents
                           handled by student court of peer mediation and
                           N~s~= disciplinary incidents handled by
                           student court, peer mediation, or the
                           administration
  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\* Scores for the best practices scales are the proportion of the
identified best practices (content or methods) reportedly used in a
particular activity or program. For example, for the program activity
prevention curriculum, instruction, or training, the program provider
was asked about the use of 10 best practices, such as use of rewards for
group accomplishments, student recognition for effort expended, and
assessment of student mastery and reteaching material not mastered.
Following this example, if a program provider reported using 4 of the 10
best practices, the curriculum, instruction, or training program would
receive a score of 0.40 (4 divided by 10) for the best practices for
methods measure.

The importance of some of these indicators is self-evident. Level of use
of a program is important, because if no one is using a program it can
have no influence. Frequency of staff participation is important for the
same reason. If school personnel seldom operate a program, it cannot
have much effect on anything. Interventions of very brief duration
cannot be expected to have much influence on levels of problem behavior
(which tends to be enduring characteristics of persons and subject to
powerful influences by peers) on the basis of rational analysis as well
as general evidence about the relation of dose to program effectiveness
(Lipsey, 1992). Accordingly, number of lessons, duration, and frequency
of student participation are obviously related to a program's potential
to influence problem behavior. Other indicators of potential program
quality are more tentative. We measured the proportion of students
exposed to or participating in programs on the grounds that an
intervention that reaches only a small number of individuals will
generally leave most of the population unaffected. Ratio of providers to
students is a similar indicator: if a very large number of students
relative to the number of providers engage in a prevention activitiy,
that program's influence is likely to be diluted.

The importance of other indicators is induced from a reading of the
literature reporting on evaluations of specific programs. For
instructional programs, meta-analytic literature reviews (Tobler, 1986;
Tobler & Stratton, 1997) as well as an examination of the primary
literature imply that programs involving the use of cognitive-behavioral
instructional approaches tend to be more effective that programs that
omit these approaches (also called "interactive" approaches by Tobler).
In some areas, a research literature makes the identification of a least
some "best practices" an unambiguous task. This is certainly true for
instruction, behavioral, and classroom management programs where a great
deal of literature exists on effective interventions (see generally
Slavin, 1997, on instruction; Emmer, Evertson, Clements, & Worsham,
1994, on classroom management; and Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995, on
behavioral interventions).

In other areas, little or no scientific literature is available to guide
the induction of best practices. This is true of recreation or
enrichment activities, for example, where no credible literature implies
the effectiveness of such programs for preventing problem behavior and
very little in the way of published guidance or recommendations from
experienced practitioners. In such cases, we specified no best practices
and measured none in the present research.

Between these two extremes are program areas where guidance in the form
of established professional opinion exists. For example, counselors,
social workers, and school psychologists in training are taught to base
intervention on an assessment of the problem, establish treatment goals,
and follow up on progress. This guidance did form the basis of
specification of some best practices, because it is sensible to regard
an intervention with objectives as likely to be more effective than one
without objectives.

Because of the unevenness of the literature on best practices in
different categories of preventive intervention, best practices are not
measured in several of the categories. In these categories, the
assessment of quality rests solely on indicators such as duration,
frequency, and level of use that can generally be assessed for any kind
of intervention.

GA also identified thresholds for "adequacy" that varied by the 14
categories of prevention activities or programs. Tables B-2 and B-3 show
the minimum criteria necessary to be judged adequate on each of nine
measures of program quality. (One of the quality measures does not have
corresponding adequacy criteria.) Given the diversity of prevention
activities, developing separate criteria was necessary. For example, the
criterion for adequate duration was longer than a month for the
prevention curriculum, instruction, or training program category (where
instructional programs of less than six week's duration are seldom found
to have substantial effects). In contrast, the criterion for duration
was at least one school year for the mentoring category (where the
single credible evaluation implying the effectiveness of mentoring was
of a carefully implemented program of a full year's duration \[Tierney
et al., 1995\]). In developing the "adequacy" criteria for each
dimension of quality and each program activity, Gary Gottfredson and
Denise Gottfredson, experts in the field of delinquency and violence
prevention in schools, independently indicated the level for each
criterion. They based their judgements on their understanding of the
research (reviewed in an extensive manner by D. C. Gottfredson, 1997,
2001; and D. C. Gottfredson, Wilson, and Najaka, in press) for each
program category; for categories that lacked sufficient research on
which to base an assessment, they exercised their judgments. The raters
discussed and resolved any discrepancies on ratings. In assessing the
reasonableness of these ratings, readers may wish to consult the
detailed account of the cutting scores for adequacy spelled out in the
full report (G. D. Gottfredson et al., 2000). A summary rating was also
developed based on the fraction of the separate dimensions of quality
that were judged to be adequate. This summary rating is extremely
conservative -- often calling for only a fraction of the individual
ratings to be "adequate." By this lenient standard, a program may be
judged "adequate" if it meets several criteria even if no one is
implementing it on a regular basis.

