ENHANCING ACHIEVEMENT AND PROFICIENCY THROUGH SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS

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

**ENHANCING ACHIEVEMENT AND PROFICIENCY THROUGH SAFE AND DRUG-FREE
SCHOOLS**

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

**August XX, 2007**

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.
\*\*\* with \*\*\*. \*\*\* serving as the contracting officer's
representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent
the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official
endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product,
commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is
intended or should be inferred.

## U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

# Secretary

Catherine Davis

# Executive Director, Safe and Drug-free Schools Advisory committee

August 2007

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of
Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory
committee, *Enhancing Achievement and Proficiency Through Safe and
Drug-Free Schools*, Washington, D.C., 2007.

To order copies of this report,

**Write to**: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of
Education,

P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

Or **fax** your request to: 301-470-1244;

Or **e-mail** your request to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>;

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

Or order online at:
[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
<http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/sdfscac/comment.html>;

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

**CONTENTS**

Letter of Transmittal v

Executive Summary vii

Expert Voices xiii

Background 1

Committee Findings and Recommendations 5

Appendix 1: Glossary 25

Appendix 2: Committee Charter 27

Appendix 3: Committee Meetings 30

Appendix 4: Committee Members 34

**LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL**

June 11, 2007

The Honorable Margaret Spellings

U.S. Secretary of Education

400 Maryland Ave. S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

Dear Madame Secretary:

In June 2006, when you formed the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Advisory committee, you encouraged us to play a vital role
in ensuring safe and drug-free schools for America's children. We have
taken this charge seriously and today present to you our report,
*Enhancing Achievement and Proficiency Through Safe and Drug-Free
Schools*.

This report reflects the consensus of the members of the committee,
including the findings and recommendations they formulated in response
to the questions you put to the committee at the outset of our work and
the additional considerations you raised as that work was in progress.

The report reflects not only the extensive discussions and experience of
committee members, but also the information gained as we listened to
invited panelists and members of the public at committee meetings and
through written submissions to the committee. An underlying theme of the
testimonies, submissions, and discussions was the continued and
heightened need to ensure our students are provided opportunities to
excel in schools and learning environments that are safe and free of
alcohol and drug use.

We, like you, remain firmly committed to the work of promoting safe and
drug-free schools. We believe that many of the suggestions noted in this
report will contribute to that effort.

Each of the members of the committee thanks you for the opportunity to
serve in this important endeavor and pledges our continued assistance.

Sincerely,

David Long

Chair

**Executive Summary**

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory committee, an
organization mandated by the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*(*NCLB*)
to consult with and assist the United States Department of Education,
was organized in June 2006 by U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret
Spellings. At that time, Secretary Spellings charged the committee with
providing this report in response to questions regarding the
Department's Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants
Program, the Unsafe School Choice Option and the data requirements of
*NCLB*.

The committee held six meetings and six conference calls to conduct its
work. At four of the meetings, the committee heard testimony from 38
witnesses regarding the three areas of focus in this report (State
Grants Program, Unsafe School Choice Option and data requirements) plus
three additional areas of concern outlined by the secretary in her visit
with the committee in October 2006 (trauma, nonpublic schools and
urban-rural challenges). The committee's report addresses all of these
issues. It recognizes that not all of the important work of providing
safe and drug-free schools for America's students can be done by the
U.S. Department of Education alone, but believes its findings and
recommendations, coupled with a focus on prevention, may assist the
Department in advancing this crucial effort.

The committee report contains consensus findings and recommendations
related to each area of concern identified for the committee by the
secretary.

*State Grants Program*

In regards to the State Grants Program, the report notes that the
program has successfully created an infrastructure for state and local
education agencies to work together on safety and drug and alcohol
prevention activities and appropriately emphasizes community efforts. It
also notes that, with some reservations, there is significant support
for allowing more money from the State Grants Program to be used by
state agencies. The report urges greater cooperation between various
federal agencies providing funding for drug and alcohol use prevention
and safety efforts. The report also notes the unique challenges of urban
and rural schools and urges separate guidelines for these different
environments.

The committee noted unclear and conflicting standards hamper alcohol and
drug use prevention and safety efforts. This could be alleviated, the
report suggests, if the Department provided clear, measurable outcomes
for determining success, encouraged enhanced assessment mechanisms and
identified activities likely to contribute to success.

To better determine whether the State Grants Program is meeting its
purpose, the report suggests requiring reports from grantees on key
indicators of safety and alcohol and drug use, and the identification
and dissemination of best practices for safety and alcohol and drug use
prevention.

The report also notes some tension arising from the demands on schools
to provide for the safety needs of students in a wide range of areas.
The report makes a number of specific suggestions for enhancing school
safety efforts, including improved coordination between various federal
agencies that interact with schools and state education agencies on
safety issues.

The report also addresses challenges related to the lack of adequate
funding for school safety and alcohol and drug use prevention programs,
suggesting a series of possible changes, including a requirement that
grantees foster partnerships with community members, an increase in the
proportion of funding given to state education agencies, and providing
needs-based grants to state and local education agencies. The emphasis
on partnerships and collaboration is a consistent theme in the report.

Finally, the committee noted the importance of funded activities
utilizing the "Principles of Effectiveness" in federal law, and its
report stresses improved data collection, school-researcher
partnerships, and identification of innovative ideas as helpful in this
regard.

*Unsafe School Choice Option*

The committee's report stresses the importance of enhanced efforts to
determine whether schools are truly safe through the use of specific
safety measures, including data collection beyond incidents of violence
at schools. To assist both victims and perpetrators of school violence,
the report outlines a series of possible interventions, including
movement options for both the victim and perpetrator, and counseling.

The report realistically notes problems caused by varying state criteria
for identifying persistently dangerous schools and an undue stress on
incident reporting. The report strongly urges a change in the
terminology "persistently dangerous schools" and a shift in focus
towards providing help for potentially unsafe schools, perhaps by adding
them to a "watch list." For states with adequate measures currently in
place to ensure students will not be trapped in unsafe school
environments, the report notes the possibility of a waiver of Unsafe
School Choice Option (USCO) requirements.

The committee repeatedly suggests utilizing additional measures such as
school climate surveys to determine if schools are becoming safer.
Recognizing that this might create additional burdens for some state and
local education agencies, the report makes suggestions for helping these
entities, including the encouragement of partnerships among
organizations in the community. The report includes a discussion of
possible Department efforts that might be helpful, such as
identification of model schools and a variety of additional specific
recommendations.

*Data Requirements*

In regard to data requirements, the report highlights two themes: the
need for enhanced data gathering and the integration of data into
practice.

The report notes a role for the Department in determining what data are
reasonable to collect and in helping schools learn to integrate data
collection and practice. The report also suggests a number of other
Department initiatives in areas such as using data to assess progress,
using data in ongoing evaluation efforts across federal agencies and
gathering data from various sources. Specifically, the report suggests
the Department consider developing a set of standard questions for use
by state and local education agencies.

Since data gathering and application efforts can be expensive and may be
impeded by other obstacles, the report suggests cooperation among
federal agencies collecting data from schools, a cost analysis of data
efforts, and sponsored research on data collection and integration.

*Nonpublic Schools*

The committee noted that current guidelines generally encourage
appropriate involvement of nonpublic schools in the Department's safety,
and drug and alcohol use prevention efforts. The report suggests that
explicit guidelines on the interaction between public and nonpublic
schools would ensure better cooperation between them.

*Urban/Rural*

The committee heard testimony about and recognizes the unique challenges
faced by urban and rural schools. The report takes these challenges into
consideration and makes relevant recommendations throughout.

*Trauma*

The report recognizes the effect of trauma on many students and
encourages, where appropriate, screening and intervention efforts (from
a prevention perspective) as an important response to student trauma.
The report notes some possible roles for the Department in this regard.

\*\*\*

There is much more in the committee report that cannot be adequately
captured in this summary, but we hope this provides an overview of the
many issues the report addresses.

The report concludes by noting the continued necessity of school safety
and alcohol and drug use prevention efforts to enhanced achievement and
performance by America's students and expressing the committee's hope
that the report will contribute to that crucial goal.

**EXPERT VOICES**

No public policy question is more important than how we ensure the
safety and achievement of the nation's children and youths. Parents and
countless others who have dedicated their lives to helping children,
have worked and studied how best to make this happen. They provide a
crucial resource in the effort to ensure learning environments free of
alcohol and drug use, violence and other threats.

As it pursued its mission, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Advisory committee heard from parents, teachers,
administrators, government officials, and other professionals, all
united in a desire to ensure that the students of America are provided a
learning atmosphere that is safe and free from the dangers of alcohol
and drug use. Regardless of their views on specific issues, all were
anxious to secure the safety of children and to foster their
achievement.

The presenters testifying before the committee were also exceptionally
well-informed. Their presentations provided information and insight that
were invaluable for members of the committee, and by extension, anyone
involved in education. To provide a sense of the tenor and content of
these important presentations, this section includes illustrative
excerpts from those who spoke to the committee during its public
meetings.

