![](media/image1.png){width="6.623611111111111in"
height="1.5520833333333333in"}

## U.S. Department of Education

Barnard Auditorium

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20202

August 21-22, 2006

Minutes prepared by:

Mark Bernstein

Consultant, Dixon Group

September 5, 2006

*AGENDA*

*Monday, August 21:*

9:00 a.m. Opening Statements

9:10 a.m. First Panel: State Education Perspective

10:10 a.m. Questions & Answers

10:55 a.m. Second Panel: Local Education Perspective

Noon Questions & Answers

1:15 p.m. Third Panel: Researcher and Evaluator Perspective

2:20 p.m. Questions & Answers

3:05 p.m. Fourth Panel: School Safety and Preparedness Perspective

4:10 p.m. Questions & Answers

4:40 p.m. Summary and Closing Remarks

5:00 p.m. Adjournment

*Tuesday, August 22:*

8:30 a.m. Opening Statement

8:40 a.m. Public Comment

9:15 a.m. Advisory Committee Discussion

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Advisory Committee Discussion

11:25 a.m. Closing comments

11:30 a.m. Adjournment

\* \* \*

*OPENING STATEMENT*

*Monday, August 21*

Opening the meeting, David Long described the session as an extremely
important meeting. Those present would be recommending changes in the
SDFSCA's \[Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act\] State Grants
Program.

Addressing the first panel, he noted that their written presentations
were in hand. He requested that each presenter limit his/her remarks to
eight to ten minutes, so that ample time remained for questions and
answers.

> \* \* \*

*FIRST PANEL PRESENTATION: State Education Perspective*

*Panelists:*

Mike Herrmann \-- Executive Director, Office of School Health, Safety
and Learning Support, Tennessee Department of Education

John Bynoe \-- Associate Commissioner, Center for Student Support,
Massachusetts Department of Education

Jeff Barber -- Safe and Drug Free Schools Coordinator, Indiana
Department of Education, and president, Network Safe and Drug Free
Schools Coordinators

Mona Johnson -- Program Supervisor, Washington State Department of
Public Instruction; Vice President, Network Safe and Drug Free Schools
Coordinator

*\[Panelists in turn made presentations based on their written
submissions.\]*

\* \* \*

*First Panel \-- Questions and Answers:*

Russell Jones noted that several panelists had presented data showing
downward trends in drug use and other behaviors. He asked if those
declines were regarded as significant. Jeff Barber replied that they
were. Jones asked that the significance levels be included. Jones added
that he wanted to have data on those young people who were not regularly
in school. He asked if racial and gender breakdowns were available on
the data. Mona Johnson and Jeff Barber said their states \[Washington
and Indiana, respectively\] had such data, and could make it available.
Jones said the reductions were welcome, but repeated his concern that
the data presented covered only those children who were in school.

Tommy Ledbetter said he had heard comments that the program lacked
commonality from state to state, and that this made assessment
difficult. Mike Herrmann responded that if the scope of the program was
narrowed \[something he said he would not welcome\], then universal
indicators could be identified. He added, however, that for this
program, the appropriate indicator might depend on where a given
district was putting its effort; this suggested that a range of
indicators was needed so that individual districts had some flexibility.
John Bynoe, by way of example, said that if a district was focusing on
substance abuse, its program effectiveness should be determined by
looking at changes in student alcohol use, rather than in changes in
school climate.

Sheppard Kellam noted that none of the presenters described themselves
as researchers; he asked whether they might deem it wise to form
partnerships that included research groups. Mona Johnson said her
program had collaborated with researchers from the University of
Washington; such collaboration had been useful. She added that, while
she was not a researcher by training, her involvement with the program
had prompted her to better understand evaluation methodologies. Jeff
Barber said that if one wished to do a good evaluation, one had to begin
with that in mind as an intention. Evaluation, however, was not really
the starting point of the pertinent legislation: 'that horse has already
out of the barn.' John Bynoe noted that evaluation began and ended with
a definition of objectives.

Hope Taft thanked the panel for showing that small sums of money could
accomplish a great deal. She noted that the advisory panel had been
asked to reinvent the program; she asked panelists for their ideas on
this. Second, she noted Jeff Barber's comment that evaluation should
start at the bottom and build up; she asked him to elaborate on that.
Barber said a process question should be asked: how do changes occurring
on the local level reflect funding from the program? That, he added,
might be a basis for building an evaluation up from the local, to the
state and to the federal level.

Mona Johnson expressed concern about evaluations being developed at the
local level; rather, she said, local and state people should meet to
develop a methodology that worked best across the board. The state
framework, in turn, needed to accommodate the general intentions of the
program. This, she said, could be a rather painful process, but it was
powerful when all the players were pulled together. Jeff Bynoe said
program evaluation should reflect the circumstance that the agency's
charge had gone beyond its original charter. Mike Herrmann commented
that the program faced 'a challenge of being heard.' At present, he
noted, it was attached to NCLB \[No Child Left Behind\]; when the
program was squeezed into the consolidated application process it was
hard to get its concerns acknowledged.

Mona Johnson said Hope Taft's inquiry about how to re-invent the program
was a very large question. She felt the program was moving in a good
direction -- communication, guidance and support were all greatly
improved. She suggested that the scope of program activities be
narrowed; the program's broad range made it difficult to evaluate. Jeff
Barber seconded Johnson's suggestion about narrowing the scope.
Additionally, he urged adding training requirements that would support
capacity building; people, he said, needed to understand better how to
put the program in place.

Fred Ellis noted conflicting comments on program breadth: some cited
this as a strength; others as a weakness. He said he was pleased that
schools were becoming recognized as having assets in times of crisis:
they had the capacity to house, feed and transport. He wondered whether
SDFS should be the only federal agency providing funds to schools on
crisis management issues: should FEMA play a larger role, with the role
of SDFS becoming more focused? Mike Herrmann said FEMA and Homeland
Security should play a larger role. John Bynoe agreed, but added that
his program was now offering all-hazards training.