In the final step, Westat and GA collected and analyzed survey data from
a national probability sample of program providers using
program-specific instruments that measured each dimension of quality.
That is, the researchers developed and used 14 different instruments
that corresponded to the 14 categories of prevention activities. In
their analyses, the researchers assessed the performance of each program
against the criterion for each dimension of quality. They summarized the
results in terms of program category and dimension of quality. Readers
need not rely solely on the "adequacy" ratings in interpreting the data
on program quality. The underlying quantitative data -- not dichotomized
using any cutting scores -- are available in a longer report (G. D.
Gottfredson et al., 2000).

**Table B-2. Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for
quality measures that have similar criteria across program or activity
types**

  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------
  **Quality measures with      **Minimum criteria required to\
  common minimum\              be judged adequate**
  criteria across program or   
  activity types**             

  Level of use by school       For all program types: minimum criteria
  personnel                    needed to be judged as adequate is defined
                               as at least \"one or more persons is
                               conducting the activity on a regular
                               basis\"

  Best practice for methods    For all program types where best
                               practices: methods could be established,
                               70 percent or more of possible best
                               practices used (see footnote on previous
                               page) is needed for the program to be
                               judged adequate

  Best practices for content   For all program types where best
                               practices: methods could be established,
                               70 percent or more of possible best
                               practices used (see footnote on previous
                               page) is needed for the program to be
                               judged adequate
  ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------

**Table B-3. Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for
quality measures that have different criteria across program or activity
types\***

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Quality measures with different     | **Minimum criteria required  |
| minimum\                              | to\                          |
| criteria across program or activity   | be judged adequate**         |
| types**                               |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Number of lessons and sessions      |                              |
| for**                                 |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Prevention curriculum, instruction,   | Greater than or equal to 16  |
| or training                           |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Mentoring                             | Greater than or equal to 52  |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Tutoring                              | Greater than or equal to 26  |
|                                       |                              |
| Recreation, enrichment, leisure       | Greater than or equal to 26  |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Improvements to instruct              | Greater than or equal to 30  |
| practices/methods                     |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| External personnel resources for      | Greater than or equal to 25  |
| classroom                             |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Duration**                          |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Prevention curriculum, instruction,   | More than 1 month\           |
| or training                           | More than 1 month\           |
|                                       | More than 1 month            |
| Counseling, social work,              |                              |
| psychological or therapeutic activity | More than 1 month            |
|                                       |                              |
| Tutoring                              |                              |
|                                       |                              |
| Recreation, enrichment, leisure       |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Mentoring                             | At least 1 school year       |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Planning structure or management of   | More than 1 full school year |
| change; security and surveillance     |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Frequency of participation for      |                              |
| students**                            |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Culture, climate or expectations      | At least 2 to 3 times per    |
|                                       | month\                       |
| Intergroup relations and              | At least 2 to 3 times per    |
| school-community interaction          | month\                       |
|                                       | At least 2 to 3 times per    |
| Planning structure or management of   | month                        |
| change                                |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Prevention curriculum, instruction,   | At least weekly\             |
| or training                           | At least weekly\             |
|                                       | At least weekly\             |
| Counseling, social work,              | At least weekly\             |
| psychological, or therapeutic         | At least weekly              |
| activity                              |                              |
|                                       | At least weekly              |
| Mentoring, tutoring, coaching,        |                              |
| apprenticeship                        |                              |
|                                       |                              |
| Recreation, enrichment, leisure       |                              |
|                                       |                              |
| Services/programs for family members  |                              |
|                                       |                              |
| External personnel resources for      |                              |
| classroom                             |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Improvements to instructional         | More than once per week      |
| practices                             |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Behavioral programming or behavioral  | At least daily\              |
| modeling                              | At least daily               |
|                                       |                              |
| Security and surveillance             |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Frequency of participation by       |                              |
| staff**                               |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Culture, climate or expectations      | At least 2 to 3 times per    |
|                                       | month\                       |
| Intergroup relations and              | At least 2 to 3 times per    |
| school-community interaction          | month\                       |
|                                       | At least 2 to 3 times per    |
| Planning structure or management of   | month                        |
| change                                |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Security and surveillance             | At least daily               |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Frequency of operation**            |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Culture, climate or expectations      | Continually throughout the   |
|                                       | year\                        |
| Intergroup relations and              | Continually throughout the   |
| school-community interaction          | year\                        |
|                                       | Continually throughout the   |
| Planning structure or management of   | year\                        |
| change                                | Continually throughout the   |
|                                       | year                         |
| Security and surveillance             |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Proportion students exposed or      |                              |
| participating**                       |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Culture, climate, or expectations     | Greater than or equal to     |
|                                       | 70%\                         |
| Intergroup relations and school       | Greater than or equal to 70% |
| community interaction                 |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Youth participation in discipline     | Greater than or equal to 10% |
|                                       | of referrals handled by      |
|                                       | student court or through     |
|                                       | peer mediation               |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

