---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
                   [Planning and Evaluation Service]{.smallcaps}

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

Archived Information

**WIDE SCOPE,**

**QUESTIONABLE QUALITY**

######### THREE REPORTS 

######### FROM THE STUDY ON 

######### SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION

######### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

![](media/image2.png)

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

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

**WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY**

**THREE REPORTS**

######### FROM THE STUDY ON 

######### SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION

######### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Contract No. EA96055001

Prepared by:

**Wide Scope, Questionable Quality: Drug and Violence Prevention Efforts
in American Schools**

Scott Crosse

Michele Burr

David Cantor

Carol A. Hagen

Irene Hantman

**A Closer Look at Drug and**

**Violence Prevention Efforts**

**in American Schools**

David Cantor

Scott Crosse

Carol A. Hagen

Michael J. Mason

Amy J. Siler

Adrienne von Glatz

**School Crime Patterns: A National Profile of U.S. Public High Schools
Using Rates of Crime Reported to Police**

David Cantor

Mareena McKinley Wright

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., Cantor, D., Burr, M., Hagen, C.A., Hantman, I; Mason, M.J.,
Siler, A.J., von Glatz, A, and Wright, M. M. (2002). *Wide Scope,
Questionable Quality: Three Reports from the Study on School Violence
and Prevention. Executive Summary.* 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.

contents

wide scope, questionable quality: drug and violence

prevention efforts in american schools - - executive summary 1

Study Background 1

Problem Behavior in Schools 2

Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior in Schools 4

Quality of Planning and Use of Research for Prevention Activies 6

SDFSCA Important to Funding for School Prevention Efforts 7

Conclusions 8

a closer look at drug and violence prevention efforts in

american schools - - executive summary 10

Background 10

Method 11

Key Findings 12

school crime patterns: a national profile of u.s. public

high schools using rates of crime repored to police - - summary 17

**[WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY:]{.smallcaps}**

**DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS**

# 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/.)

**[A CLOSER LOOK]{.smallcaps}**

**AT DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS**

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

#### [Background]{.smallcaps}

As part of the 1994 reauthorization of SDFSCA, Congress mandated that
the U.S. Department of Education (ED) collect information on efforts to
prevent violence in schools nationally. Consequently, 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.

The Study on School Violence and Prevention was a cooperative effort
between the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the National Institute
of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice (NIJ). At the same time that ED
commissioned the Study on School Violence and Prevention, 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 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.

This report focuses on one of three study components, referred to as the
"intensive level." It is the first study in over 20 years to examine in
detail what schools are doing to promote school safety. While the
intensive level component is an in-depth examination of a limited number
of schools, the two other study components (national and intermediate
level components) are based on broad surveys of national probability
samples of schools. This report is organized in accordance with the
topics covered by the study questions:

-   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. Also included is
    a description of incident reporting systems.

-   Efforts used by schools to prevent problem behavior and the quality
    of their implementation. These efforts include formal curricular
    programs as well as disciplinary practices and policies, and
    security measures. Observations on school climate are presented
    here.

-   Planning processes used by schools and districts for prevention
    activities and the use of information (e.g., on effectiveness) in
    doing so.

-   Results of efforts to compare schools that differed on the extent of
    problem behavior. These results allowed us to consider the
    characteristics and processes that distinguish safe and unsafe
    schools.

#### [Method]{.smallcaps}

The intensive level study gathered extensive qualitative and
quantitative information from a purposive sample of 40 schools (20
middle schools and 20 senior high schools). All of these schools were
among the over 230 schools that surveyed students during 1998 as part of
an earlier phase of the study. We limited our selection to public
secondary schools. In selecting the schools, we sought to include
schools that varied on instructional level (middle schools and senior
high schools), number of students enrolled (small and large schools),
and metropolitan status (urban, suburban, and rural schools). In
addition, we selected earlier schools that varied on safety, based
primarily on information obtained from our surveys of principals,
teachers, and students.

We collected qualitative and quantitative information from diverse
sources at each of the 40 schools in the intensive level study. The
primary vehicle for collecting this information was three-day site
visits to the schools. While at the schools, site visitors made
systematic observations; reviewed records on incidents of violence;
conducted focus groups with teachers and students; and conducted
in-depth interviews with district officials, principals, and school
staff. In addition, we surveyed all teachers and a sample of students.