\*\*\*

"The State Grants Program is the only source of funding for alcohol and
drug education, and violence prevention that reaches into virtually
every school district in Tennessee. Without the State Grants Program,
the overwhelming majority of our schools simply would not be able to
address these two issues in any kind of systematic or ongoing way."
**Mike Herrmann, executive director, Office of School Health, Safety and
Learning Support, Tennessee Department of Education**

"The tension between Principles of Effectiveness and funds that we spend
on research-based effectiveness, I think the reality with that is
research-based effectiveness is a good idea, but I think we need to go
from programs to strategies, identify those strategies, because again,
there\'s not enough funding to fully fund programs and implement a
program for fidelity if you\'re a small district." **John Bynoe,
associate commissioner, Center for Student Support, Massachusetts
Department of Education**

"I haven\'t had anybody, even school systems who receive \$500, say they
don\'t want it. And they have to fill out an application, they have to
do all the same things that a school system that receives \$200,000
does. So if schools are willing to do that, school systems are willing
to do that, to me, that says something. If they\'re willing to take the
\$500, do all the work that comes with it, and implement programs to the
best of their ability with that funding, there is a message there, I
think, from the school systems." **Jeff Barber, safe and drug-free
schools coordinator, Indiana Department of Education; president,
National Network for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities**

"Our recommendation is increased funding. We\'d love to see that ...
Maintain an emphasis on the Principles of Effectiveness---I keep
mentioning that, but the capacity building and understanding the science
of prevention is so key to making this work." **Mona Johnson, program
supervisor, Washington State Department of Public Instruction; vice
president, National Network for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities**

"What is ironic is the fact that the LEAs across this nation have
followed the POE, the Principles of Effectiveness, and have the data to
prove that the programs are making a difference, tons of data. They have
that data, yet their voices are not heard as one in Washington. That is
a problem." **Clarence Jones**, **coordinator, Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Fairfax County Public Schools**

"I think the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program, the State Grants
portion, is terrific and it works." **Ellen Morehouse, executive
director, Student Assistance Services Corporation**

"We believe that currently, as implemented, there are already too many
mandates on the program. Therefore, it should not be diluted any
further. No issues and mandates, we believe, would strengthen or would
help the program; and, therefore, should not be added." **General Arthur
Dean, Chairman and CEO, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America**

"We have learned that in the area of school safety, our county Offices
of Education need to lead." **Gus Frias, coordinator of school safety
programs, Los Angeles County Department of Education**

"Too many school districts receive the grants, and the medium grant is
too small to make a difference. The schools in general choose relatively
weak projects, they lack guidance, they lack incentives, they lack
monitoring to force them to do anything else." **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**

"Funding for prevention in the United States is decreasing tremendously
now ... However, I think the message is there now, and this may not be
the right time to begin cutting funding for prevention. I think the feds
have to really be the leaders in this area. I think the states are on
board." **Zili Sloboda, senior research associate, Institute for Health
and Social Policy, University of Akron**

"We also need to find out the extent to which content that is thought to
be effective is being taught, and also, the extent to which teaching
strategies thought to be effective are used. By the way, the strategies
that we are modeling today we know are ineffective." **Chris Ringwalt,
senior research scientist, Chapel Hill Center-Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation**

"We don\'t believe that the funds should come directly out of
Washington, D.C. We don\'t believe that to be the most effective, and
maybe the most unwieldy possibility, so we kind of would like to see, at
a minimum, keep it as it is." **Edward Ray, chief, Department of Safety
and Security, Denver Public Schools**

"Collaboration is the key, because we could not do our job if we didn\'t
collaborate with all the other state agencies, and also local education
agencies, and our emergency management folks in our counties, et cetera,
so we couldn\'t do it alone. And, also, the funding, we couldn\'t do it
alone on just the funding that we do receive." **Lorraine Allen,
director, Office of Safe Schools, Florida Department of Education**

"Prevention is a very difficult thing to put a measuring stick on. I
just know what I\'ve seen in the schools over the years, that these
prevention activities have worked in anecdotal ways." **Jon Akers,
executive director, Kentucky Center for School Safety, Eastern Kentucky
University**

"We also need to promote that good citizenship and character. I can tell
you since I\'ve started working with children of prisoners, they
sometimes don\'t know what good citizenship is. They really haven\'t
been taught that." **Cynthia Timmons, director, Children of
Promise-Mentors of Hope, University of Oklahoma Outreach**

"Assessing directly from students and young people and staff themselves
about what they\'re feeling and what their perception of safety is in a
school is a way to level out and balance what you\'re seeing in hard
paper and sort of quantitative reports." **Annie Salsich, senior program
associate, Vera Institute of Justice**

"I think if we interview students, they would identify a persistently
dangerous school by their perception of how they go to school. Where you
might have very few instances of a fight, where people are hurt with
their fist, there are hundreds of thousands of kids that go to school
every day and are hurt by words." **Bill Bond, school safety specialist,
National Association of Secondary School Principals**

**"**If we attach a stigma like 'persistently dangerous' to a school,
that principal, like those of us in the school safety business, will
spend an inordinate amount of time defending and responding to that, and
it takes their eyes off the ball, and that is to educate our kids."

**Peter Pochowski, Midwest director, National Association of School
Safety and Law Enforcement Officers**

"We\'ve already talked about the problems. We need more aggressive
oversight by the Education Department. We need better procedures for
data verification. We need effective and consistent training." **Jerry
Barber, assistant comptroller, New York State Comptroller's Office**

"We definitely consider this idea of victim transfer option \[a student
victimized at school is given the option of transferring to a safe
school within the school district\] to be very important, and the idea
of information getting to parents as they need it." **Rich Rasa,
director, State and Local Advisory and Assistance Services, Office of
Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education**

"Based on the issues identified through our audits and with the
information we continue to gather from the states on USCO policy, it\'s
imperative that statutory changes be considered to strengthen the USCO."
**Bernie Tadley, regional inspector general, Office of Inspector
General, U.S. Department of Education**

"We looked at the schools that have been deemed as 'persistently
dangerous' by all the states and then tried to go and find out where
they were with their education progress, and we found\--and this
probably isn\'t a surprising answer to the hypothesis\--that about 75 or
80 percent of those schools that were persistently dangerous were also
in need of adequate yearly progress, and they were having challenges
there." **Paul Kesner, director, State Grants Program, Office of Safe
and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education**

"High incidence occurring in a school based upon the behavior of one or
two students is also an issue that we\'re trying to deal with. Sometimes
you have repeat offenders, and so the numbers go up in that school and
it\'s one child, and that really is not a very good way to be
identifying schools." **Susan Martz**, **director of the Office of
Program Support Services, New Jersey Department of Education**

"Many districts feel that if they are really active in preventing school
safety incidents they\'re more likely to be identified as 'persistently
dangerous schools'." **Cory Green, senior director of the NCLB Program
Coordination Division, Texas State Education Agency**

"Reauthorization should mandate identification of high-priority schools,
not persistently

dangerous schools, and should provide funds." **Meredith Rolfe,
administrator of the Safe and Healthy Kids Program Office, California
Department of Education**

"When we were looking at persistence and dangerous, we kept thinking
what that implies is that the situation is so bad that if you choose to
continue attending the school, you are accepting a high risk, and it
means that your child could very well become injured or something like
that." **Janelle Krueger, principal consultant for the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools Program, Colorado Department of Education**

"Local school districts are required as part of their Title IV
application to identify risks and then to match to those risks
strategies, so one of the things that we\'ve tried to do \[in
Tennessee\] to help local districts is consolidate all of the various
data pieces that we have available at the state level for them so that
they don\'t have to go out and do all that background work, which I
think has helped a lot in terms of getting particularly some of our
smaller districts more focused on addressing risk factors." **Mike
Herrmann, executive director, Office of School Health Safety and
Learning Support, Tennessee Department of Education**

"There are many different policy applications for the Youth Risk
Behavior Surveillance survey (YRBS) data. It\'s used to present a
picture of what\'s going on among youths, to create a lot of awareness
among policymakers, media, the public \... It\'s used all the time to
support and tie the development of programs and policies by advocates to
support health-related legislation, and it\'s in just about every
funding application you could possibly imagine." **Howell Wechsler,
director, Division of Adolescent and School Health Center for Disease
Control**

"The Los Alamos, New Mexico schools have used the PRIDE survey since
1988, and using their data, school officials in Los Alamos were able to
detect an abnormally high number of eighth-grade girls\--there were only
250 altogether\--but an abnormally high number of those eighth graders
who had seriously considered suicide. If it weren\'t for local data, not
national or state data, the local officials in that school system in Los
Alamos would not have been alerted to that problem, and it may have been
too late before they took action."

**Doug Hall**, **senior vice president, PRIDE Surveys**

"I think that, as we move forward, what we want to do is try to tie the
collection of data to the use of data for decision-making, and how do we
do that effectively?"

