Archived Information

Education is the best means to teach our children values and good
character. ... It is the key to a good economy and a prosperous future
that is shared by all Americans.

---Secretary Rod Paige

As an essential part of every American community, schools strive to
provide every student with an environment that supports learning and
social development. As Deputy Under Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools Deborah Price says, "For kids to learn in the classroom, they
must feel safe and have a sense of well-being; if there is bullying,
drug use, and an absence of a commitment to character, kids don't
learn." The ambitious universal student achievement and strong character
goals of No Child Left Behind cannot be met without orderly and
supportive learning environments.

To ensure safe and drug-free learning environments, the Department
invests in policies, practices, and programs that address student
safety, health, and character. This comprehensive approach to improving
and maintaining school safety helps educators to prevent or manage risk
factors that endanger student well-being and chances for success. In
fiscal year (FY) 2004, the Department partnered with law enforcement,
health, and education officials to effectively target federal resources
to policies and practices that help educators improve or maintain school
safety and a variety of student health behaviors.

Department Expenditures

A Safe School Environment and Healthy Students Are Vital for Student
Achievement

Safe and drug-free learning environments provide nurturing settings that
allow students to focus on learning. Though teachers and students have a
tremendous impact on the quality of the learning environment, external
events and societal conditions may introduce risk factors that can
negatively affect the academic, mental, and physical development of
students.

To give every student a chance at success in school, communities and
schools must work together to promote environments that are conducive to
learning and healthy development. Exposure to violence and drugs at or
away from school can put students at risk of failure resulting from low
class attendance and perceptions of their peers' approval of drug use
and violence. Crises such as natural disasters and accidents can
distract educators and students from school duties. To help school and
community officials maintain a safe learning environment for students,
the Department focused its FY 2004 resources on programs to strengthen
crisis planning and response, and the prevention of student violence and
drug use.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image3.wmf)                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Source.** Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, |
| *America's Children in Brief: Key National Indicators\                |
| of Well-Being*, *2004*, table BEH4.A and table BEH4.B.                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Reducing Youth Drug Use and Violence.** Drug and alcohol abuse can
have a devastating impact on students, communities, and learning
environments. The Department is committed to reducing the disruptive
influences of substance abuse on school and college campuses through its
safe and drug-free schools programs. The programs encourage students to
adopt positive anti-drug norms and responsible decision-making skills
through a comprehensive approach to prevention that addresses all
aspects of school safety and substance abuse prevention. In FY 2004, the
Department worked with program grantees to prevent substance abuse and
violence among elementary and secondary school and college students.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants Program is
the Department's largest program for preventing drug use and violence.
In FY 2004, the Department provided over \$440 million in grants to 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories. The
states distribute funds to local educational agencies based on their
enrollment and their proportion of children in poverty.[^1] The program
also provides funds to governors to support community-based drug and
violence prevention activities. Funded recipients implement programs
that best meet local needs and emphasize the use of scientifically
proven strategies for reducing youth drug use and violence.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image4.wmf)                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Source.** National Institutes of Health, National Institute on      |
| Drug\                                                                 |
| Abuse, *Monitoring the Future: Overview of Key Findings 2003,\        |
| *table 2.                                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Examples of grantee programs in FY 2004 include the following:

-   To remedy student drug and alcohol problems, the Adams County School
    District in Colorado implemented a community assessment and referral
    program and provided referral assistance to district staff. The
    district achieved a 67 percent reduction in suspensions for drug and
    alcohol abuse.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   In Mandan, N.D., the Mary Stark Elementary School partnered with the
    North Dakota State University to build protective factors to prevent
    school failure, substance abuse, and other risky behaviors. The
    factors targeted family functioning, social connectedness, child
    behavior, and parental involvement with school. An evaluation
    revealed a 40 percent increase in prosocial behavior scores and a
    63 percent increase in parent-school involvement.