One of the strengths of this study is that it combines quantitative and
qualitative information from a wide variety of sources. The quantitative
information represents each school with fairly high precision. The
qualitative information provides, from multiple perspectives, details
and insights that are typically unavailable with surveys. A limitation
of the study is that the sample varied little on the measures of safety
we used for the intensive level. As a result, this limited our ability
to compare and contrast characteristics that distinguish safe from
unsafe schools.

#### [Key Findings]{.smallcaps}

####  Disorder in Schools

Overall, the site visitors found that the vast majority of the schools
have relatively low levels of serious crime[^1]. This was borne out by
the surveys of students and teachers. While fighting did occur and the
presence of weapons was not unheard of, the combination of the two was
rarely seen in the same school. Theft was much more common than robbery,
and while teachers may have been verbally abused, they very rarely were
attacked or threatened with a weapon.

Fear of disorder did not seem to interfere with the learning process.
Even though the schools visited were predominantly free of serious
violence, less serious incidents still could have contributed to
apprehension about being in school. This did not seem to be the case,
however, in most of the schools included in the study. Site visitors at
roughly two-thirds of the schools unanimously described their schools as
safe or very safe, with low or very low levels of disorder. Similarly,
about a third of the site visitors reported that the schools they
visited were completely orderly and safe. Only one site visiting team
characterized their school as "unsafe."

While most schools followed similar discipline procedures, they varied
quite a bit in how they recorded and used incident data. A review of the
systems in place in the schools included in the site visits found that:

-   Collection forms vary widely among schools,

-   Serious incidents usually are reported to the district or state, and

-   Victims and offenders are rarely reported in systems.

At most schools, disciplinary information was reviewed informally within
the school. Principals and teachers were usually aware of the most
prevalent types of disorder at their schools as well as which students
were more likely to cause trouble. However, few schools had specific
procedures in place to review incident data. In addition, very few
schools seemed to follow guidelines recommended in 1996 by the National
Center for Education Statistics task force on the collection and
compilation of incident data. Neither the level of detail collected on
particular incidents nor the unit of collection (incident, victim, and
offender) seemed to be in place in most schools to support the
unit-based collection system recommended by the task force.

####  Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior

**Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior**

We described efforts to prevent problem behavior in terms of the
following major categories: (a) prevention activities, (b) school
security, (c) school discipline practices and policies, and (d) school
climate.

**Prevention Activities.** The review in this report is based on
classifying prevention activities into 19 different types of programs
using categories developed for an earlier phase of this study, which is
based on national survey data (Gottfredson et al., 2000; Crosse, Burr,
Cantor & Hantman, forthcoming). Our findings amplified those of the
intermediate level study in that many programs discussed by site
visitors did not meet minimal quality criteria along a number of basic
characteristics, including financial support, frequency of participation
by students, and monitoring and evaluation. These problems, we believe,
reflect a view on the part of the schools that prevention programs do
not generally play a critical role in preventing problem behavior in the
school. In fact, many of the programs are being implemented within
schools that are perceived as being relatively safe and not in great
need of such programs. Particularly noticeable in these programs was the
absence of data that documented the implementation process, as well as
any formal or informal evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs.

**School Security.** The description of school security was divided into
three areas: (a) school security staff, (b) law enforcement personnel,
and (c) security devices and strategies. School security was the most
common type of activity that administrators reported as specifically set
up to prevent disorder in the school. The most prevalent security
strategy used throughout the schools was various ways to monitor student
and non-student movement within the school. The staff and administrators
were primarily responsible for this task. Generally, other types of
security strategies\--such as hiring special security personnel, use of
metal detectors, and random searches\--were also used by a smaller
number of schools. These additional strategies tended to be implemented
in those schools where student movement and, perhaps safety, may be more
of an issue (large, urban schools).

The implementation of many of these strategies was inconsistent. For
example, site visitors observed a number of times when hall monitors
were not consistently enforcing rules and procedures (e.g., use of hall
passes). Several site visitors found locks, intended to keep people out,
that were broken. Video cameras, when they were in place, were not
widely monitored by staff.