**Deborah Rudy, director of policy and cross-cutting programs, Office of
Safe and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education (presented by
Bill Modzeleski)**

"Signed consent is a wonderful thing because, as you deal with families,
if you are really doing in-depth research and really going to deal with
them, then that is why that consent provision is there to say, 'Hey,
they can give you access to anything.'"\
**LeRoy Rooker, director, Family Policy Compliance Office, U.S.
Department of Education**

**BACKGROUND**

*Introduction to the committee*

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory committee is
authorized by Section 4124(a) of the *Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965* (ESEA) as amended by the *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*
(*NCLB*). The legislation directs the committee to consult with and
provide information to the U.S. secretary of education regarding
programs being carried out by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
(OSDFS).

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory committee was
formed June 12, 2006, by Secretary Margaret Spellings, to provide advice
to her on some of the programs carried out by the Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools. Specifically, the secretary charged the committee
with assessing three areas: (1) the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities State Grant Program, (2) the Unsafe School Choice Option
provision and identification of persistently dangerous schools; and (3)
the data requirements of the *No Child Left Behind Act*. At the October
2006 meeting of the committee, Secretary Spellings raised additional
issues for the committee's consideration: nonpublic schools, trauma, and
unique challenges for urban and rural schools.

The committee is made up of 19 members, including employees of federal
agencies, state and local government representatives, and expert
practitioners in the fields of substance abuse and violence prevention.
The committee Chairman is David Long, the secretary of education for the
state of California.

##### Work of the committee

The secretary charged the committee to dedicate itself to playing "a
vital role" in "ensuring that our students have safe and drug-free
schools." The committee has taken this charge very seriously. To this
end, the committee held a series of meetings in 2006 and 2007, where it
heard testimony from panels of invited experts and discussed potential
findings and recommendations for this report. The committee has also
received valuable public input from interested groups on specific issues
related to the committee's charge.

The committee's first working meeting was held on Aug. 21---22, 2006, in
Washington, D.C. That meeting focused on the secretary's questions
related to the state grants program. At the committee's Oct. 23---24
focus group meeting, the topic was the Unsafe School Choice Option. The
secretary also addressed the committee during that meeting, and
introduced additional issues for the committee to review as a result of
the White House Conference on School Safety. The Jan. 16---17, 2007,
working meeting of the committee focused on those issues raised by the
secretary in the October meeting. The Feb. 20---21 working meeting
addressed the data questions included in the secretary's charge to the
committee, and the final working meeting on March 19 allowed committee
members to finalize their findings and recommendations for this report.

##### Information on Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools Programs

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants Program is
authorized under Title IV, *Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Act* (*SDFSCA*), which is authorized under *ESEA*. It provides funding
to State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs),
as well as governors, to support their work in preventing drug and
alcohol use and violence among students. In the current program, the
U.S. Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
provides funds to SEAs and governors. The SEAs, in turn, provide money
to LEAs based on a formula provided in the statute. The governors use
their funding to support community-based organizations and other
entities that serve youths who are not normally served by the SEA or
LEAs.

The Unsafe School Choice Option was also authorized by the *ESEA*
legislation. It requires states to establish a policy for identifying
schools that are "persistently dangerous." Students at schools so
designated must be given the option of transferring to safe public
schools inside their districts, including public charter schools.
Additionally, students who are the victims of violent criminal offenses
while at school or on school grounds must also be given the option of
transferring to safe schools.

The *Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act* created the Uniform
Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS). The law requires
information collection regarding (1) truancy rates, (2) frequency,
seriousness, and incidence of violence and drug-related offenses
resulting in suspension or expulsion, (3) curricula, programs, and
services provided by state grants recipients, and (4) incidence and
prevalence (including age of onset, perception of health risk, and
social disapproval) of drug use and violence. The first two must be
reported at the school level.

##### Preliminary Comments

At the outset, the committee notes that all that is necessary to make
schools safe and drug and alcohol free cannot be done solely by the U.S.
Department of Education, the state education agencies, or the local
school districts. Safety, and drug and alcohol use issues must be
addressed not only in schools but also in communities. Schools and
communities must work together to address these issues.

The committee also notes a need to shift the focus of safe and drug-free
school efforts from merely responding to safety and drug and alcohol use
problems to primarily prevention and early intervention efforts.

**COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS**

*Students need a safe place to learn, and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Advisory committee will play a vital role as we move
forward in ensuring that our students have safe and drug-free schools.*
---U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

# Structure of the Report

The structure of this report follows the request of the secretary for
information from the committee. Thus, it is divided into four main
sections, each addressing one of the major areas of focus in the
secretary's initial charge and the additional issues raised in October
2006. Within these areas, the secretary's questions are used to
structure the committee's responses. Where possible, the committee's
response to each question includes both findings (descriptions of what
the committee learned in its work) and recommendations (specific
suggestions for improving the *SDFSCA* programs). These represent the
consensus of the committee members who have worked conscientiously to
provide responses to the secretary's questions that will be both helpful
and constructive.

# The SDFSCA State Grants Program

At the outset, the committee notes that none of the witnesses testifying
before the committee or any of the committee's members suggested that
the State Grants Program is no longer necessary. Rather, the committee
believes the program is crucial because safe and drug-free schools are
the foundation for improved learning. If students are using drugs or
alcohol (or are surrounded by others that do) or are unable to attend
school or learn because of threats to their personal safety (or to their
school), there is a greatly diminished opportunity for them to benefit
from their schooling. The committee also notes that problems related to
school safety are often related to problems with drug and alcohol use.

**Q.** *Currently as implemented, what are the strengths of the* SDFSCA
*State Grants Program? What are the elements of the State Grants Program
that are working and addressing the needs of students and schools
today?*

**A.** A key strength of the State Grants Program is that it has
fostered the creation of an infrastructure for collaboration among
different levels of government, all of which have a role to play in
ensuring school safety. It ensures the involvement of both state and
local education agencies in the effort to keep schools safe and drug and
alcohol free. By allowing grants to go directly to local school
districts, it also allows communities to address specific needs in a way
that would be lost if all decision making regarding grant moneys were to
take place at a higher level.

There was, however, some concern among committee members about the
program and recognition that the current structure of the program could
be reworked. Specifically, although some committee members favored
maintenance of the current structure so each LEA would receive some
funding, there was significant support for allowing the money to be used
by SEAs to target priority areas, since the amount of money is limited.
In any event, the committee recommends greater collaboration among
federal agencies that are currently involved in funding SEA and LEA
efforts to make sure that adequate funding is available for the crucial
work of creating safe and drug-free schools.

**Q.** *Is the* SDFSCA *State Grants Program working effectively to
promote safe and drug-free schools across the country, specifically in
rural, urban, and suburban settings?*

**A.** The committee heard testimony from practitioners and experts
about the unique challenges that face rural, urban, and suburban
schools. Noting the sometimes wide and significant variation in needs
among different types of schools (such as the prevalence of certain
safety concerns in urban schools or the logistical challenges of rural
schools), the committee recommends that the Department create different
and clear standards for different types of schools. For instance,
standards for data collection practices, the Unsafe School Choice
Option, and other programs should be different based on the type of
school.

# **Q.** What are the difficulties in determining the effectiveness of the program?

**A.** The committee heard testimony from a variety of witnesses about
outcomes from State Grants Program at the state and local level. One
difficulty in determining the effectiveness of the State Grants Program
is that there is no consensus at the federal level or from state to
state about the definition of safety and substance abuse program
problems (i.e., what is an ideal outcome for the State Grants Program).
Coupled with this is the lack of clear guidelines for determining
effective prevention strategies.

The committee thinks that the Department could provide measurable
objectives for SEAs and LEAs in determining when a school is safe and
drug and alcohol free. This would involve requesting a common core of
data in schools and communities across the nation, with some flexibility
for additional measures at the state or local level. It would also
involve identifying targets or objectives for the State Grants Program.

The committee thinks that if LEAs cannot first assess where they are on
safety and drug and alcohol use issues, they will be unlikely to develop
effective responses to problems in these areas. To this end, LEAs should
use school climate surveys and incident reporting to identify current
needs. For instance, not every school currently identifies alcohol or
drug use among students, and thus cannot easily determine local needs
for help in this area.

The committee also suggests that the U.S. Department of Education help
identify the factors that are likely to contribute to progress toward
the targets it sets for the State Grants Program. This would also
involve identifying effective prevention strategies for LEAs.

**Q.** *Are there mechanisms that could be proposed that would help
determine if programs being supported with* SDFSCA *State Grants Program
funds are effective in meeting program purposes?*

**A.** The committee is concerned that, at all levels, the current
implementation of the State Grants Program has not required the use of
data to determine needs. The committee believes the Department should
identify key indicators of safety and alcohol and drug usage (beyond
those identified by *NCLB*) to be reported on by all grant recipients.
This should be combined with appropriate monitoring of existing usage of
grant funds. Again, the safety and alcohol and drug use prevention
effort would be greatly aided by bringing together experts to determine
best practices that can be communicated to LEAs. Once these best
practices are implemented, evidence of the degree to which LEAs are
applying them can be used when making funding decisions.