\* Not all quality measures apply to all program types.

####  Quality of School-wide Disciplinary Practices and Criteria Used to Judge Adequacy

In a parallel process, we also conducted a criterion-based assessment
for measuring quality of school-wide disciplinary practices, judging
quality by comparing practices against standards. Quality of school-wide
discipline practices consists of five measures: (1) communication and
documentation, (2) range of appropriate responses to misconduct, (3)
range of responses to desirable conduct, (4) disciplinarian consistency,
and (5) predictable disciplinary decision making. (See Table B-4.) The
items that make up each of the five scales and the cut points necessary
for an adequacy or best practices rating were developed by the same two
experts in the field of delinquency and violence prevention in schools
mentioned in the previous section. These two researchers have published
extensively in this area (e.g., see Gottfredson, D.C., 1997;
Gottfredson, D.C., 2001; Gottfredson, G.D. and Gottfredson, D.C., 1985)
and are familiar with the extant literature.

For a school to be judged adequate or using best practices on the first
four measures listed, 70 percent of the responses to the items that make
up the measure must be the desired responses. Desired responses are
those that have been shown in the research literature to be the best
approach (or best practice) for that particular area of school-wide
discipline. An example of the category "best practices for range of
appropriate responses to misconduct" would be evidence of a great
variety of appropriate responses to misconduct. Using the communication
and documentation scale as an example, responses for five of the seven
items (71%) need to be the desired responses for a school to receive a
best practices or adequacy rating on the communication and documentation
scale. For the fifth measure, predictable disciplinary decision making,
the average response to two questions on how often teachers and students
can predict the administration\'s disciplinary response must be equal to
or greater than (where a "4" means that it can be predicted most of the
time, and a "5" means that it can be predicted almost always).

**Table B-4. Measures of quality for school-wide discipline practices
and cut points for assessing adequacy**

  ---------------- ------------------------------------ ------------- ------------
  **Measure**      **Explanation**                      **Possible    **Cut point
                                                        range of      for
                                                        responses**   adequacy**

  Best practices   This measure is made up of seven     0 to 100%     70%
  for              items about the extent of                          
  communication    distribution of the school\'s                      
  and              discipline policy and current                      
  documentation    efforts to maintain or use                         
                   procedures for documentation. Higher               
                   percentages mean that more sound                   
                   communication and documentation                    
                   practices are employed.                            

  Best practices   This measure is made up of 17 items  0 to 100%     70%
  for range of     about a variety of potential                       
  appropriate      responses to misconduct the schools                
  responses to     might exercise, ranging from brief                 
  misconduct       exclusion from class, to use of peer               
                   mediation or student court,                        
                   detention, reprimands, and to                      
                   notifying parents to community                     
                   service. A higher percentage means                 
                   that a greater variety of                          
                   appropriate responses are employed.                

  Best practices   The range of appropriate responses   0 to 100%     70%
  for range of     to desirable conduct scale is made                 
  appropriate      up of seven items about the variety                
  responses to     of potential responses to desirable                
  desirable        student behavior that a school might               
  conduct          exercise, ranging from material                    
                   rewards through informal recognition               
                   or praise, activity or privilege                   
                   reinforcers, to formal recognition                 
                   or praise. A higher percentage means               
                   that a greater variety of potential                
                   reinforcers are used.                              