Dennis Romero expressed interest in capacity building, and asked the
panel if it could provide examples of how it was achieved. Jeff Barber
said it was not sufficient to provide the Principles of Effectiveness;
one needed to work directly with district and school personnel. People
who are skilled at implementing academic curricula were not necessarily
skilled at the Principles of Effectiveness; it was not part of their
training. His office had asked people at the district level what their
highest needs were: commonly, he said, people asked how to do
evaluation. His office had provided training for this.

\* \* \*

*SECOND PANEL PRESENTATION: Local Education Perspective*

Panelists:

Clarence Jones -- Coordinator, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Fairfax
County Public Schools

Ellen Morehouse -- Executive Director, Student Assistance Services
Corporation

General Arthur Dean -- Chairman and CEO, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions
of America

Gus Frias -- Coordinator of School Safety Programs, Los Angeles County
Department of Education

*\[Panelists in turn made presentations based on their written
submissions.\]*

\* \* \*

*Second Panel \-- Questions and Answers:*

Hope Taft asked the panelists what advice they would have on
re-inventing the program. Gus Frias responded that if the federal
government was willing to invest billions of dollars in the health and
safety of the Middle East, it should do the same at home. The program
needed to be placed in the context of the War on Terror so it could
share in the funds allocated for that purpose. Arthur Dean commented
that a better job could be done on the national level to ensure that
uniform guidance was provided to states and LEAs in relation to data
collection. He believed that if a survey was taken, the great majority
of local programs would say they had developed their standards without
guidance from above. This prevented the needed uniformity from
occurring. He added that his organization had worked with LEAs and
states on the evaluation process. He noted, further, that a great amount
of assistance was being received by the program at the local level,
though he thought this went unrecognized. Ellen Morehouse urged the
committee to be aware that 'the old is good' -- by example, she cited
polio vaccine, which has been in use half a century and still worked.
She believed the State Grants Program was working and she urged its
continuation. She believed it would aid the program if the federal
government provided public domain information and scoring, so that
school districts did not have to use their resources for this.

Russell Jones said he did not agree that evaluation was the problem. The
question the program faced, he said, was how to let OMB \[Office of
Management and Budget\] know the program was being effective. He
described himself as frustrated: people in the field were working hard;
then they learned the funding was going to be reduced.

Sheppard Kellam asked panelists if they had made efforts to partner with
local universities or research groups. Ellen Morehouse said her agency
partnered with researchers in many areas, but not in this one. It was a
cost issue: such surveys could cost \$50,000 to \$125,000 a year. Her
agency did use the Community Care survey; this had also involved costs
for writing up the report. Such costs were taken from resources
available for programming. Kellam asked if it was possible to
restructure the State Grants Program so that money was available for
partnerships with researchers, allowing programs to do rigorous
evaluation. Clarence Jones said that in Fairfax County, Virginia, his
program had collaborated with George Mason University and with local
social service, medical and religious groups. They had paid a
considerable amount to be part of a Community Care survey. Since then,
they had found funds from county government that helped defray the cost.
Gus Frias called attention to a one-page reporting form his agency used;
it had, he said, taken considerable time to get the various
participating agencies to agree on what was adequate. He characterized
it as a good form, but incomplete.

Russell Jones commented that he heard repeated references to the need to
partner; did, however, these agencies 'practice what they preached?' For
example, to what extent was information on 'best practices' being
shared? Arthur Dean said his program worked diligently on this: through
training programs involving up to 3,000 people; through publications;
through involvement with universities, and other steps. He suggested
that people in Washington might be unaware of the level of effort being
made locally.

Russell Jones asked about follow up: was there a feedback loop in place?
Arthur Dean said there was. Jones noted that if one of his program's
specialists assisted in the setting up of a program, they were required
to make a return visit within a year to see what was actually being
done. Ellen Morehouse said that, in New York State, relevant agencies
met with each other four or five times a year to share information. She
said limitation on funds made this difficult, as some individuals faced
five-hour travel times. Gus Frias said his program did the training for
school safety teams, but those teams were expected to pass that
information along within their individual schools.

Tommy Ledbetter asked if research existed on how much money the program
had leveraged nationwide. Ellen Morehouse said her agency received \$1
million from New York State and received a like amount in matches; of
the total of \$2 million, less than 25 percent was from SDFS. Arthur
Dean said that, as his group did not receive SDFS funds, it had taken no
national survey. They had, however, identified members of Congress who
were significant to the program, and had compiled data on those members'
districts. He believed information on matching funds should be gathered
by the Department of Education. Ledbetter noted that Dean, in his
presentation, had said the Department of Education needed to supply data
to the states; had he any suggestions on how this might be done? Dean
responded that the law itself was fairly clear: the needed piece was
national guidance that would give the states and school districts
direction on how to implement the law; data could then be rolled up from
the local to the state and to the national level. Gus Frias said there
were programs that failed to meet the standards of effectiveness that
were receiving millions of dollars; e.g. a \$650 million program on
gangs.

Russell Jones commented that in Virginia, program funds would be
withheld if a program could not supply evidence of effectiveness. Ellen
Morehouse said that a similar standard applied in New York State; she
did not think a stricter standard was required.

Belinda Sims asked how school safety teams were created. Gus Frias
responded that this was a state mandate. His agency provided the
training; the principal or assistant principal usually headed the team.
He believed there were shortcomings in how the information was shared
with others in the individual schools. He noted that, even for
safety-related issues, educators had a limited amount of time available
for training.