**Q.** *Are there emerging issues facing students and schools today that
the* SDFSCA *State Grants Program does not address and should they be
addressed in the* SDFSCA *State Grants Program?*

**A.** The key emerging issue that increasingly faces schools is the
threat of being overburdened by various demands. The early focus on
preventing drug and alcohol use has necessarily been expanded to
encompass emergency planning, school violence, external threats to
school security, and natural disasters (among other concerns).

**Q.** *The* SDFSCA *State Grants Program includes a focus on safety.
Sec. 4114 (d)(7) states that recipients of the* SDFSCA *State Grants
must have "a plan for keeping schools safe and drug-free," including a
"crisis management plan." Considering the nation's focus on emergency
response and crisis planning is this language sufficient to address the
concern for crisis management in our schools?*

**A.** One danger of overburdening schools is that there is a
possibility for tension between school efforts (and competition for
resources) to discourage substance use and the need to provide responses
to other safety concerns such as significant acts of violence and
natural disasters, which are often expensive. Of course, since the
enactment of ESEA, the prominence of preparedness and safety issues has
appropriately become more pronounced with the terrorist attacks of 9/11,
disasters like Hurricane Katrina, and other similar events. Some of the
challenges related to overburdening schools might be alleviated by
clarifying the meaning of terms like "safety." The committee recommends
that "safety" should refer to personal and interpersonal safety, with a
focus on issues related to alcohol and drug use and violence. If this is
too narrow, it could be replaced by a definition stressing healthy,
safe, secure, and alcohol- and drug-free schools. For purposes of the
State Grants Program, "safety" could mean the creation of an environment
that is safe, secure (personal and interpersonal safety), and healthy
(personal safety). Issues related to bullying and harassment would be
included in this definition of safety.

Some additional specific recommendations would include: improved
coordination of the various federal resources related to school safety
(such as those resources provided by the Department of Homeland Security
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency); a requirement that every
school provide its floor plans to local law enforcement; and a
suggestion that every school and LEA practice their crisis plans and
revise and update them consistently.

**Q.** *Is the structure of the* SDFSCA *State Grants Program (awarding
funds to the state education agency and the governor, the most effective
mechanism for the use of these funds?*

**A.** The committee notes that the amount of money currently allocated
to the State Grants Program is too small and may be spread too thin.
Some committee members thought the only challenge related to funding is
the need for more funds to be available to each LEA. Thus, some State
and local education agencies (in testimony before the committee) and
committee members stressed the value of providing at least some money to
each LEA. Others, however, expressed concern that the money available in
the State Grants Program is not enough to make a difference for many of
these LEAs.

The committee found merit in a number of possible recommendations to
improve the current State Grants Program structure. The first set of
recommendations related to conditions on which funding could be made
contingent. These include: (1) providing more money to grantees on the
condition that the LEA demonstrate school utilization of research-based
programs; (2) making grants contingent on partnerships with the local
community (to leverage the grant amount); (3) making the governors' 20
per cent share contingent on data collection regarding school safety and
drug use. Regarding the second condition, the committee suggested
requiring LEAs to re-institute local advisory committees to involve
communities in school drug use prevention and safety efforts.

The next set of recommendations is related to the role of SEAs in the
grant process. The committee's recommendation in this area was to give
the SEAs more of the grant money so they can provide technical
assistance and data collection assistance to LEAs. Under this
recommendation, the Department would create accountability by providing
guidelines that encourage partnerships between LEAs and communities, and
to provide funding based on needs and performance. Some committee
members also think that the governors' portion of the money should be
removed so that the money could be used by SEAs or LEAs for professional
development and other activities.

Other significant recommendations included: (1) developing a competitive
process that allows a more limited set of local education agencies to
get larger grants from States; or (2) providing a smaller number of
needs-based grants to schools selected based on high prevalence of
specified issues related to substance use and safety (so that the grants
program is linked to actual need).

The committee also recommends separating the Title IV application and
reporting processes for LEAs and SEAs from the consolidated application
for federal funding.

Underlying all of the committee's recommendations is the need for
clearer standards for all recipients of grant funds, including the
governors' portion of the program.

# **Q.** Is the balance between flexibility and accountability contained in the statute working?

**A.** The committee thinks there is significant need for improvement in
this area, and integrating data collection, goal setting, and
identification of best practices would advance such improvement.

**Q.** *Could state and local flexibility be balanced with additional
core requirements that would encourage LEAs to address specific issues?*

**A.** The committee thinks the State Grants Program money should be
used for basic needs such as the development of emergency or security
plans and drug use and violence prevention programs. In addition, the
committee strongly suggests the promotion of partnerships between LEAs
and local communities, possibly through the requirement of a community
match of grant funds to the LEAs (i.e., of monetary or in-kind
contributions). The Department could sponsor research on the current
extent of partnering by grant recipients and provide technical
assistance to grantees for the development of partnerships. Similarly,
the Department could encourage or even sponsor an initiative to foster
ongoing partnerships between local education agencies and research
groups as well as public health and safety agencies.

**Q.** *How can the tension between the Principles of Effectiveness
provisions that require that funds be spent on research-based activities
and the broad list of authorized activities (many of which lack a strong
research base) be resolved?*

**A.** This is an important question because the concepts underlying the
Principles of Effectiveness require ongoing monitoring and mentoring,
which ensures that effective programs are implemented with fidelity.
Currently, there is no specific funding source dedicated for use in
rolling out effective programs. As already noted, the lack of data
collection hampers determinations of effectiveness, so the committee
recommends at least minimal data collection be required of grant
recipients.\
The committee thinks the Principles of Effectiveness should override the
authorized list of activities found in sec. 4114 of *NCLB*. To find
further effective activities, the committee suggests an ongoing working
group involving the various agencies funding school safety and alcohol
and drug use prevention activities, where LEAs can raise ideas for
innovation that can then be subjected to testing. The implementation of
research-based activities could also be advanced by the recommendation
(noted in the last section) of encouraging partnerships between
researchers and schools.

# Unsafe School Choice Option and Identification of Persistently Dangerous Schools

Of all the sections of the committee's report, this one garnered the
most consensus and concern among members. The committee notes that
improvement in determining whether schools are persistently dangerous is
related to improvement in data collection and in the functioning of the
State Grants Program.

**Q.** *Does the USCO provision or provisions with a similar purpose
(ensuring that no child is required to attend an unsafe school)
adequately provide the authority, direction, and clarity for schools to
be identified as " persistently dangerous"?*

**A.** The USCO provision has not been as effective as the need it
addresses requires. The committee noted a number of recommendations that
might go far toward allowing the provision to advance the purpose of
moving children from dangerous schools. First, the provision could be
adjusted to allow for a consideration of incidents of violence as only
one (not the only) factor in determining whether a school is safe. For
instance, a school could be assessed by considering issues such as
substance abuse, bullying, gang activity, and racism. Along with
incident reports and other means, school climate surveys (gathered using
multiple information sources such as administrators, students, teachers,
school staff, and parents) could be used to assess safety, and student
perception of safety, in schools. The U.S. Department of Education could
provide a specific measure for determining school safety that would be
uniform across states (although a state would also be free to add
criteria unique to that state). It would be most helpful if information
were reported about individual schools rather than at the district
level.

In terms of specific students who are the victims of violence, the
committee thinks the Department could provide guidelines and, if
possible, training for administrators, teachers, and others to assist
students who victimize others and those who are victims in order to
prevent further incidents. Schools should ensure that victims know of
their rights to remain at their current school as well as transfer
options. If the victim doesn't wish to transfer, our recommendation is
that the district considers moving the perpetrator (in circumstances
where that is appropriate). Where possible, the perpetrator should
receive counseling and appropriate interventions as indicated by an
assessment. This could involve school-based youth courts or similar
interventions such as mentoring. Schools might also be encouraged to
partner with local mental health providers for referrals for victimized
and victimizers. LEAs and SEAs should examine possible funding streams
for these efforts.

**Q.** *Considering that there are over 100,000 schools in the United
States and data reflects more than 150,000 serious violent crimes
committed in schools annually, do \[the reported\] numbers accurately
reflect the number of schools identified as persistently dangerous
accurately reflect the safety of our nation's schools?*

State criteria for determining which schools are "persistently
dangerous" vary widely and many are nearly impossible to meet. As a
result, although State officials may know which individual schools have
problems, the current designation process does not always identify these
schools. School reporting of incidents may also be misleading because
the number of incidents that occur at a school does not necessarily
reflect a school's climate or the overall level of safety within a
school.

**Q.** *What changes to USCO would be necessary to address the
underlying purpose of the USCO provisions?*

**A.** The committee notes that the term "persistently dangerous" is not
helpful because it stigmatizes schools, may be misleading, and may even
penalize schools that accurately report incidents and are trying to
address problems that are occurring. Standards for reporting vary from
state to state and some schools may not even be reporting. As a result,
schools that are accurately reporting incidents are being penalized for
doing it. Thus, the committee urges a modification to the legislation
that would change the terminology "persistently dangerous" to different
nomenclature (for example, "safe school choice option") that is not
misleading or stigmatizing.