**School Discipline Practices and Policies.** We found considerable
overlap in discipline procedures across schools. The rules were
generally guided by the school district and involved varying levels of
punishment as the offenses became more serious. Very few rewards were
structured into the procedures. Schools seemed to have few problems with
communicating the rules to all students. However, we found some evidence
that rules are inconsistently enforced across students. How common
inconsistent enforcement was across relatively minor and serious
infractions is unclear. Many of these inconsistencies may stem from the
general process of letting teachers handle many of the infractions
within the classroom. As noted by a number of administrators, teachers
do vary on how they deal with disorder problems. Much of the
inconsistency reported by students may be related to these differences
in individual style across teachers and other staff.

**School Climate.** We described school climate using a typology based
on the school climate goals outlined by the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement \[OERI\] (1993) and Kelly et al. (1986).

[Staff/student relationships]{.underline}. The majority of the sites
reported good communication between staff and students, although
examples of high and low quality communication are described in the
report. Site visitors observed that highly visible, communicative, and
engaging principals had schools with some of the strongest climate
relations. Students often described these principals as caring,
approachable, and fair. Conversely, principals in schools with poor
climate were often described by teachers and students as
non-collaborative, unapproachable, unengaged and intimidating.

[Goals]{.underline}. With respect to school goals, the schools in our
sample were classified into four different types: (a) strong focus on
academics, (b) focus on academics but struggling to improve performance,
(c) mixed academic reputation but a strong emphasis on controlling
disorder, and (d) great deal of emphasis on extra-curricular aspects.

[Rules and procedures]{.underline}. Schools were described as having two
basic approaches to rules and procedures. One was where teachers tended
to deal with all but the most serious discipline problems, including
setting punishment and calling parents (if necessary). The second
approach tended to deal with small infractions within the classroom and
then refer students to an administrator for repeated or more serious
infractions. The administrator was responsible for assigning punishment
and contacting parents. Regardless of the approach, consistency of rule
enforcement emerged as an important issue, especially among students (as
expressed in the focus groups). This also re-emphasized the role of the
principal in setting the overall tone in a school when it came to
discipline and enforcement of rules. School staff expressed more
satisfaction if the principal set clear expectations, communicated
regularly with staff, and gave them a voice in management issues.

[Facilities and environment]{.underline}. Most of the schools were
described as being clean, both inside and outside. Vandalism was rarely
seen. Some variety was found in the condition of the buildings. The
community environments sometimes contrasted with the school. In this
sense, some schools were clearly "safe-havens" for the students.

####  Planning

The study team developed a definition of sound planning and applied it
when selecting six schools for detailed analysis. Once selected, the
schools were contacted and asked to elaborate on the information that
was initially elicited in the national survey. Respondents were asked
about the kinds of school-level planning structures, the main functions
of these structures, and the outcomes of the planning.

The kinds of school-level planning structures varied across schools.
Regardless of variability, however, all of the schools had at least one
school-level planning structure that regularly assessed (through formal
or informal needs assessments) the need for reduction or prevention of
problem behavior. This did not necessarily result in implementing
prevention activities.

####  Distinguishing Middle Schools with Different Levels of Disorder

To conduct this analysis, a limited number of schools were identified as
having "high" and "low" levels of disorder using the data from the
student surveys. Schools were compared across the high and low disorder
groups along school characteristics, community characteristics,
prevention programs, security, discipline, and climate. This comparison
was intended to identify policy-relevant factors that distinguished
schools with high and low levels of disorder, with the intent of
suggesting approaches that policy-makers and school personnel may wish
to pursue to increase school safety.

Complicating this analysis was the fact that, as a whole, the 40 schools
in our sample tended to have relatively low levels of disorder. Middle
schools tended to have higher levels of disorder than high schools. For
the high schools, less than five percent of students in the low disorder
schools had experienced being robbed or threatened with a weapon;
approximately 16 percent of students in the high disorder schools were
victims of such violent incidents. This range (11%) was exceeded by the
range for the middle schools (33%). Between 28 and 37 percent of
students in high disorder middle schools experienced one or more violent
incidents. Because of the limited range in disorder among the high
schools, this analysis was restricted to middle schools.

What seemed to most clearly distinguish the high and low disorder
schools? Not surprisingly, school and community characteristics were
clearly important. The high disorder schools tended to have higher
levels of poverty, unemployment, and other risk factors associated with
community disorder. Schools that were ranked high on disorder tended to
have more programs specifically targeting reduction of problem behavior
and had considerably more security arrangements (e.g., school security
devices). This seemed to be driven primarily by the level of perceived
need of the school. Low disorder schools did not allocate their
resources towards prevention programs when they did not feel it was
warranted. This is especially true for security devices.