Belinda Sims asked how student diversity was addressed during training.
Clarence Jones commented that in Fairfax \[Virginia\] County, 97
different languages were spoken in its elementary schools. Currently,
his program translated drug danger literature into seven languages.
Recently, they had responded to an invitation from the local Korean
community to make a presentation: 300 people had attended; questions and
answers were handled through an interpreter. His program was maintaining
contact with that community. Arthur Dean said the two key things that
held his programs together were sustainability and cultural competency;
people received training in the latter. Ellen Morehouse said cultural
issues were of greater importance as diversity increased. She noted that
most school districts were unionized; there were contractual limits on
how many meetings teachers could be required to attend. She did not
think the diversity issues were being addressed as well as they could
be. Gus Frias said that, too often, school district actions followed on
the receipt of federal resources; schools should be leading. At the same
time, he noted that California had passed the California School Safety
and Violence Act, but had attached no funding to it.

David Long commented that what impressed him was how, whatever the
limits on funding, those in the education community managed to get
things done. He traced this in part to the level of collaboration that
occurred. He spoke of a recent outbreak of violence in his county; he
had then spoken with Gus Frias and others on how to respond. No one, he
noted, talked about money; the matter was addressed out of colleagueship
and shared concern. Long added that he had not met Gus Frias until this
meeting.

\* \* \*

*THIRD PANEL PRESENTATION: Researcher and Evaluator Perspective*

Panelists:

Peter Reuter -- Professor, School of Public Policy, Department of
Criminology, University of Maryland. Co-author: 'Options for
Restructuring the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act,' Rand
Drug Policy Research Center, 2001.

Zili Sloboda -- Senior Research Associate, Institute for Health and
Social Policy, University of Akron

Chris Ringwalt -- Senior Research Scientist, Chapel Hill Center --
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

*\[Panelists in turn made presentations based on their written
submissions.\]*

\* \* \*

*Third Panel \-- Questions and Answers:*

Hope Taft asked for the panel's advice on how the program might be made
more attractive to Congress. Peter Reuter said that the researchers
might not be the right group to ask. Zili Sloboda agreed, but added that
Congress should know that its constituents very much wanted something
done in this area. In the focus group with which she had been involved,
school principals wanted the program, but did not know where to put it.
What excited her about the effort was the joint federal-local effort
being made; local districts, she added, don't have the wherewithal, so
they look to the federal government for guidance. Peter Reuter
identified a tension: on the one hand, Congress was attracted to the
entitlement aspect of the program -- everybody got something; on the
other hand, the wide dispersion of funds made it difficult to show what
was being accomplished. Hope Taft commented that the situation had
reversed from five years ago: at that time, Congress had been
enthusiastic about the program; local communities had not been. Now, it
was Congress that was cool.

Sheppard Kellam noted that during earlier presentations, policy people
had stressed the need to show effectiveness. To him, there seemed to be
a big market for evaluation studies. However, when he listened to the
researchers, it did not appear much research was being done. He believed
that research and program people needed to create a new paradigm:
demographic studies and randomized field trials done in highly select
places were needed to produce the findings needed. This, he suggested,
could be a marriage of mutual self-interest. Zili Sloboda said the
creation of a uniform reporting system would help. She added that many
people in public education regarded doing evaluations as punitive. She
urged that reviews should be done of administrative operations, not of
individual behavior.

Peter Reuter commented that the cost of evaluation could have a major
impact on program budgets. He believed that longer term evaluations were
needed: studies should not simply ask about initiation into drug use at
age 16, but also at age 23. This, he said, would be very expensive
research. The longer term question was: what is the status of the
nation's drug problem? Chris Ringwalt urged that alcohol be included
with drug use. With drugs, he said, use rates rise rapidly until the
early 20s, and then flatten out. Alcohol use rates rose more slowly, he
said, but continue to rise later in life. If the program was to
demonstrate its effects to skeptical funding sources, then it would need
to have data that followed young people into adulthood.

Frederick Ellis commented that, during the morning session,
practitioners had cited statistics that made a very good case for
expanding the program; now, the research panel was saying many programs
are not effective. How did the researchers account for that difference?
Peter Reuter suggested that, in part, the practitioners' reports
reflected the general optimism bias that people apply to what they do.
By saying the programs were ineffective, he added, he was saying that
the measures they were relying on to demonstrate effectiveness were not
reliable. He quoted economist James Heckman as saying: if an evaluation
doesn't cost very much, don't expect much from it. Chris Ringwalt added
that while the passion and enthusiasm shown at the local level made a
difference, it was a difference difficult to measure. It may be, he
added, that by the time a particular program was reviewed, the people
running it did not have the passion and program fidelity of those who
had founded it. To him, he said, it was not surprising that evaluations
of such programs did not produce results that squared with what other
practitioners believed in their hearts to be true.

Belinda Sims noted that presenters from the first two panels had
suggested more options for prevention strategies than for prevention
programs. Chris Ringwalt responded that while he knew how to evaluate a
program, he did not know how to evaluate a strategy. Effective and
ineffective programs might employ the same strategy. Was a curriculum,
he asked, just a concatenation of certain strategies, or was it more: a
unity with a beginning, middle and end that should be presented with
reference to how it was originally conceived. Zili Sloboda said she was
torn on this issue. She believed in strategies: for example, she thought
parents should be involved. There were, however, different steps
involved to bringing parents in. Some were evidence-based; others were
research-based. She felt the field was 'hung up' on poorly defined
terminology, so that at times 'we talk across each other.'

Russell Jones asked how the most effective curriculum might be defined.
Chris Ringwalt said the short answer was to go to the National Registry
of Effective Programs \[NREP\]. Responding to a question from Jones,
Ringwalt said that in his survey teachers had not been asked if they
were using an effective strategy; rather, they were given a 'laundry
list' of programs and asked to identify any they were in fact using.
Russell Jones asked if the study showed if teachers were actually using
the curricula they identified; Ringwalt said it did not.