Combined with this change of terminology should be a change in focus
toward the creation of safer school climates over time, rather than
merely determining unsafe schools at any single point in time. For
instance, schools that show signs of becoming dangerous could be placed
on a "watch list," indicating a need for assistance. In any event,
parents should have access to safety data from schools their children
attend, not only the schools deemed "persistently dangerous."

To better help schools with safety problems, the Department might
consider asking LEAs in required reports to link the use of State Grants
Program funds to their work on USCO (i.e. describing how safety programs
prevent dangerous school conditions). If the State Grants Program is
adjusted to allow for this, schools on a "watch list" could be given a
higher priority for funding. The Department should also consider
performing a methodological study of the effectiveness of the USCO.

Some States are already working diligently to advance the goals of the
USCO provision. These States should be granted a waiver from the USCO
requirement if they can show they have existing programs and that these
programs meet minimal standards and requirements for providing parents
with a choice of schools.

Some additional recommendations that might be found useful in promoting
help for potentially unsafe schools include: a stress on classroom
management in pre-service teacher training; better education and
training of school-based staff about indicators of potential violence
and early preventive interventions; and, within the limits of federal
law and respecting privacy concerns, building an integrated information
system that might include school records of individual students.

**Q.** *Is there adequate guidance that enables schools and school
districts to know what is expected of them regarding USCO and the
"persistently dangerous" identification?*

**A.** The committee believes that the effort to identify unsafe schools
would be advanced by looking at factors other than just incidents of
violence such as bullying and disorderly common areas. Perhaps the
Department could identify model schools in this area and elements of
those schools' efforts that could be implemented in other schools. There
is also a need for clarification and basic guidance about how school
safety information can be shared across community, state, and national
agencies as well as between schools and law enforcement. The Department
might also consider seeking funding for the identification effort.

Because reporting requirements may sometimes create logistical problems
for State and local education officials, the Department should also
consider allowing school officials to certify their reports while noting
that there may be weaknesses or holes in the data.

**Q.** *Are there actions that the Department of Education can currently
take to improve the effectiveness, operation, or management of the USCO
provisions?*

**A.** The committee notes that there is a continuing need for parents
to be made aware of safety issues at schools. The States have a
fundamental role in promoting partnerships among the relevant State and
local education agencies to help schools solve their problems at the
school building level. The States also have a major role in helping
leverage resources to support evidence-based programs and conditions to
accomplish this goal. Some States, however, believe the current USCO
provision creates an unfunded mandate by requiring States to develop
processes for identifying unsafe schools without providing any funding
to assist in that effort.

The committee notes that there are a number of things that the
Department might do to aid states in their responsibilities. For
instance, the Department might create guidelines for school improvement
when a school is identified as unsafe or of concern. The Department
could also create a program modeled after the National Blue Ribbon
Schools effort that would focus on school safety and the positive aspect
of that effort. This could allow the Department to provide examples of
safe schools and their best practices, including ways to address issues
like substance abuse, truancy, and dropouts. The Department can also
continue to provide support and technical assistance to schools with
safety issues.

Additionally, the Department may want to provide guidance for
implementing the transfer option in districts with one high school,
middle school, or elementary school. Also, the Department could
reiterate to schools the importance of ensuring that accurate
information on the transfer option is readily available to parents of
victims of school violence. Finally, the Department could encourage
schools to collaborate with local community prevention programs on
safety issues.

# Requirements for Data Under No Child Left Behind

The committee notes that significant progress has been made in
coordinating various federal agency efforts in data collection involving
schools. The committee, in responding to the questions related to data
collection, also noted a number of possible opportunities for
improvement.

# **Q.** Is the amount of information being collected appropriate?

**A.** The committee notes that while many State and local education
agencies have been very serious about evaluation issues, data collection
at the U.S. Department of Education has not kept up with the expanded
scope of Department programs. In addition, even where there are good
ongoing data collection activities, they are not always integrated into
practice.

**Q.** *Is the information being collected the "right" information to
help the nation assess where it stands on issues related to youth drug
use and violence prevention? Is the information being collected the
"right" information to help federal, state and local officials manage
youth drug use and violence prevention programs?*

**A.** The committee suggests the Department determine what data is
reasonable for States to collect. The Department could then help SEAs
and LEAs understand how data collected can be used to create and
accomplish safety and drug and alcohol use prevention goals. The
Department should also consider sponsoring a critical review of whether
data collection is affecting practice at the various levels of
government.

**Q.** *Is there other data that could be collected that would be more
useful or fill higher priority needs?*

**A.** The committee thinks that data collection efforts must be
preceded by decisions about what data are crucial and what is possible
to collect (and at what intervals). In addition, whatever data are
collected, the Department should encourage disaggregating data at a
local level so communities will know about local problems. Since using
outcome measures alone to determine whether a school is safe and drug
free could lead to unwise goals and thus make data collection efforts
counterproductive, the Department could also provide guidance in
determining when a school is achieving success in its efforts to provide
a safe and drug-free environment. Finally, the Department ought to
consider providing guidelines for the use of data collected by LEAs.

The committee noted a number of types of data other than usage patterns
that could be collected and used by schools in determining where to put
resources, other than just usage patterns. First is information about
protective factors students are engaged in (i.e. extracurricular
activities, discussions with parents) or other questions that can help
determine solutions to drug use and safety concerns. Second is
information about the practices and processes SEAs and LEAs are using in
their school safety and alcohol and drug use prevention efforts. This
would allow for the creation of a list of successful programs and
practices that can be used to determine goals. An update of lists of
effective programs could be disseminated regularly. Third, the committee
notes that there would be value in surveying parents to assess the needs
of communities. Additionally, the committee notes the value of school
climate surveys, including self-reports by at least students, teachers,
and staff.

Safe and drug-free school efforts can join with community and government
organizations to work toward the goal of collecting information on a
number of issues related to alcohol and drug use and related problems.
Thus, data regarding assaults perpetrated by those drinking or taking
drugs, environmental data (such as density of alcohol outlets), testing
of all injury deaths under the age of 21 for alcohol use, compliance
check surveys of merchants regarding alcohol sales to minors, and
monitoring costs of alcohol and drugs might be helpful. The committee
also felt there would be value in asking whether service providers are
providing information to students about alcohol and drug use prevention
and asking about alcohol use.

**Q.** *Would a requirement that UMIRS be collected using standard
definitions provide greater clarity and direction to schools and school
districts? If so, which terms should be defined in a standard way?*

**A.** The committee recommends the Department explore the possibility
of developing a set of questions that can be used by State and local
education agencies in their evaluation efforts. In this effort, they can
consider data collected by other federal agencies (for instance, Centers
for Disease Control information on tobacco policing) that might be
helpful in evaluating school safety and drug and alcohol use.

**Q.** *Are there activities that we can undertake to address concerns
about the costs and burdens associated with data collection?*

**A.** The committee notes that data collection efforts can be extremely
expensive, in terms of time, manpower, and other resource costs. Some
State and local programs need assistance in the development of
appropriate evaluation criteria. In the future, a shortage of school
administrators will create serious challenges for training personnel in
gathering and interpreting data. There is also a continuing need to
ensure that existing gaps between research and actual practices of local
education agencies are closed.

To be most helpful, the Department should participate in efforts to
coordinate related data gathering across federal agencies and between
State and local governments. Federal agencies should coordinate efforts
so that only one set of data is being collected. This will require
reducing the fractionation of data gathering systems by reducing the
number of agencies asking for the same information. This will also
require an ongoing discussion among federal agencies, SEAs, and LEAs
about the data needed. States should also use the same measures in
gathering data. The Department could profitably organize a task force to
design information gathering tools that can be shared across
institutions. Additionally, it might consider a study group to explore
data gathering and implementation issues. The group would ideally
include practitioners and those associated with the YRBS and PRIDE
surveys.

Given justifiable concerns with expense, it might be helpful to have a
cost analysis of data gathering efforts. It might also be useful to
sponsor research on how to implement tested projects in school districts
and schools. This could include research on adopting strategies common
to prevention programs rather than on a specific program in its
entirety, as well as issues of tailoring programs to meet local needs.

Finally, in the spirit of federal agency coordination, the committee
endorses the surgeon general's recommendations in his *Call to Action to
Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking*.

# Additional Issues

In the committee's October 2006 meeting, Secretary Spellings asked for
additional information related to three areas not outlined in the
questions originally posed to the committee. These related to
coordination between public and nonpublic schools, the unique challenges
of urban and rural schools, and the effects of trauma on affected
students.

#### Nonpublic Schools

The committee notes that current law provides for students and teachers
in nonpublic schools to be entitled to "equitable participation" in all
programs, including federal school safety programs. The committee also
notes that nonpublic schools have a responsibility to work and consult
with LEAs. Current law and policy provide suitable processes to ensure
sharing and cooperation between public and nonpublic schools regarding
the administration of federal school safety services. These processes,
however, are not always utilized in every district, resulting in a
perception in those districts that the nonpublic school perspective is
being excluded from the needs assessment and overall allocation decision
processes.