Through the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, the Department
provides local educational agencies with grants to implement programs
focused on drug and violence prevention, mental health, early childhood
development, and other protective factors. Grantees work collaboratively
with community stakeholders to connect schools with communities and to
provide safe and healthy settings for at-risk children. Several grantees
reported in FY 2004 that they demonstrated a positive impact on at-risk
students participating in programs funded by the Safe Schools/Healthy
Students Initiative.

One example of the positive impact of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students
Initiative on at-risk children is the Covington Independent Public
School District project in Kentucky, which is using the grant to
implement its Across Ages Mentoring Program. During FY 2004, preliminary
data indicate that the program is having a positive impact on student
discipline, grades, and attendance. Participating students' disciplinary
referrals have decreased faster than those of classmates not in the
program. In addition, grades and attendance have improved.

Alcohol abuse can negatively affect student achievement and health. To
implement innovative and effective alcohol abuse reduction programs in
secondary schools, the Department provides financial assistance through
Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse. Grantees must implement one or more
proven strategies for reducing underage alcohol use.

The Denver Public School System used funds from Grants to Reduce Alcohol
Abuse to affect attitudes on drug use. During the course of the grant,
fewer participating students held positive views of alcohol consumption.
A pre- and posttest comparison shows statistically significant
improvements in student attitudes toward smoking, drinking, and drugs.
In the pretest, 10.2 percent of the 107 participants agreed that "kids
who drink alcohol have more friends," while 4.6 percent believed it at
posttest. Significant improvements also occurred in drug refusal skills.
In the pretest, 63.9 percent of students would say "no" when offered
beer, wine, or liquor; in the posttest, 88.9 percent of students would
say "no."

The Grants to Prevent High-Risk Drinking[^2] or Violent Behavior Among
College Students Program provides funds for developing, enhancing, and
evaluating campus-based prevention programs and strategies. Grantees
work to reduce high-risk drinking by encouraging students to choose safe
and healthy social environments and by raising awareness of perceived
peer alcohol consumption rates among students, which are often higher
than actual consumption rates.

In FY 2004, the University of California at Berkeley implemented a
project that improved student perception of peer drinking and increased
the number of hours of alcohol-free activities. During the two-year
grant period, participating students' perceptions of the amount of peer
drinking decreased. After the project, students perceived that 70
percent of males and 51 percent of females drank at least once a week, a
19 percent reduction in the perception of male drinking and a 27 percent
reduction for females. Alcohol-free hours of activity during welcome and
orientation weeks increased by 125 percent between 2002 and 2003 from 20
to 45 total hours. Researchers and practitioners have found that
orientation week is a traditional period of excessive alcohol
consumption, especially among new students who perceive high
peer-drinking levels.

The Department's Demonstration Grants for Student Drug Testing provide
funding for drug testing programs and evaluations of testing
effectiveness. Through testing, school and health officials can help
prevent drug use and identify students using drugs so that they can be
referred for treatment. Testing provides a positive anti-drug norm for
students and a legitimate reason among peers not to take drugs.
Secretary Paige stated, "drug prevention programs confer a considerable
amount of power on all students who participate---the power to say
no."[^3] In FY 2004, eight grantees refined mechanisms for participant
identification, test result accuracy, and referral to treatment. The
Department expects that this work will yield data and information in
FY 2005, when student testing begins.

**Crisis Planning and Response.** In communities affected by natural
disasters and major accidents, school officials must work in concert
with health providers and law enforcement officials to help families in
crisis. Given the unique history, culture, and location of each
community, schools may have varying risks of experiencing different
types of crises. To help schools manage crises, the Department provides
funding and technical assistance to school districts for vigorous crisis
response preparedness and for immediate response to schools adversely
affected by an emergency.

Emergency Response and Crisis Management grants provide funding to local
educational agencies for improving school emergency response and crisis
management plans. Crisis plans are customized for each community and
school to effectively meet students' needs. In FY 2004, 134 grantees
used Department funding to develop or revise crisis plans in nearly
12,000 schools.