Dennis Romero noted that Ringwalt had characterized the NREP as a
'consumers' guide' approach. Ringwalt said it made the consumer
responsible for interpreting the information provided, while removing
from the sponsoring agency any pressure from groups that believed they
should have been on the list and were not. This, he added, meant that
individual prevention teachers had to be educated in how to interpret
and select from the options. Romero noted that Ringwalt had reported
that 80 percent of schools were using a non-listed program; had Ringwalt
been able to interpret the effectiveness of those non-listed programs?
Ringwalt said he had not: the study merely determined who said they were
using what. Romero said he had seen effective prevention programs that
were not on the list. Ringwalt responded that it was difficult to
measure the effectiveness of programs not on the list. Such evaluations
took years to conduct; they were quite expensive, and if they were not
done well, they would not be considered definitive.

David Long asked what had the Department of Education done to address
the problem areas cited by Peter Reuter in his 2001 report. Deborah
Price noted that the program had received an 'effective' rating, which
was the lowest given. The Department had looked at the question: what
needed to be done to demonstrate program effectiveness? How could the
positive aspects of the program be demonstrated? One result was a grant
to fund a long-term research project that looked at state data to permit
understanding of what programs states were implementing and with what
fidelity they were being used. She hoped the first half of that question
would be answered by this fall; the information about fidelity would be
available by spring/summer 2007. Price further commented that there were
things it might seem logical for the program to do, but which its
enabling legislation did not permit -- e.g. the program was not
permitted to mandate a reporting requirement. However, the program could
develop a model data set and provide that to states for voluntary use.

Bill Modzeleski called attention to a study published in the June 2006
issue of *Social Influence*, which made the point that the way a
question was framed influenced the answer received, i.e. if you ask
people a positive question, you get a positive response. Modzeleski
called attention to program changes since 1999: Just as many LEAs were
receiving support \[about 95 percent of all those in the country\]; the
average award had declined significantly; the program focus had expanded
-- first, in 1994 to include violence prevention; more recently, to
include crisis prevention and avian influenza. He cited as 'good news'
that the Principles of Effectiveness had been developed in that time and
were widely in use; he believed this had assisted in the development of
more science-based programs. Modzeleski asserted that 'there is still a
list out there' -- NREP was not the only reference to which schools paid
attention. Finally, Modzeleski said, compared to 1999 when Peter
Reuter's research into the program had begun, a great deal more data was
being developed by some states and at the federal level. Data-based
decisions were being made. The program was developing a uniform data
set; he hoped it would be adopted by the states, but the program could
not require this.

Peter Reuter commented that the Rand study on which he had worked had
been directed at Congress. He believed the State Grants Program was
hamstrung by legislation that made it very difficult to be both
effective and innovative. The 2001 re-authorization of the legislation
was a chance to make changes; however, there had not then been much
interest in Congress in undertaking major reforms.

\* \* \*

*FOURTH PANEL PRESENTATION: School Safety and Preparedness Perspective*

Panelists:

Ed Ray -- Chief, Department of Safety and Security, Denver Public
Schools

Lorraine Allen -- Director, Office of Safe Schools, Florida Department
of Education

Jon Akers -- Executive Director, Kentucky Center for Social Safety,
Eastern Kentucky University

Cynthia Simmons -- Director, Children of Promise Mentors of Hope,
University of Oklahoma Outreach

*\[Panelists in turn made presentations based on their written
submissions.\]*

\* \* \*

*Fourth panel \-- Questions and answers:*

Frederick Ellis said that, as one from the field of law enforcement, he
was frustrated with the federal-level emphasis on prevention programs.
To his mind, crime-fighting consisted of prevention, deterrence and
enforcement. The program was not placing nearly enough emphasis on
deterrence and enforcement, including the use of such technologies as
student ID cards, video, etc. He noted that he had been urged to place
bomb-resistant glass in his school's buildings. Those buildings were in
aggregate 25 million square feet -- four times the size of the Pentagon,
which itself had not taken that step. The advice simply was not
realistic. Measures took money: in Fairfax \[Virginia\] County, \$1.2
million had been expended to install two emergency generators in high
schools.

Ed Ray expressed agreement, saying the situation was frustrating to
those who approached it from the non-educational program side. The prime
task he and others like him faced was to ensure the security of
students, staff and facilities. Unless a school district was a law
enforcement entity \[and a few school districts were\], the schools had
no access to Department of Justice or Homeland Security funds. The only
funds available were from local taxes or the Department of Education. He
noted an instance in which \$27,000 of computers was stolen; the theft
had been caught by a video camera. That camera had allowed the recovery
of the computers; otherwise, they would have been lost. Such
technologies were critical, he said, but they were difficult to maintain
and to be kept running on a 24/7 basis. Lorraine Allen commented that
some school districts had sufficient funds to do student IDs, others did
not.

Hope Taft noted that the program's title was Safe and Drug-Free Schools.
How would those on the panel recommend that the program be changed?
Cynthia Timmons urged that the 'territorial walls' dividing the fields
of education, social work, juvenile justice and Homeland Security should
be eliminated. Ed Ray stated that, foremost, he would urge
acknowledgement that times had changed and that students today were
generally experiencing higher stress levels. Further, he felt the fears
of parents and teachers had to be acknowledged. He did not believe a
good job was being done of this; many parents, he added, send their
children off to school wondering if they would see them at the end of
the day.

Jon Akers said that, too often, school administrators had the 'Jerry
McGuire' sentiment: 'show me the money.' He urged that all the
stakeholders be brought together and urged to think outside the box,
state by state. He noted that no funds had been forthcoming from the
Department of Homeland Security; still, in the event of a disaster,
Homeland Security would come to him for emergency housing. Lorraine
Allen said she was curious to know more about what was being done at
federal level. She noted that many of the LEAs in her state were small,
so they consolidated to make more effective use of funds. She suggested
states with many small districts should do likewise. She suggested that
the criteria by which schools were scored should be reviewed, to ensure
that these criteria were aligned with program intentions. She said
greater clarity was needed on common terminology; given phrases meant
different things in different states. Hope Taft expressed agreement that
having single definitions would be an advantage.