The committee recommends greater clarification and clearer guidelines
regarding the consultation requirement; and, the development of
monitoring protocols. Specifically, the Department could create a short,
informative policy implementation brief that would help LEAs know what
is required in terms of working with nonpublic schools. A submission to
the committee noted the unique challenges stemming from the possibility
of terrorist attacks for Jewish education institutions, and the
committee thinks these concerns could appropriately be addressed in any
additional guidance given by the Department. Regional interdepartmental
summits would help all schools, both public and nonpublic, prepare for
large-scale crises. These summits would include more federal agencies
than just the U.S. Department of Education.

## Urban---Rural

As noted above, the committee, in response to the secretary's request,
listened to helpful testimony about the special needs of urban and rural
schools. The committee noted the significant challenges, both logistical
and in terms of safety problems, faced by many of these schools. As
appropriate, the committee has included findings and recommendations
related to these unique challenges in the sections above.

## Trauma

Just prior to and during the committee's deliberations, a number of
schools in the United States experienced severe tragedies. The
committee's work was made more pressing by such events as Hurricane
Katrina and school shootings that took place in Colorado, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania.

The committee notes that many students are affected by trauma. The
impact varies considerably. Some students will recover from trauma with
little or no involvement of a professional; others---a small
number---may need professional care. Counselors, teachers, and other
personnel need to understand how trauma can affect students and their
ability to learn and pay attention to warning signs. When traumatic
events occur, steps must be taken to provide screening and intervention
where appropriate, but screening decisions need to be local decisions.
Schools will benefit from a prevention perspective focused on building
resilience in students.

The committee believes the Department may be able to document and
communicate to policymakers the effects of trauma on educational
outcomes. The Department should also identify best practices in dealing
with trauma and make those available to LEAs. The Department might also
assist in providing training in early identification and referral of
students involved in traumatic events.

# Conclusion

The Department's efforts in assisting schools and education officials to
enhance achievement and proficiency by ensuring that students are in a
learning environment that is safe and unmarred by alcohol and drug use
have been extremely important. The committee also thinks these efforts
continues to be necessary. With the continued commitment of the
Department and a good working relationship between the Department, other
federal agencies, and State and local education agencies, much progress
can be made. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory
committee hopes its recommendations can advance that progress.

**Appendix 1: GLOSSARY**

**Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking.** On March 6,
2007, the Office of the United States Surgeon General made an appeal to
the American people to prevent and stop underage drinking. The "Call to
Action" identifies six goals for changing attitudes toward drinking
alcohol in the United States.

**National Blue Ribbon Schools.** This U.S. Department of Education
program under the *No Child Left Behind Act* honors private and public
primary and secondary schools for significant accomplishments in
academic superiority, including demonstrated dramatic gains in student
achievement.

***No Child Left Behind* (*NCLB*).** In 2001, the *Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965* was reauthorized and amended as the *No
Child Left Behind Act*. *NCLB* is a sweeping overhaul of federal efforts
to support elementary and secondary education in the United States. It
is built on four pillars: accountability for results, an emphasis on
doing what works based on scientific research, expanded parental
options, and expanded local control and flexibility.

**Persistently Dangerous Schools.** The *No Child Left Behind Act*
includes a provision requiring states to create criteria for determining
when a school is "persistently dangerous." Students who attend schools
so designated are to be given the option of transferring to a safe
school within the school district, including public charter schools.

**PRIDE Survey.** PRIDE Surveys were created by a private organization
to measure adolescent alcohol, tobacco, and drug use. They now also
include measures of student behavior or other factors that affect
student learning.

**Principles of Effectiveness.** Recipients of State Grants Program
funding from the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S.
Department of Education must use the funds according to Principles of
Effectiveness described in federal law. The principles require state and
local education agency efforts related to creating safe and drug-free
schools to (1) be based on objective data regarding incidents of
violence and drug use, (2) be based on established performance measures,
(3) be based on scientifically based research indicating the activity
will have an effect on drug use and violence, (4) be based on an
analysis of data on the prevalence of risk and protective factors, and
(5) include input from parents in the development of the application and
implementation of the programs.

**State Grants Program.** This program provides financial support from
the *Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act* to state education
agencies for a variety of drug and violence prevention activities
focused primarily on school-age youths. The SEAs are required to
distribute the vast majority of the funds to local education agencies to
be used in drug and violence prevention activities, including
development of programs, personnel training, and other activities.

**Title IV, Part A.** The part of *No Child Left Behind* legislation
that authorizes the *Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act*.

**Unsafe School Choice Option.** Every state receiving funding from the
U.S. Department of Education must implement the Unsafe School Choice
Option by creating criteria for determining if a school is persistently
dangerous and allowing students attending such schools to choose to
transfer to another public school in the district. The option is also
available to a student victimized while at school.

**YRBS Survey.** The Centers for Disease Control administers the Youth
Risk Behavior Surveillance survey to random samples of adolescents at
the national and state levels. The survey measures incidence of
violence, tobacco, alcohol and drug use, unhealthy dietary behavior,
unsafe sexual behavior, and physical inactivity. The survey is also used
to assess trends in these behaviors.

**Appendix 2: COMMITTEE Charter**

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory committee

AUTHORITY

Section 4124 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, authorizes
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee
(Committee). Additionally, the Federal Advisory committee Act (FACA),
which establishes the standards for the formation and use of advisory
committees, governs this Committee.

As provided for by FACA, the Committee will carry out the
responsibilities outlined in 4124(a). The Secretary has interpreted this
law to mean that each of these responsibilities will be carried out as
advisory functions to the Secretary, who may accept, decline to accept,
or modify any of the Committee's recommendations as she determines to be
appropriate. As determined by the Secretary, the Committee may provide
recommendations on the activities carried out by the Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) in section 4124(b). The Committee, however,
will not carry out any operational functions.

PURPOSE AND FUNCTIONS

The Committee will provide advice to the Secretary on federal, state and
local programs designed to create safe and drug-free schools, and on
issues related to crisis planning. As outlined in section 4124(a), the
Committee will consult with, and provide advice to, the Secretary for
the programs listed in section 4124(b) that are already carried out by
the OSDFS. As requested by the Secretary, the Committee will submit a
report to reflect its advice.

STRUCTURE

The Committee will consist of up to 19 voting members. The Secretary, in
consultation with the heads of the Federal agencies listed below, will
designate full-time Federal employees from the following agencies to
serve on the Committee:

-   The Department of Education;

-   The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;

-   The National Institute on Drug Abuse;

-   The National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse;

-   The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention;

-   The Center for Mental Health Services;

-   The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and

-   The Office of National Drug Control Policy.

The Secretary will appoint the Committee's remaining members (up to
eleven) from organizations or entities working in the following areas
\-- state and local government representatives, and researchers and
expert practitioners in the fields of school- and community-based
substance abuse and violence prevention. These appointees will serve as
Special Government Employees (SGEs). As such, the members will be chosen
by the Secretary for their individual knowledge and expertise, and will
provide independent advice to the Secretary.

The initial appointments will be for staggered terms to retain an
experienced core of non-federal members. Three members will serve for
one year, four members will serve for two years, and four members will
serve for three years. Subsequent terms will be three years for all
members.

The secretary will appoint the Committee's Chairperson, and the
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools will appoint a
staff member to serve as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The OSDFS
will provide staff and administrative services to the Committee. While
the DFO will ensure that all FACA requirements are met and attend all
Committee meetings, no Department official will supervise or provide
oversight over the substantive work of the Committee.

MEETINGS

The DFO, in consultation with the Committee Chairperson, will schedule
meetings on an as-needed basis. A majority of the Committee, ten
members, will constitute a quorum. Meetings will be open to the public,
except when the Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools determines otherwise, in accordance with Section 10(d) of FACA
and with the concurrence of the Office of the General Counsel.

Meetings will be conducted and records of the proceedings kept according
to applicable laws and departmental regulations.

ESTIMATED COSTS

Members who are not full-time Federal employees will be paid at a rate
determined by the Secretary to attend Committee meetings plus per diem
and reimbursement for travel expenses in accordance with Federal Travel
Regulations.

Annual operating costs associated with supporting the Committee's
functions, including direct and indirect expenses, will be approximately
\$100,000. Staff support will be approximately .2 full-time equivalents.

TERMINATION DATE

The Committee is hereby chartered in accordance with section 14(b) of
the Federal Advisory committee Act. This charter expires two years from
the date of filing.

Approved:

/s/

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

Date Secretary

Filing date: \_\_[August 28, 2006]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Appendix 3: committee Meetings**

## June 12---13, 2006: Committee Meeting

U.S. Department of Education\
Departmental Auditorium\
400 Maryland Ave. S.W.\
Washington, D.C.