One example of an Emergency Response and Crisis Management grantee is
the Santa Rosa County School District in Milton, Fla. Santa Rosa used
FY 2004 grant funding to conduct a full-scale crisis simulation drill to
help assess districtwide preparedness and ability to respond to a
crisis. The drill involved multiple hazards and was coordinated with 22
different community agencies and over 600 participants. The drill helped
the district identify weaknesses in the crisis plan's communication
strategies, especially between staff and first responders. To address
communication issues, Santa Rosa improved its critical communication
protocol to include an eight-layer communication plan that uses low- and
high-tech devices that range from whistles and bullhorns to cellular
phones and a secure Web site to provide timely information to first
responders.

The Department's Project School Emergency Response to Violence (Project
SERV) provides immediate funds to schools that have experienced a
significant crisis or emergency. The funds help local educational
agencies restore learning environments disrupted by a violent or
traumatic event, or help with undue financial hardship caused by the
emergency.

In FY 2004, Project SERV funds helped educators at Rocori High School in
Cold Spring, Minn., respond to a school shooting in which two students
were killed. The murders were witnessed by a significant number of
students and staff at the school. The district used Project SERV funds
for counseling support and programs to help students, teachers, and
parents with the recovery process.

**Performance Goals.** To measure safe and drug-free school programs'
effectiveness, the Department measures student victimization and drug
use and availability on school property. Though far too many students
continue to be victimized at or away from school, data show that the
rates of student victimization and drug use at schools continued to
decline in recent years.[^4] The Department met its 2002 goals for
reducing the number of violent crimes and serious violent crimes that
students aged 12--18 experienced at school. Between 2001 and 2002, the
rate of serious violent crime that students aged 12--18 experienced
decreased by half. The data signal an overall positive trend in crime
rates over the last decade. The Department expects to have 2003 violent
crime and serious violent crime data in November 2005, and data for 2004
in November 2006.

To measure youth substance abuse, the Department uses two measures for
marijuana, cigarette, and alcohol consumption---use by youth aged 12--17
in the past 30 days and use by high school students on school property
in the past 30 days.

In the aggregate, we made progress toward meeting our performance goal
for reducing the 30-day prevalence of substance abuse among youth ages
12--17. Though the Department did not meet its 2003 target for cigarette
and marijuana abuse reduction among youth ages 12--17, the decline from
2002 to 2003 shows that we made progress. For alcohol abuse, the most
recent data from 2003 show a slight increase over 2002 data; thus, we
did not meet our target.

Measures of substance use by high school students on school property
show more encouraging results. In the aggregate, we met our performance
goal for reducing substance abuse on school property. The FY 2003 data
show results that are better than our targets for reducing the 30-day
prevalence of marijuana use and cigarette smoking on school property.
Due to large reductions in on-campus student-reported smoking, the
Department did better than our target by 43 percent. Because alcohol
consumption showed a slight increase in FY 2003, we did not meet that
target. Data for use on school property are collected biennially in
odd-numbered years.

The Department's progress on our performance goals for this objective is
summarized in the table below. See p. 27 for methodology and appendix A,
pp. 199--200, for detailed data.

+---------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| Safe and Drug-Free Schools (Objective 3.1)  |            |           |
+---------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| Performance Goals                           | Status     | Year      |
+---------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| Crimes experienced at school by students    | Did better | FY 2002   |
| ages 12--18                                 | than       |           |
|                                             |            |           |
| -   Violent crimes                          |            |           |
|                                             |            |           |
| -   Serious violent crimes                  |            |           |
+---------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| Youth ages 12--17 using the following       | Made       | FY 2003   |
| substances in the past 30 days              | progress   |           |
|                                             |            |           |
| -   Alcohol                                 |            |           |
|                                             |            |           |
| -   Tobacco (cigarettes)                    |            |           |
|                                             |            |           |
| -   Marijuana                               |            |           |
+---------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| High school students using the following    | Met        | FY 2003   |
| substances on school property in the        |            |           |
| previous 30 days                            |            |           |
|                                             |            |           |
| -   Alcohol                                 |            |           |
|                                             |            |           |
| -   Cigarettes                              |            |           |
|                                             |            |           |
| -   Marijuana                               |            |           |
+---------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+
| High school students offered, sold, or      | Did better | FY 2003   |
| given an illegal drug on school property in | than       |           |
| the previous 12 months                      |            |           |
+---------------------------------------------+------------+-----------+