Sheppard Kellam said that a key to education was classroom management.
He said that approximately half the first grade teachers in Baltimore
did not have the tools to manage their classroom; the other half managed
through an intuitive understanding of how it should be done. He asked
those present to imagine children with attention difficulties coming
into a class, and the teacher having no other response than to say: 'pay
attention.' He believed classes that were inadequately managed produced
most of the students with problems. He noted that schools of education
were rarely discussed in conversations like the one this group was
having; teachers, he thought, got far too little field experience before
being given their own classroom. Jon Akers said he shared Kellam's
frustration: he had spoken to all the deans of colleges of education in
his state about the need for classes on behavior management, and had not
found them responsive. He had, he said, been in the field for 30 years
and had never had a class that covered such things as how to handle an
angry parent. Things were not improving, he added; his son was now in
the field and he also had never had such a class. Student populations
had changed, he added; students were no longer greatly concerned that a
call came home from a teacher. Lorraine Allen commented that there was a
need to establish a common language, so that 'tardy' meant the same
thing in one teacher's class as in another.

Donni LeBoeuf noted that all in-service training had to be done in
accordance with union guidelines. Ed Ray reported that he had recently
been through a round of union negotiations that focused on teacher
responsibilities. Teachers, he said, had asked for additional training
so they could be more pro-active. In the past, if teachers saw a fight
break out, they would dive in. Now, the advice been given to teachers
was: 'don't.' Teachers' unions, he said, take the position that their
members should not be used as enforcement officers; individual teachers,
however, want to know how better to handle situations that arise. The
question had involved considerable negotiation with the teachers; his
department's position had been: 'We will teach you what you need to
know, but you have to allow for that to happen.'

Russell Jones asked Ray what percentage of his funds came from the
Department of Education; Ray said less than five percent. Lorraine Allen
said her program's entire budget came from Title IV. Jon Akers said his
program had no federal funding other than grants through the Community
Service Work project.

Russell Jones ended the session with an anecdote. In a casual
conversation with a NASA scientist, he had learned that launch rockets
were powered by gimbled engines, a term with which he was not familiar.
He learned that gimbled was a way of tying multiple engines together so
they produced maximum thrust and maximum efficiency. Jones thought this
was analogous to what the States Grant Program and the advisory
committee were undertaking.

*\[Session adjourned, Monday, August 21, 5 p.m.\]*

\* \* \*

*Session of Tuesday, August 22, 2006*

*OPENING STATEMENTS:*

David Long called the committee's attention to its scheduled September
5, 2006 conference call and to the close-of-day September 8, 2006
deadline for submitting its recommendations to the Secretary of
Education's office.

Deborah Price said the objective for September 8 was to supply to
senior-level Department of Education personnel information about the
SDFSCA State Grants Program, how well it appeared to be working, and
what the advisory committee saw at its future. The committee's in-depth
assessment would be submitted with its final report, due June 2007. Her
own view, she stated, was that students feeling safe in school was a
prerequisite to student achievement. She noted that while a number of
Monday's presenters had stressed the need for increased funding, she
thought it unlikely that Congress would increase the overall education
budget. Further, she noted that if Congress were to undertake new
initiatives in education, the funds to do so would likely come from
existing programs. Therefore, she urged that the September 8 report
highlight the program's significance, so that dollars allocated to it
were not moved to fund another initiative. Additionally, she thought the
September 8 report should tie the program to overall Department of
Education goals, including continued implementation of No Child Left
Behind, and should respond to the general requirement that, to receive
continued funds, programs needed to present data that showed they were
effective.

*ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:*

Russell Jones asked Price if she was saying the committee could not seek
additional funds. Price said she was not. Hope Taft said the program had
been 'zeroed out' by the Department because of the review conducted by
OMB. Price said all programs within the Department of Education were
held to the same standard. The House of Representatives, she noted, had
reduced program funding from \$347 million to \$310 million; she thought
it unlikely that a House-Senate conference committee would increase
funding. Mary Ann Solberg suggested including research data showing that
school drug use contributed to low standardized test scores. Price
responded that this was not at issue; what was at issue was the
effectiveness of State Grants Program in curtailing drug use. Price said
that suggesting ways to improve the program did not constitute a
criticism of it; however, suggestions for improvement could not simply
be requests for additional funds.

Bill Modzeleski said there was a major cause-and-effect issue. The
group, on Monday, had heard data from the state and local panels showing
a decline in drug use. However, there was no clear evidence that this
decline was attributable to SFDS. Evaluations that might 'tease out'
SDFS' role in this decline were very costly to undertake. He noted that
both program and state data had gone to OMB, which had found that data
insufficient to its standards. Sheppard Kellam said SDFS was an example
of a more general question: how could one know if a social policy
initiative was working? He believed the field was close to defining a
structure through which researchers, social policy experts and educators
could collaborate. Money was not the answer; restructuring was. The
group should not be defensive; rather, it should take the view that it
would undertake to address the difficult task of determining how well a
social policy initiative worked.

Kim Dude said that, as a practitioner, she found the discussion
frustrating. She believed a new paradigm of effectiveness was needed. If
the group put 'all its eggs' into cause and effect, if would fail, as
she doubted change was traceable to a single, specific action. Rather,
she thought change came from multiple, reinforcing actions. She said she
felt prevention efforts were at a disadvantage: standardized academic
tests produced very measurable results; prevention could not be
similarly measured. She said that during Monday's session, having heard
statements of success from the state and local panels, she had been
angered when the research panelists had declared the program
ineffective.

Hope Taft said she believed that, at times, SFDS was held to a different
standard. She reported having read a statement by a former White House
official involved with faith-based initiatives that Catholic Charities
had been unable to show their Head Start programs were successful; she
noted that not all Head Start programs send in evaluative reports. She
suggested that evaluation might focus on the wrong thing: one national
study on adolescents had called attention to the importance of
connectedness to school and connectedness to family as factors that
reduced teen drug use. Deborah Price said she thought this was a good
point. She added, however, that the OMB process was in place. Congress,
she added, often had its own concerns. She cited Head Start as an
example of this: evaluations aside, Head Start was a program Congress
wished to support; similarly, Congress had funded the State Grants
Program even after the OMB review questioned its effectiveness.