Chair: David Long

## July 10, 2006: Committee Conference Call

## August 21---22, 2006: Committee Meeting

U.S. Department of Education\
Departmental Auditorium\
400 Maryland Ave. S.W.\
Washington, D.C.

Chair: David Long

Presentations:

-   Jon Akers, executive director, Kentucky Center for School Safety,
    Eastern Kentucky University

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

-   Jeff Barber, safe and drug-free schools coordinator, Indiana
    Department of Education; president, National Network for Safe and
    Drug-Free Schools and Communities

-   John Bynoe, associate commissioner, Center for Student Support,
    Massachusetts Department of Education

-   General Arthur Dean, C\\chairman and CEO, Community Anti-Drug
    Coalitions of America

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

-   Mike Herrmann, executive director, Office of School Health, Safety
    and Learning Support, Tennessee Department of Education

-   Mona Johnson, program supervisor Washington State Department of
    Public Instruction; vice president, National Network for Safe and
    Drug-Free Schools and Communities

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

-   Ellen Morehouse, executive director, Student Assistance Services
    Corporation

-   Edward Ray, chief, Department of Security, Denver Public Schools

-   Peter Reuter, professor, School of Public Policy, Department of
    Criminology, University of Maryland

-   Chris Ringwalt, senior research scientist, Chapel Hill Center,
    Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

-   Zili Sloboda, senior research associate, Institute for Health and
    Social Policy, University of Akron

-   Cynthia Timmons, director, Children of Promise-Mentors of Hope,
    University of Oklahoma Outreach

**September 5, 2006: Committee Conference Call**

**October 23---34, 2006: Committee Meeting**

U.S. Department of Education\
Departmental Auditorium\
400 Maryland Ave. S.W.\
Washington, D.C.

Chair: David Long

Presentations:

-   Jerry Barber, CPA, CISA, CGFM, assistant comptroller, Office of the
    State Comptroller, New York state

-   Bill Bond, school safety specialist, National Association of
    Secondary School Principals

-   Cory Green, senior director, NCLB Program Coordination Division,
    Texas State Education Agency

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Paul Kesner, director, State Grants Program, Office of Safe and
    Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Janelle Krueger, principal consultant, Safe and Drug-Free Schools
    Program, Colorado Department of Education

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Susan Martz, director, Office of Program Support Services, New
    Jersey Department of Education

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Peter P. Pochowski, Midwest director, National Association of School
    Safety and Law Enforcement Officers

-   Richard T. Rasa, director, State and Local Advisory and Assistance
    Services, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Education

-   Meredith Rolfe, administrator, Safe and Healthy Kids Program Office,
    California Department of Education

-   Annie Salsich, senior program associate, the Vera Institute of
    Justice

-   Bernie Tadley, regional inspector general, Office of Inspector
    General, U.S. Department of Education

**November 20, 2006: Committee Conference Call**

**December 18, 2006: Committee Conference Call**

**January 16---17, 2007: Committee Meeting**

U.S. Department of Education\
Departmental Auditorium\
400 Maryland Ave. S.W.\
Washington, D.C.

Chair: David Long

Presentations:

-   Maureen Dowling, education program specialist, Office of Non-Public
    Education, U.S. Department of Education

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Joe McTighe, executive director, Council for American Private
    Education

-   Patrick Bassett, president, National Association of Independent
    Schools

-   Jack Clark, director, Technology and Nonpublic School Services,
    Colonial Intermediate Unit in Pennsylvania

-   Michael Caruso, assistant superintendent, Secondary Schools and
    Government Relations, Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.

-   Steven Marans, professor of child psychiatry, Yale University;
    director, National Center for Children Exposed to Violence

-   Marleen Wong, director, Crisis Counseling and Intervention Services,
    Los Angeles Unified School District; director, Trauma Services
    Adaptation Center for Schools and Communities

-   Lisa Jaycox, senior behavioral scientist, RAND Corporation; clinical
    psychologist

-   Liz Redmon, federal projects director, McNairy County Schools,
    Tennessee

-   Doug Swanson, former federal projects director, Gage County Schools,
    Nebraska

-   Melissa Thompson, project director, Garfield-Heights Public Schools,
    Cleveland, Ohio

-   Lynne Krehbiel-Breneman, project director, Minneapolis Public
    Schools, Minnesota

**February 20---21, 2007: Committee Meeting**

U.S. Department of Education\
Departmental Auditorium\
400 Maryland Ave. S.W.\
Washington, D.C.

Chair: David Long

Presentations:

-   Mike Herrmann, executive director, Office of School Health Safety
    and Learning Support, Tennessee Department of Education

-   Howell Wechsler, director, Division of Adolescent and School Health,
    Centers for Disease Control

-   Doug Hall, senior vice president, PRIDE Surveys

-   Deborah Rudy, director of policy and cross-cutting programs, Office
    of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, U.S. Department of Education

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   LeRoy Rooker, director, Family Policy Compliance Office, U.S.
    Department of Education

**March 19, 2007: Committee Meeting**

U.S. Department of Education\
Departmental Auditorium\
400 Maryland Ave. S.W.\
Washington, D.C.

Chair: David Long

**April 19, 2007: Committee Conference Call**

**May 14, 2007: Committee Conference Call**

**Appendix 4: committee Members**

**David Long, *Chairman***\
David Long is California's secretary of education. Long has more than 40
years of experience in the field of education, ranging from 21 years of
classroom teaching to his current position as secretary of education. He
is past president of the California County Superintendents Educational
Services Association (CCSESA) and has been honored as California
Administrator of the Year by the National Organization of Partners in
Education, and as Superintendent of the Year, and received the
Governor's Award for school leadership.

**Kim Dude**\
Kim Dude is the director of the Wellness Resource Center at the
University of Missouri-Columbia. She has worked at the university for
the past 24 years. Dude has been the recipient of numerous awards,
including the Outstanding Contribution to the Field award of the Network
Addressing Collegiate Alcohol and Other Drug Issues, as well as the Buck
Buchanan Lifetime Service Award of the Phoenix Programs in Columbia. The
Inter-Association Task Force on Alcohol and Substance Abuse Issues, a
national coalition of organizations that collaborate on issues related
to substance abuse within the higher education community, identified the
university's Wellness Resource Center as one of the top 10 prevention
programs in the country for the last 14 years; in 2003 and 2005 it was
chosen as one of the top three programs in the nation.

**Frederick E. Ellis**\
Fred Ellis is the director of safety and security for Fairfax County
Public Schools, the 12^th^ largest school system in the country, with
more than 165,000 students, 22,000 employees and approximately 247
facilities. He has served the Fairfax County Public School system since
2000. Ellis was directly involved with managing the school response for
the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the sniper shootings of 2002, small pox
inoculation center plans, hurricane Isabel, anthrax, and other assorted
challenges. Previously, he served the Fairfax County Police Department
for 23 years.

**Michael J. Herrmann**

Mike Herrmann serves as the executive director of the Office of School
Health, Safety and Learning Support within the Tennessee Department of
Education. His work in the prevention field began more than 20 years ago
when he was hired to help implement the recommendations of then-Governor
Lamar Alexander's Task Force on Youth Alcohol and Drug Abuse. He later
served for five years as the Coordinator of the Governor's Alliance for
a Drug-Free Tennessee. He currently oversees all activities within the
state department of education related to health and safety as well as
after-school and extended learning.

**Montean R. Jackson**\
Montean R. Jackson, is a licensed social worker, clinical supervisor and
clinical administrator with the state of Alaska, and is the safe and
drug-free schools coordinator for the Fairbanks North Star Borough
School. She has worked in the field of adult and adolescent substance
use prevention, intervention, and treatment, as well as social work with
a focus on child and spouse neglect and abuse issues for almost 10
years. Jackson has strong experience in the successful implementation
and sustainability of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) model programs in treatment and school settings.
Jackson is an advocate for and is passionate about reclaiming our
youths, and reconnecting and strengthening the family.

**Russell T. Jones**\
Russell T. Jones is a professor of psychology at the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, specializing in clinical
child psychology, community psychology, and issues related to disaster
and terrorism, and is an expert in the behavioral sciences. Jones is a
fellow of the American Psychological Association, and has served as a
member of the board of directors for Division 12; as well as a past
member of the board of directors of the International Society of
Traumatic Stress Studies, Center of Disease Control's Advisory committee
for Injury Prevention and Control (ACIPC), and ACIPC's Scientific and
Program Review Subcommittee. Jones is also the founder and director of
REACT (Recovery Effort After Child Trauma), a program that works in
conjunction with the Yale Child Study Center and that is designed to
assist children and their families following fire trauma. Jones is also
a member of the Hurricane Katrina Community Advisory Group administered
by the Department of Health Care Policy at the Harvard Medical School.