  Best practices   Made up of three items, this scale   0 to 100%     70%
  for              is about whether specific                          
  disciplinarian   disciplinary responses are                         
  consistency      independent of the source of                       
                   referral, identity of the decision                 
                   maker, or the student disciplined.                 
                   Higher percentages mean the                        
                   disciplinarian(s) is/are                           
                   administering discipline with                      
                   greater consistency.                               

  Best practices   This short scale is made up of the   1 to 5        4
  for predictable  average of two Likert-type items                   
  disciplinary     that assess whether students and                   
  decisionmaking   teachers can predict the                           
                   administration\'s disciplinary                     
                   response. The responses are on a                   
                   scale from 1 to 5, where a "4" =                   
                   most of the time and a "5" = almost                
                   always. Higher scores imply greater                
                   predictability.                                    
  ---------------- ------------------------------------ ------------- ------------

REFERENCES

Botvin, G., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Tortu, S., and Botvin, E. (1990).
Preventing adolescent drug abuse through a multi-modal
cognitive-behavioral approach: Results of a 3-year study. *Journal of
Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 58,* 437-446.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1993). Violence-related
attitudes and behaviors of high school students\-- New York City,
1992-1993. *Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 42* (40), 773-777.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance \-- United States, 1999. *Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 49* (No. SS-5).

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1995). *Blueprints for
violence preventio*n. Boulder, Colorado: Author.

Chandler, K.A., Chapman, C.D., Rand, M.R., & Taylor, B.M. (1998).
*Students' reports of school crime: 1989 and 1995.* Washington, D.C:
U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.

Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., Clements, B. S., & Worsham, M. E. (1994).
*Classroom management for secondary teachers* (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

Gottfredson, D.C. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In L.W.
Sherman, D.C. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway
(eds.). *Preventing crime: What works, what doesn\'t, what\'s promising:
A report to the United States Congress*. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

Gottfredson, D.C. (2001). *Delinquency and schools*. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Gottfredson, D. C., Fink, C. M., Skroban, S., & Gottfredson, G. D.
(1997). Making prevention work. In Weissberg, R. P., Gullotta, T. P.,
Hampton, R. L., & Adams, G. R. (eds.), *Healthy children 2010:
Establishing preventive services.* Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Skroban, S. (1998) Can
prevention work where it is needed most? *Evaluation Review, 22*,
315-340.

Gottfredson, D. C., Wilson, D. B. & Najaka, S. S. (Forthcoming).
School-based crime prevention. In Farrington, D. P., Sherman, L. W., and
Welsh, B. *Preventing crime*. United Kingdom: Harwood Academic
Publishers.

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C. (1985). *Victimization in
schools*. New York: Plenum.

Gottfredson, G., Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S.
B., & Hantman, I. (2000). *National study of delinquency prevention in
schools*. Final report for the National Institute of Justice, U. S.
Department of Justice, Grant \# 96-MN-MV-008. Ellicott City, MD:
Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, E. M., & Gore, T. W. (In press).
Implementation and evaluation of a cognitive-behavioral intervention to
prevent problem behavior in a disorganized school. *Prevention Science.*

Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C. & Farris, E. (1998). *Violence
and discipline problems in U.S. public schools*: 1996-97. Washington
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (1995). *Reducing gun and
other violence in schools: An on-site analysis of fifteen promising
programs*. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.

Johnston, L.D., O'Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (1998). *Outcome
measures from the Monitoring the Future Study relevant to Goal 7: Safe,
disciplined, and alcohol- and drug-free schools.* Report commissioned by
the National Education Goals Panel.

Jones, E. M., Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1997). Success
for some: An evaluation of a "Success for All" program. *Evaluation
Review, 21*, 643-670.

Katchur, S.P., Stennies, G.M., Powell, K.E., Modzeleski, W., Stephens,
R., Murphy, R., Kresnow, M., Sleet, D. & Lowry, R. (1996).
School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1992-1994.
*Journal of the American Medical Association, 275*, 1729-1733.

Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic
inquiry into the variability of effects. In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S.
Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, R. J. Louis, & F.
Mosteller (eds.), *Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook*. NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.

Minnesota Department of Education. (1992). Promising prevention
strategies: A look at what works. St. Paul, MN: Author.

National School Boards Association. (1993). Violence in the schools: How
America\'s school boards are safeguarding our children. Alexandria, VA:
Author.

National School Safety Center. (1995). *School safety work book. What
works: Promising violence prevention programs*. Malibu, CA: Author.

Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology: *Theory and practice*.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). *Making a
difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters*. Philadelphia:
Public/Private Ventures.

[^1]: Best practices were based on expert judgement and a review of the
    literature on the effectiveness of prevention activities. (See
    Gottfredson et al., 2000.)

[^2]: Robbery differs from theft in that it entails the use or threat of
    violence or force.

[^3]: Findings based on principal reports indicating that middle schools
    have higher levels of some types of school crime than high schools
    are inconsistent with results from the NCES Principal/School
    Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence (Heaviside, Rowand,
    Williams & Farris, 1998), which is also based on principal reports.
    These inconsistencies could be due to several methodological
    differences between the studies, including the universe of schools
    selected and the response rates achieved.

[^4]: We had considered identifying the problem schools using
    combinations of principal, student, and teacher reports. However,
    those different types of reports were only weakly associated with
    one another. While they are imperfect, we chose to use the principal
    reports because they were more likely to capture incidents of
    serious violent crime than the other types of reports.

[^5]: While the percentage-point difference on the percentage of
    minorities between the problem high schools and other high schools
    is very close to the difference between the problem middle schools
    and other high schools, only the latter difference is statistically
    significant at *p* \< 0.05. This occurred because the variability
    among high schools on percentage of minorities was substantially
    higher for the high schools than for the middle schools. The small
    number of schools in the problem school analysis contributed to the
    variability.

[^6]: According to the Center for Effective Discipline, approximately
    one-third of students nationally are enrolled in public schools that
    permit corporal punishment (Corporal Punishment, 2000).

[^7]: For example, if we had examined only three programs or activities
    in the prevention curriculum, instruction, or training category
    (instead of the hundreds of programs that we actually studied), we
    would have calculated the **percentage of quality measures judged
    adequate** for each of these programs, such as 50 percent, 70
    percent, and 90 percent. To calculate the ***average* percentage of
    quality measures judged adequate**[,]{.underline} (for our example)
    we would have summed the percentages for the programs (210%) and
    divide by the number of programs (three) to obtain 70 percent.

[^8]: Problem schools were defined as those with high levels of serious
    violent crime, as described in Chapter 2. Only eight of the 14 types
    of prevention programs were common to the problem middle schools,
    other middle schools, problem high schools, and other high schools.

[^9]: Equitable participation by private school students is statutorily
    required. However, private school officials may decide to have their
    students opt out of the services.

[^10]: The sampled high schools include a large percentage of schools
    that differ from what one typically considers a high school (i.e.,
    schools with either 9th to 12th grade or 10th to 12th grade
    enrollment). The convention that we used (and that has been used by
    many other education studies) is to classify schools with
    kindergarten to 12th grade enrollment as high schools. (In fact,
    public high schools with 9th to 12th grade or 10th to 12th grade
    enrollments account for only 33 percent of high schools nationally.)
    In addition to these combined schools, the sampled high schools
    include a number of vocational and alternative schools.

[^11]: The screener instruments were based on a taxonomy of prevention
    efforts that was developed after a review of technical reports,
    agency and foundation reports, and funding lists to identify
    examples of programs or activities undertaken by schools to reduce
    or prevent violence, drug use, and other forms of problem behavior;
    more than 600 different program or activity models were classified
    to devise a comprehensive taxonomy of prevention activities.

[^12]: Teachers were only surveyed in middle and high schools.

[^13]: Students were only surveyed in middle and high schools.

[^14]: District officials were only surveyed in districts with one or
    more middle schools or high schools participating in the study.

[^15]: A memorandum of understanding between the National Institute of
    Justice (NIJ) and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) specified
    that Westat, under contract to ED, and Gottfredson Associates (GA),
    the recipient of a grant from NIJ, would coordinate future data
    collection activities to minimize burden on respondents. The
    memorandum also stated that Westat and GA would share access to data
    and coordinate on conducting analyses of the data.

    GA had begun its data collection activities prior to execution of
    the memorandum. (OMB clearance is generally not required for
    research conducted under a grant.) GA subsequently contracted with
    Westat to collect principal and provider data at the middle and high
    schools to reduce confusion and respondent burden.

[^16]: Although we have referred to the survey on prevention efforts as
    provider questionnaires (because they were completed by prevention
    providers), the survey collected information on the actual programs
    and activities. They were also weighted to describe the
    characteristics of the prevention activities themselves.