*\[Discussion paused for the Public Comments portion of the agenda.\]*

\* \* \*

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Laurie Johnson, Washington State Department of Education, presented
written comments from Dr. Ellen Morehouse, who had appeared as a
panelist the previous day: In those comments, Morehouse said she wished
to respond to the discrepancy between the positive program findings by
state and local practitioners and the negative findings of researchers.
Evidence was presented of use in Westchester \[New York\] County of
Project Success, which Morehouse described as being 'on the list,' and
of use at the high school level of an alcohol-related program that had
been named a model in its field. Further, she noted that Chris
Ringwalt's study was limited to middle schools, even though elementary
and high schools were common users of SDFS funds; she cited Life Skills
Training as an effective program generally employed below the middle
school level.

Penny Deevers Traywick noted that, among various roles, she was
currently the representative of the governor of Alabama on that state's
Safe and Drug-Free Schools committee. She said she had heard reference
to student assistance programs. She wished those present to know that
such programs were a framework through which social and academic
resources were delivered to schools. Nine components were involved --
school board policy, staff development, program awareness, internal
referral, problem solving, case management, student evaluation,
education support groups and collaboration and support of community
groups. She noted that the program's executive director, Lee Rush, had
attended the Monday session, but had been unable to return today.

\* \* \*

*ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION -- CONTINUED*

David Long urged that, for the remainder of the session, committee
members develop a framework that considered two broad questions. First:
what is the function of schools? What are we trying to accomplish in
education? How should we prioritize those things? Second: How is this to
be delivered? Should this be for everyone? Should we review the formula
for disbursing funds?

Russell Jones said he was grateful to OMB for maintaining accountability
of how funds were spent on behalf of children. He did not believe cause
and effect could always be demonstrated. He noted that Einstein, asked
if light was wave or particle, had replied 'both.' Both empirical
research and evaluation existed: however, researchers, clinicians, and
grassroots people should not be evaluated to the same standard.

Michael Pimentel commented that he had a daughter who had Multiple
Sclerosis and that it appalled him when people referred to her as a
statistic. He believed statistics needed to be kept at the local level,
where small successes meant a great deal. For him, the question was how
the group could look at the future of State Grants without clouding
itself with the operational characteristics, which he felt should be
left to the local communities.

Tommy Ledbetter asked about the phrase 'safe and drug free.' If a school
had to be drug free to be safe, then perhaps no safe schools existed, as
it was likely none were entirely drug free. He noted that 15 years ago,
the drug focus was on alcohol and marijuana; today, it extended to
cocaine, heroin and falsely obtained prescription drugs. Second,
Ledbetter reported that after Monday's session, he had spoken with Chris
Ringwalt, who in Monday's session had reported that few schools were
using drug education programs from the approved list. Ringwalt had
confirmed that some programs would be added to the list and others
dropped, and, following from this, that some programs not on the list at
the time they were used were more effective than some that were. This
being the case, Ledbetter said, how was it possible to say how often
ineffective programs had been used? Additionally, Ledbetter commented
that perhaps local State Grants recipients could secure matching funds.
He noted that, in his view, any school in which drug use was not
increasing and in which school safety levels remained the same
constituted a success. As a building administrator, he believed academic
performance goals came first; however, meeting those goals required a
safe and drug-free environment.

Deborah Price said that, to her, a 'safe' school meant much more than a
'drug free' school; it was a comprehensive word for an environment in
which children felt secure. Hope Taft commented that when one considered
what goes into making a child a competent, caring, responsible adult,
research showed that it was not the program, but the person in charge of
that program that mattered most.

Belinda Sims made reference to Peter Reuter's report, and asked what had
been done since 2001 to improve those areas the report had criticized,
e.g. administrative ineffectiveness, the lack of targeting of resources
and inadequate efforts at improving program capacity. Second, she asked
about the transferability of funds across Titles.

Deborah Price, responding to the second point, said NCLB allowed school
districts to transfer some Title IV funds to either Title I or Title V.
Funds so transferred become subject to the spending criteria of the
Titles into which they have been transferred. Districts were not
required to report that they have made this transfer. Bill Modzeleski
said that, in practice, only very limited funds had been transferred in
this way. Responding to Sim's first point, Modzeleski outlined
departmental efforts to improve the State Grants Program. These included
\$10 million a year spent on training; a discretionary grants program to
improve data collection; newsletters; best practice reporting, and other
steps.

Returning to earlier discussion, Modzeleski said no 'approved list'
existed; rather, different agencies had different lists. A list of
programs that had some degree of research supporting their effectiveness
was made available; school districts were urged to choose one. He
believed that, at the school level, SFDS was less about curriculum than
about mentoring, and as much about the commitment of time as the
commitment of money. One needed step was to move away from programmatic
'silos' to broader-based programs that addressed the range of problems
young people face. His own view was that educators were ahead of
researchers, due to the time lag inherent in research. This, he added,
prompted the question of how researchers could be brought along.
Practitioners needed to inform researchers of what was important to
them.

Sheppard Kellam said Monday's report on research did not connect with
the advisory group; to him, this underscored that the research
establishment was unaware of the questions those in the field needed to
have answered. He believed practice should drive research. He felt an
opportunity existed to create a new structure. The group should say:
safe and drug-free schools are vital; socializing children is related to
self-esteem; we must focus on developmental trajectories and get in
early. This, he said, could not be done from an ivory tower. As part of
this, child welfare efforts and public health efforts should be better
connected to school districts.