**Sheppard Kellam**\
Sheppard Kellam is the director of the Center for Integrating Education
and Prevention Research in Schools at the American Institutes for
Research. Kellam is a public health psychiatrist who has played a major
role in establishing concepts and methods for prevention science, as
well as contributing to knowledge about early risk factors and their
malleability. His theoretical, methodological, and substantive
contributions began with early intervention studies in Woodlawn, an
African-American community on the south side of Chicago, from 1963
through 1982. From 1982 to 1993, Kellam was Chair of the Department of
Mental Hygiene in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
and is now professor emeritus. Kellam has received numerous awards,
including the Rema Lapouse Award of the Mental Health, Epidemiology, and
Statistics Sections of the American Public Health Association; and the
World Federation for Mental Health's Distinguished Public Mental Health
Award. He was president of the Society for Prevention Research from 1998
to 2001. In 2004, he was elected to be a fellow of the Academy of
Experimental Criminology.

**Tommy Ledbetter**\
Tommy Ledbetter has been the principal of Buckhorn High School in
Alabama for more than 20 years. Prior to becoming principal, he was a
teacher and assistant principal at area schools. Since Ledbetter's
tenure began, Buckhorn High School has been awarded the U.S. Department
of Education's National Blue Ribbon School of Excellence Award, and he
has been honored as the Alabama Association of Secondary Schools'
Principal of the Year and awarded the Alabama Reading Initiative
Principal Leadership Award. He is currently vice president of the
Alabama Association of Secondary School Principals and serves on its
board of directors. Ledbetter also sits on the executive committee of
the Council for Leaders of Alabama Schools and on both the Governor's
Task Force on School Leadership and the Governor's Implementation
committee for School Leadership.

**Seth Norman**\
Judge Seth Norman is currently the judge of Division IV Criminal Court
in Davidson County, Tennessee, and served as presiding judge of the 20th
Judicial District in 1998 and 1999. Elected to the bench in 1990, Judge
Norman was reelected without opposition in 1998. He practiced law in
Nashville for 28 years in the law office of Jack Norman, Sr., and served
as a member of the General Assembly, the State Democratic Executive
committee, and as a delegate to the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
Norman is the founder and presiding judge of the Davidson County Drug
Court, and the founder and chairman of the Nashville Drug Court Support
Foundation, Inc. In 2003, the Tennessee Association of Drug Court
Professionals recognized Judge Norman as the \"Pioneer of Tennessee Drug
Courts\" for his exhaustive efforts in making Drug Courts a crucial and
instrumental part of Tennessee\'s Criminal Justice System.  

**Michael Pimentel**\
Michael Pimentel is the chief of the San Antonio Independent School
District Police Department. Pimentel has also served on the Corpus
Christi Police Department and the Austin Police Department. Prior to his
current position, he was selected to serve the Brownsville Independent
School District as the first administrator of security services. In
addition to the many duties performed with the Austin Police Department,
Pimentel served as a co-developer of the first Crime Stoppers Program in
the State of Texas and was a co-founder of the first Interagency Council
on Sexual Abuse in the City of Austin.

**Hope Taft**\
Hope Taft is a co-founder of [Drug-Free Action
Alliance](http://www.ohioparents.org/) and the [Ohio Alcohol and Drug
Policy Alliance](http://www.drugpolicy.org/safetyfirst/), and first lady
emeritus of Ohio. She is a spokesperson for several state initiatives
focusing on children, and is an Ohio certified prevention specialist
II.\
Taft serves on the President\'s Council on Service and Civic
Participation, the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism, and the National Conference of State Legislatures\' Advisory
committee on the Treatment of Alcoholism and Drug Addiction. She is a
past member of the President\'s Commission for Drug-Free Communities and
the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment\'s national advisory council.
She co-chairs [Leadership to Keep Children Alcohol
Free](http://www.alcoholfreechildren.org/), an initiative supported by
many other governors\' spouses to prevent underage drinking, targeting
children ages 9 to 15. To support this initiative, she has developed a
campaign called [Smart and Sober](http://www.smartandsober.org/) to help
reduce childhood use of alcohol. As a part of this effort, the first
lady created two underage drinking prevention videos, one of which
received the prestigious Telly Award.

**Federal Members**

**J. Robert Flores**\
J. Robert Flores is the administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) at the U.S. Department of Justice,
and previously served in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice, where he worked on issues related to child exploitation and
obscenity. Flores is an experienced lawyer and former prosecutor with
expertise in Internet crime, child abuse and exploitation, and juvenile
justice issues. Before his OJJDP appointment, Flores was the vice
president and senior counsel at the National Law Center for Children and
Families. From 1989 to 1997, Flores was senior trial attorney and acting
deputy chief in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal
Division, of the U.S. Department of Justice. Flores prosecuted *United
States v. Kimbrough,* the first federal case involving computer child
pornography to go to trial. He successfully argued the appeal to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

**Ralph Hingson**\
Ralph Hingson, director of Epidemiology and Prevention Research at the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), came to
NIAAA from the Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) where
he served since 2001 as associate dean for research. From 1986 to 2000,
Hingson served as professor and chair of the BUSPH Social and Behavioral
Sciences Department. An expert on drunk driving legislation, Hingson
conducted research that helped to stimulate passage of federal
legislation providing incentives for all states to make it illegal for
drivers under 21 to drive after any drinking. By 1998, all states had
adopted this law. More recently, his research on the relationship
between blood alcohol levels and automobile accidents has stirred many
states to propose legislation to lower their legal blood alcohol limit
to 0.08%. Currently, 47 states have adopted the 0.08% limit.

**Susan Keys**\
Susan Keys is the branch chief of the Prevention Initiatives and
Priority Programs Development Branch in the Division of Prevention,
Traumatic Stress and Special Programs, Center for Mental Health
Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA). Previously, she was an associate professor of counseling and
human services and department chair at Johns Hopkins University. Keys
has more than 30 years of experience in teaching, consultation, and
management. Prior to moving to SAMHSA, she was co-principal investigator
of a National Institute of Mental Health research grant on school
violence prevention in 37 schools and five school districts in Maryland
and associate director of education at the Johns Hopkins Center for the
Prevention of Youth Violence, a center funded by the federal Centers for
Disease Control.

**Bertha Madras**\
Bertha Madras is the deputy director for Demand Reduction, White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy. Prior to her appointment, Madras
was a professor of psychobiology in the Department of Psychiatry at
Harvard Medical School and chair of the Division of Neurochemistry at
the New England Primate Research Center. Madras has also served on
several national and government advisory boards, including the Molecular
Neuropharmacology and Signaling Review committee on the National
Institutes of Health and the Medications Development Scientific Advisory
Board at the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Furthermore, Madras has
traveled the United States and abroad presenting lectures on how drugs
affect the brain and has conducted research on cocaine, Ecstasy, and
cannabinoids.

**Deborah A. Price**

Deborah A. Price was appointed assistant deputy secretary of the Office
of Safe and Drug-Free Schools in February 2004. Price oversees the
Department\'s activities related to safe schools, crisis response,
alcohol and drug prevention, the health and well being of students, and
building strong character and citizenship. Prior to this appointment,
Price served as chief of staff of the Office of Federal Student Aid
(FSA), and as a liaison with other key Department of Education principal
offices, including the Office of the Secretary, Office of the Deputy
Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Management and
the Chief Financial Officer. Price came to the Department after working
in the U.S. Senate for 16 years for Senator Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and
Senator William L. Armstrong (R-Colo.).

**Dennis Romero**\
Dennis O. Romero is the acting director of the Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention (CSAP), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Service (DHHS). Romero has extensive experience in the fields of mental
health, chemical addiction, prevention, and program development, among
others. Prior to his current position, he served as deputy director of
the Alcoholism Council of New York (ACNY), in New York City. Romero has
served on the board of many professional committees, advisory boards,
and commissions at the state and local levels that address both local
and regional issues related to the field of alcohol and substance abuse
and prevention, as well as allied social and education issues. In 1997,
he received a prestigious appointment to the New York State Board of
Regents' Committee of Professional Assistance Program under the Office
of the Professions where he served in many capacities, including as
chair of the committee.

**Belinda E. Sims**\
Belinda Sims joined the Division of Epidemiology, Services and
Prevention Research's Prevention Research Branch at the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) as a health scientist administrator for the
prevention services and early childhood programs.

Sims is a developmental psychologist and came to the National Institute
on Drug Abuse (NIDA) from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
where she was the chief of the child and adolescent preventive
intervention program. Prior to joining NIH, Sims was a faculty research
associate at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,
Department of Mental Hygiene (now Mental Health), where she conducted
children\'s mental health services research.

**Howell Wechsler**\
Howell Wechsler has served as acting director of the Division of
Adolescent and School Health (DASH) at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention since April 12, 2004. Prior to this appointment, Wechsler
served for two years as the chief of the Research Application Branch in
DASH. Prior to joining CDC in 1995, Wechsler served for six years as
project director of the Washington Heights-Inwood Healthy Heart Program
in New York City.  This community-based cardiovascular disease
prevention program was affiliated with Columbia University, where
Wechsler taught courses in health communication.  Wechsler has also
directed a community-based health-screening program serving the New York
City metropolitan area and has worked as a health educator for the New
York City Department of Health.  He entered the field of public health
during his service as a Peace Corps volunteer in Zaire.