Strong Character and Good Citizenship Improve the Learning Environment

Schools play a major role in the physical, mental, and social
development of students. Within the learning environment, students make
critical choices that can build or erode strong character. Character and
citizenship education is essential for the future success of students
because it teaches the values of respect, service, and regard for
democratic principles such as tolerance and civic participation.
According to President Bush, "The future success of our Nation depends
on our children\'s ability to understand the difference between right
and wrong and to have the strength of character to make the right
choices." In addition to helping individual students, successful
character and citizenship education helps to build a healthy school
culture. Within these healthy learning environments, teachers and
students uphold a high standard of conduct that encourages students to
make responsible decisions and participate in school activities. To help
schools enhance a healthy school climate, the Department provides
financial assistance for mentoring and for character and citizenship
education programs.

**Mentoring and Character Education.** The Department's Mentoring
Program provides grants to support the academic and social needs of
at-risk children. Many students lack positive role models and have low
class attendance rates because of instability at home or dangerous
conditions at or on the way to school. Through the relationship with a
mentor, students are exposed to successful and caring adults who help
with schoolwork and life challenges.

The Building Futures mentoring program of the Urban Services YMCA in San
Francisco annually provides mentors to 125 at-risk youth. Among the
goals of the program are helping students to improve academic
performance and interpersonal relationships, and reducing truancy and
delinquency. Based on preliminary data, the program is making progress
in improving grades and behavior. Seventy percent of participating
students showed academic and behavioral improvement in school. More than
80 percent showed a decrease in antisocial behavior, which likely
contributed to increases in academic achievement and a sharp decrease in
the percentage of students referred to law enforcement officials for
delinquency or criminal behavior.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ![](media/image5.wmf)                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **Source.** United States Department of Health and Human Services,    |
| Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for       |
| Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, *Youth Risk Behavior |
| Surveillance System: Youth Online Comprehensive\                      |
| Results 2003.*                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Partnerships in Character Education grants support the design and
integration of character education values and programs in classroom
instruction. Grantees promote strong values that include the emotional,
intellectual, and moral qualities of a person or group, and the
demonstration of these virtues in prosocial behavior. Students are
challenged to develop moral reasoning, problem-solving, and
interpersonal skills to improve character development and behavior.

Through a Partnerships in Character Education grant, the Orange County
Department of Education in Orange County, Calif., opened an Institute
for Character Education. The institute builds the relational skills of
youth and their parents through core character elements such as
integrity, respect, and citizenship. Preliminary data indicate a high
level of character element awareness among students participating in
institute experiments. Eighty-five percent of fifth-, seventh-, and
ninth-grade teachers agree that participants "respect others, even if he
or she disagrees with them." Other data also indicate high levels of
cooperation among participating students. Ninety-two percent of
seventh-grade teachers and 94 percent of ninth-grade teachers say that
students "cooperate in work and play situations."

**Promoting Good Citizenship and Civic Participation.** We the People:
Project Citizen is a curricular program for middle school students that
promotes competent and responsible participation in local and state
government. The program teaches young people to monitor and influence
public policy and to develop an understanding of the democratic process
when participating in activities that involve decision-making, policy
development, and conflict resolution. In the process, students develop
support for democratic values and principles, tolerance, and feelings of
political efficacy.