Mary Ann Solberg expressed agreement. She asked when a further score was
expected from OMB. Deborah Price said February 2007. Solberg commented
that multiple federal programs -- e.g. the Drug Free Communities Support
Program \-- had functions similar to SDFS. Could representatives of such
programs be invited to present on how they did evaluation? She urged
SDFS be in contact with other federal agencies; it appeared everyone was
'reinventing the wheel.' Better collaboration was needed: Ohio and
Washington seemed to be doing great things, but some other states were
struggling. Russell Jones seconded this. He said every state university
had graduate programs with researchers who would welcome the opportunity
to become engaged with SDFS. Further, he suggested creating partnerships
that would allow SDFS to tie into Homeland Security and other funding.

Mary Ann Solberg noted that over time SDFS' scope had been enlarged,
while funds had been decreased. She believed issues such as terrorism or
hurricane response should be funded from other departments, not
education. Deborah Price commented that the relevant legislation gave
SDFS its mandate in drugs, alcohol and crisis planning; the program's
appropriation existed to address these issues as provided by law. The
purpose of the current review, she added, was to assess the value of the
existing program. Montean Jackson commented that, for her, SFDS had for
over a decade been the major player in providing the additional supports
schools needed; often, she added, school was the only place a given
child might feel safe.

*\[Break\]*

\* \* \*

*ADVISORY COMMITTEE DISCUSSION -- CONTINUED*

David Long, reconvening the session, said the purpose was not to reach
set conclusions, but to allow views to come together in preparation for
the pending conference call. He added that, in listening to the
discussion, he thought the 'elephant in the room' was that the
circumstance was political. Ultimately, the program was subject to a
vote by Congress. The advisory committee should be aware of this and
should frame its position in a way that would make it easy for Congress
to endorse.

Hope Taft said the group needed to return to basics. The drug-free
program was initiated in the late 1980s; then it became 'safe and
drug-free.' Congress had been aware of the influence of drugs and
alcohol on safety. She believed a definition of what was meant by
'safety' was needed. Second, she said that if anything was done to
undermine the passion of people at the local level, funding would not
compensate. The committee must show support for local efforts and how
those efforts tie to academic achievement. Perhaps the funding formula
should be altered to create incentives at the local level for such
things as collaboration, securing of matching funds, in-kind services,
etc. Perhaps, she added, funds from Drug-Free Communities Grants and
other programs could be dovetailed. People on the local level, she said,
got frustrated by doing multiple reports for the same money. Mary Ann
Solberg expressed agreement with Hope Taft's views. Russell Jones agreed
that a definition of safety was needed.

Howell Wechsler referenced the previous day's statements by researchers
that program funds were spread too thin; should, he asked, the practice
of giving grants to every school district be maintained? David Long
suggested that this might be the first point to address. Tommy Ledbetter
noted the following: program funds were said to be spread too thin;
existing programs wanted more money; federal appropriation was
declining. Perhaps, districts wishing to receive SDFS funds should face
a matching requirement. As an example, he cited school systems in the
Huntsville, Alabama area that had created a partnership program with the
local Chamber of Commerce.

Russell Jones endorsed this approach. Kim Dude said many districts would
drop out of the program if matching funds were required. Commonly, she
said, the SDFS program might be just one of many tasks for which the
local director was responsible. David Long said it was an issue of
leadership and a responsibility of the superintendent: if someone
offered his district \$500,000 provided it was matched, he would contact
business, foundation and other leaders to make sure the money was
raised. Kim Dude responded that in many districts, such leadership did
not exist. Hope Taft suggested that allowance be made for in-kind
contributions. Russell Jones said it was a matter of teaching people to
market their passions. Kim Dude said that, at present, she spent much of
her time raising money, rather than running the program. Program
officers, she said, commonly wore many hats. She said that in many
instances, regrettably, support would be forthcoming only if there was a
student death. Hope Taft said that at one time, every drug-free school
was required to have a community advisory committee; such committees
could be the vehicle for fundraising. Perhaps that requirement should be
re-instituted. Montean Jackson said that in Alaska many districts were
rural and did not have local businesses or others from which matching
funds might be sought. Russell Jones said people interested in the
problem needed to become empowered.

Bill Modzeleski said SDFS' experience with matching funds had not been
good. He believed that rather than solicit funds, it was better to
establish partnerships. Tommy Ledbetter said that if he was offered
money that required matching, he would find the match. If a program
could not match funds, this suggested the program was not viewed as
important. Mary Ann Solberg said she identified with Kim Dude's concern.
She noted, however, that she was involved with a Drug-Free Communities
program that required a \$100,000 match. Early on, she said, the match
had been largely in-kind; as the program matured, however, partnerships
developed and an increasing share of the match came in money. The
program, she said, did not just change the school, it also changed the
community; as this was recognized, community support increased.

Howell Wechsler noted that if a district matched \$1,000, then the
\$2,000 it had was still an amount which OMB and the researchers had
said was too small to be effective. Hope Taft said that in Ohio, schools
receiving the lowest amounts of money were doing the best at getting
local matches. David Long noted that, as a political point, Congress
welcomed programs that drew in involvement from companies and
communities.

Sheppard Kellam expressed reservations about partnering: the
effectiveness of partnerships depended on how they were structured and
how mutual self-interest was defined. The partnership that was missing,
he said, was one that could bring research into practice. He said
researchers partnering with schools needed to understand the schools'
mission and how that mission could be assisted; too often, he added,
research partners came in with a 'snake oil' they tried to impose on
overworked administrators. He noted that school districts found that
association with research partners was an aid in securing funds. He
urged that the highest priority -- perhaps, classroom management -- be
identified, with efforts targeted there. He stressed the importance of
information systems; particularly, statewide assessment systems that
follow children from school to school. He said he believed SDFS could
take the initiative in this area.

Kim Dude asked if it the committee could recommend that teacher
preparation include basic information on alcohol and drugs; people with
no training in prevention were being expected to implement prevention
programs. Deborah Price said the Department of Education was not
permitted to mandate requirements for teacher education.