The most important policy-relevant differences between the two groups of
middle schools were related to discipline practices and climate. Low
disorder schools were characterized by several important
characteristics, including strong principals, school staff viewing
themselves as working as a team, active involvement of teachers in
maintaining order inside and outside the classroom, and generally
positive relationships among staff and students. In contrast, high
disorder schools lacked a clear approach to discipline, did not convey
expectations to students well, and demonstrated poor communication
between teachers and administrators.

This last result reinforces the finding that managing a school and the
effects of this management on school climate is vitally important to
keeping schools safe and secure. While programs to prevent violence
undoubtedly play some role in reducing violence, very little evidence
from this study indicated that this is what distinguishes schools with
high and low levels of disorder. In fact, this study suggests that the
use of prevention programs is, in part, a reaction to disorder. As a
result, schools with higher levels of disorder seem to implement more
prevention programs than schools with lower levels.

**[SCHOOL CRIME PATTERNS:]{.smallcaps}**

**A NATIONAL PROFILE OF U.S. PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS**

**USING RATES OF CRIME REPORTED TO POLICE**

# SUMMARY

This report profiles violence in U.S. public high schools. It is based
on analysis of data from a U.S. Department of Education survey of school
principals that asked about the number and types of crimes they reported
to police for the 1996-97 school year. The analysis shows that violence
is clustered within a relatively small percentage of locations, with
about 60 percent of the violence occurring in 4 percent of the schools.
This is about four times higher than would be expected based on national
rates of crime.

High schools are grouped by the nature and level of crimes occurring in
the school. Four patterns emerge from this grouping: 1) No Crime, 2)
Isolated Crime, 3) Moderate Crime and 4) Violent Crime. High schools in
each group are described in terms of their student population
characteristics, community characteristics, and school violence
prevention efforts.

The results indicate that the characteristics (size, location,
socio-economic make-up) of high-violence schools differ markedly from
the other schools. High schools with the highest levels of violence
tended to be located in urban areas and have a high percentage of
minority students, compared to high schools that reported no crime to
the police. They also tended to be located in areas with high social
disadvantage and residential mobility. It should be noted, however, that
a relatively large minority of the schools in the Violent Crime group
were located in rural areas (36%), so that the image of school violence
being solely restricted to central cities is not accurate.

The types of violence prevention programs differed between crime groups.
The schools that experience a high level of serious violence also
reported high use of prevention measures and programs that were
specifically aimed at controlling violence. Schools in the Violent Crime
group appeared to put more emphasis on programs geared toward changing
individual behavior, such as behavioral modification or other types of
individual attention. This contrasted with high schools in the other
three crime groups, which tended to place a higher priority on
prevention instruction or counselors within the school.

Similarly, the Violent Crime group was more likely than the other groups
to adopt a variety of security measures to reduce risk of crimes,
particularly random metal detectors, used by about one-third of the
Violent Crime group (compared to 10% or less in the other groups). The
crime groups also differed in their use of law enforcement and security
personnel. The schools in the Violent Crime group were more likely to
use this as a measure to control disorder than were schools with lower
levels of crime.

These observations indicate that schools with the greatest need (i.e.,
highest rate of violent crime) took action at a fairly high rate (e.g.,
around two-thirds of the schools reported using many of the
programs/activities). A follow-up question is whether these programs are
effective at reducing violence. The current analysis did not allow for
assessment of whether programs were implemented in an effective way
and/or significantly reduced the amount of violence in the school.

The report suggests that methods to prevent school violence be tailored
to the level and type of crime problems that schools are experiencing.
Also, future evaluation of prevention methods should put some emphasis
on schools experiencing the most severe problems. Comparing these
schools to those with a similar profile but lower levels of disorder
would be especially useful. This would provide an efficient and
cost-effective way to better understand how to significantly reduce
crime in the nation's high schools.

REFERENCES

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.

Kelly, E. Glover, J., Keefe, J., Halderson, C., Sorenson, C., & Speth,
C. (1986). *School climate survey*. Reston, VA: National Association of
Secondary School Principals.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Education (1993). *Reaching the Goals Goal 6* (ISBN 0-16-045220-1).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[^1]: ^?^ As used, "serious crime" refers to crimes such as aggravated
    assault, weapons violations, and robbery.