**Performance Goals.** To measure the effectiveness of Department
programs in promoting strong character and

citizenship, the Department measures student attitudes toward certain
negative behaviors and participation in community service or volunteer
work. The most recent data available for student attitudes toward
negative behavior show mixed results. The Department exceeded our 2003
target for the percentage of 12th-grade students who dislike making a
teacher angry, but we did not meet our 2003 target for 12th-grade
students who think that most students dislike cheating or our 2003
target for 14- to 18-year-olds who believe cheating occurs by half or
most students. Because of changes in data tabulation between 2002 and
2003 actual data, results on beliefs about cheating may not be
comparable. Data for FY 2004 are pending.

The Department did not collect data for 12th-grade student participation
in community service or volunteer work for FY 2004. Since there are no
reliable data for this measure, the Department plans to discontinue it.

The Department's progress on our performance goals for this objective is
summarized in the table below. See p. 27 for methodology and appendix A,
pp. 200--01, for detailed data.

+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| Character and Citizenship (Objective 3.2)  |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| Performance Goals                          | Status     | Year       |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| Twelfth-graders who participate in         | Not        | FY 2004    |
| community service or volunteer work        | collected  |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| Twelfth-graders who dislike certain        | Met        | FY 2003    |
| behaviors                                  |            |            |
|                                            |            |            |
| -   Students making teachers angry         |            |            |
|                                            |            |            |
| -   Classmates cheating on a test          |            |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
| 14- to 18-year-olds who believe cheating   | Did not    | FY 2003    |
| occurs by half or most students            | meet       |            |
+--------------------------------------------+------------+------------+

Programs Supporting Goal 3

Eleven of our grant programs most directly support Goal 3. These
programs are listed below. In the table we provide both FY 2004
appropriations and FY 2004 expenditures for each of these programs. We
also provide an overview of the results of each program on its program
performance measures. Program performance reports are available on the
Web at <http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2004report/index.html>.

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 39%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th>Program Name</th>
<th><p>Appro-</p>
<p>pria-</p>
<p>tions<sup>†</sup></p></th>
<th>Expend-itures<sup>‡</sup></th>
<th colspan="9"><p>Program Performance Results</p>
<p>Percent of Targets Met, Not Met, Without Data</p></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th rowspan="2"></th>
<th rowspan="2"><p>FY 2004</p>
<p>$ in millions</p></th>
<th rowspan="2"><p>FY 2004</p>
<p>$ in millions</p></th>
<th colspan="3">FY 2004</th>
<th colspan="3">FY 2003</th>
<th colspan="3">FY 2002</th>
</tr>
<tr class="header">
<th><p>%</p>
<p>Met</p></th>
<th><p>%</p>
<p>Not Met</p></th>
<th><p>%</p>
<p>No Data</p></th>
<th><p>%</p>
<p>Met</p></th>
<th><p>%</p>
<p>Not Met</p></th>
<th><p>%</p>
<p>No Data</p></th>
<th><p>%</p>
<p>Met</p></th>
<th><p>%</p>
<p>Not Met</p></th>
<th><p>%</p>
<p>No Data</p></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ESEA: Alcohol Abuse Reduction</td>
<td>30</td>
<td>23</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>100</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ESEA: Character Education</td>
<td>25</td>
<td>23</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ESEA: Civic Education: We the People</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>18</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>100</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ESEA: Close-Up Fellowships</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>100</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ESEA: Elementary and Secondary School Counseling</td>
<td>35</td>
<td>34</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>100</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ESEA: Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners</td>
<td>9</td>
<td>8</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>100</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ESEA: Project SERV</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ESEA: Mentoring Program</td>
<td>51</td>
<td>18</td>
<td rowspan="2">0</td>
<td rowspan="2">0</td>
<td rowspan="2">100</td>
<td rowspan="2">100</td>
<td rowspan="2">0</td>
<td rowspan="2">0</td>
<td rowspan="2">100</td>
<td rowspan="2">0</td>
<td rowspan="2">0</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ESEA: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Other National
Programs</td>
<td>159</td>
<td>68</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>ESEA: Physical Education Program</td>
<td>72</td>
<td>58</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>100</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>ESEA: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants</td>
<td>444</td>
<td>442</td>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td>0</td>
<td>17</td>
<td>83</td>
<td>20</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>80</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Total</strong></td>
<td><strong>844</strong></td>
<td>* <strong>693</strong></td>
<td colspan="9"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

^†^ Budget for each program includes program budget authority and the
program's proportional share of salaries and expenses budget authority.