Deborah Price noted that the finding that funds were too thinly spread
to support quality had been made even before funding had been reduced.
This needed to be addressed. Should the 80/20 funding split between
districts and the state governors' offices be continued? Should all
funds go directly to states for them to allocate? Clearly, she said,
some districts had done good work with small amounts of money, but this
was not generally the case.

David Long suggested that a series of questions might be compiled, with
advisory committee members responding by email. Sheppard Kellam asked if
committee members could suggest questions. Long responded that they
could. Hope Taft offered a 'plug' for universality; addiction was a
universal problem and she regarded it as unethical to leave anyone out.
Deborah Price expressed agreement. If, however, funds were given to
districts that did not make good use of them, those funds were being
taken away from more effective programs.

David Long said, in closing, that he was deeply appreciative of the
group's participation and its passion for children.

*\[The meeting adjourned, Tuesday, August 22, 11:30 a.m.\]*

*Appendix A:*

*Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee*

Members

**David Long (Chairman)**\
Superintendent\
Riverside County Public Schools

**Kim Dude**\
Director of the Wellness Resource Center\
University of Missouri-Columbia

**Frederick E. Ellis**\
Director\
Office of Safety and Security\
Fairfax County Public Schools

**Montean Jackson**\
Safe and Drug Free Schools Coordinator\
Fairbanks North Star Borough School District

**Russell T. Jones**\
Professor of Psychology\
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University\
Department of Psychology

**Sheppard Kellam**\
Director\
Center for Integration Education\
and Prevention Research in Schools\
American Institutes for Research

**Tommy Ledbetter**\
Principal\
Buckhorn High School

**Seth Norman**\
Judge of the Division IV Criminal Court\
Davidson County Drug Court

**Michael Pimentel**\
Chief\
San Antonio Independent School District Police

**Hope Taft**\
First Lady of the State of Ohio

**Deborah A. Price**\
Assistant Deputy Secretary\
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools\
U.S. Department of Education

*Appendix A: continued*

**J. Robert Flores\***\
Administrator\
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention\
US Department of Justice

**Ralph Hingson \***\
Director\
Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research Branch\
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

**Susan Key\***\
Chief\
Prevention Initiatives and Priority Programs Branch\
Division of Prevention, Traumatic Stress and Special Programs\
Center for Mental Health Services\
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration\
Health and Human Service

**Dennis Romero**\
Acting Center Director\
Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention\
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration\
Health and Human Service

**Belinda E. Sims**\
Prevention Research Branch\
Division of Epidemiology, Services and Prevention Research\
National Institute on Drug Abuse\
National Institute of Health

**Mary Ann Solberg**\
Deputy Director\
Executive Office of the President\
Office of National Drug Control Policy

**Howell Wechsler**\
Director of Division of Adolescent and School Health\
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

\* Not present, August 21-22, 2006 session

*Appendix B:*

Meeting Attendees

August 21-22, 2006

Jon Akers, Executive Director, Kentucky Center for School Safety,
Richmond, Kentucky

Lorraine Allen, Director, Office of Safe Schools, Florida Department of
Education, Tallahassee, Florida

Jeff Barber, SDFS Coordinator, Indiana Department of Education,
Indianapolis, Indiana

John Bynoe, Associate Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of
Education, Malden, Massachusetts

General Arthur Dean, Chairman & CEO, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of
America \[CADCA\], Alexandria, Virginia

Kim Dude, Director, Wellness Resource Center, University of
Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri

Frederick Ellis, Director, Office of Safety and Security, Fairfax County
Public Schools, Fairfax, Virginia

Gus Frias, Coordinator, School Safety Programs, Los Angeles County
Office of Education, Downey, California

Mike Herrmann, Executive Director, Office of School Health, Safety &
Learning Support, Tennessee Department of Education, Nashville,
Tennessee

Montean Jackson, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinator, Fairbanks North
Star Borough School District, Fairbanks, Alaska

Mona Johnson, Program Supervisor, Office of Superintendent for Public
Instruction for Washington State, Olympia, Washington

Clarence Jones, Coordinator, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, Fairfax County
Public Schools, Falls Church, Virginia

Dr. Russell Jones, Professor of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic and
State University, Blacksburg, Virginia

Dr. Sheppard Kellam, Director, Center for Integration Education and
Prevention Research in Schools, American Institutes for Research,
Baltimore, Maryland

Donni LeBoeuf, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Tommy Ledbetter, Principal, Buckhorn High School, New Market, Alabama

Dr. David Long, Superintendent, Riverside County Public Schools,
Riverside, California

Ellen Morehouse, Executive Director, Student Assistance Services
Corporation, Tarrytown, New York

Judge Seth Norman, Judge of the Division IV Criminal Court, Davidson
County Drug Court, Nashville, Tennessee

Deborah Price, Assistant Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C

Michael Pimentel, Chief, San Antonio Independent School District Police
Department, San Antonio, Texas

Ed Ray, Chief, Safety and Security Department, Denver Public Schools,
Denver, Colorado

Dr. Peter Reuter, Professor, School of Public Policy, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland

Dr. Chris Ringwalt, Senior Research Scientist, Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation -- Chapel Hill Center, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina

Dennis Romero, Acting Center Director, Center for Substance Abuse and
Prevention, SAMHSA, Atlanta, Georgia

Dr. Belinda Sims, Health Scientist Administrator, National Institute on
Drug Abuse at NIH, Rockville, Maryland

Dr. Zili Slobada, Senior Research Associate, Institute for Health and
Social Policy, University of Akron, Akron, Ohio

Mary Ann Solberg, Deputy Director, Office of National Drug Control
Policy, Washington, D.C.

*Appendix B: continued*

Hope Taft, First Lady of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio

Cynthia Timmons, Director, Children of Promise-Mentors of Hope, Norman,
Oklahoma

Dr. Howell Wechsler, Director, Division of Adolescent and School Health,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Catherine Davis, Chief of Staff, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools,
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

William Modzeleski, Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Safe
and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education, Washington D.C.