^‡^ Expenditures occur when recipients *draw down* funds to cover actual
outlays. FY 2004 expenditures may include funds from prior years'
appropriations. Expenditures for each program include the program's
proportional share of administrative expenditures.

\* Additionally, expenditures of \$63 million met prior years'
obligations for Goal 3 programs that were not funded for FY 2004.

> A shaded cell denotes that the program did not have targets for the
> specified year.

ESEA = Elementary and Secondary Education Act

PART Analysis for\
Goal 3 Programs

The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was developed and implemented
by the Office of Management and Budget as a standardized process for
determining program effectiveness in a consistent way across agencies.
Over a five-year period, most government programs will be evaluated
under this process. Results of PART reviews are used by agencies as one
component of justifying their budget requests. Following are summaries
of PART reviews that were conducted in conjunction with preparing the
Department's FY 2004 budget request and subsequent updated reviews of
those programs.[^5]

Program: Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grants

Year of Rating: *For FY 2004 Budget*

Rating: *Ineffective*

Program Type: *Block/Formula Grants*

![](media/image6.wmf)

Recommendations:

1\. Make a modest reduction in funding and tie future funding to the
demonstration of results.

2\. Develop a new strategy for measuring program performance that helps
improve local programming decisions and is of equal use to state, local,
and federal administrators.

3\. Study ways to redesign the program to better distribute funds and
support high-quality, research-based strategies at the local level.

Response:

1\. This action was proposed in the President's 2004 budget, and the
Congress reduced funding by \$28 million.

2.  A new strategy will assess whether the state grants program is
    making an investment toward positive outcomes by tracking (1)
    national survey data on the prevalence of youth drug use and
    violence, and (2) data on the extent to which recipients of grant
    funds are implementing research-based practices. In addition, Safe
    and Drug-Free Schools and Communities funds are supporting data
    management improvement grants and related technical assistance to
    states to develop, enhance, or expand the capacity of states and
    local educational agencies to collect, analyze, and use data to
    improve program management.

3.  The Department is supporting an evaluation of research-based
    practices to inform measurement of (1) the percentage of drug and
    violence prevention programs and practices supported with Safe and
    Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant funds that are
    research-based, and (2) percentage of local educational agency
    research-based drug and violence prevention programs and practices
    funded by those grants that are implemented with fidelity to the
    research on which they are based.

[^1]: States distribute 60 percent of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
    Communities State Grants Program funds based on each local
    educational agency's relative share of ESEA Title I (Part A) funding
    and the remaining 40 percent based on enrollment. Title I funding is
    distributed based on each local educational agency's poverty rate,
    which allows states to target Title I and Safe and Drug-Free Schools
    State Grant Program resources to districts with the greatest funding
    needs.

[^2]: The Department defines high-risk drinking as one or more of the
    following: binge drinking (five or more drinks at one occasion),
    underage drinking, drinking while driving, and drinking while
    impaired by other causes, such as prescription medication. See
    [www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2000-2/040600d.pdf](http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2000-2/040600d.pdf).

[^3]: U.S. Department of Education press release, October 30, 2003.
    Available at
    [www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2003/10/10302003.html](http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2003/10/10302003.html).

[^4]: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, *Indicators of School
    Crime and Safety,* 2003*.* Available at [http://nces.ed.gov\
    /pubs2004/2004004.pdf]().

[^5]: Information about the PART process is available at
    <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/>. Information on Department
    PARTs is available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget\
    /fy2005/pdf/ap_cd_rom/part.pdf](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget%0B/fy2005/pdf/ap_cd_rom/part.pdf)
    and <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pma/education.pdf>.