Archived Information

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

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

[A Closer Look at Drug and]{.smallcaps}

[Violence Prevention Efforts in American Schools]{.smallcaps}

[Report on the Study on School\
Violence and Prevention]{.smallcaps}

![](media/image2.png){width="1.3645669291338582in" height="1.4in"}

> **[U.S. Department of Education]{.smallcaps}**
>
> **[Doc #2001-36]{.smallcaps}**

a closer look at drug and violence\
\
PREVENTION EFFORTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS

Report on the Study on\
\
School Violence and Prevention

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Education

Contract No. EA96055001

Prepared by:

David Cantor

Scott Crosse

Carol A. Hagen

Michael J. Mason

Amy J. Siler

Adrienne von Glatz

Westat, Inc.

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

In affiliation with:

Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

3239 B Corporate Court

Ellicott City, MD 21042

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

**U.S. Department of Education**

Rod Paige

*Secretary*

**Planning and Evaluation Service**

Alan L. Ginsburg

*Director*

**Elementary and Secondary Education Division**

Ricky Takai

*Director*

August 2002

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

To order copies of this report, write

ED Pubs

Editorial Publications Center

U.S. Department of Education

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

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

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

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

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

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

Executive summary

> **Background**

As part of the 1994 reauthorization of SDFSCA, Congress mandated that
the U.S. Department of Education (ED) collect information on efforts to
prevent violence in schools nationally. Consequently, ED initiated the
Study on School Violence and Prevention to describe the level of problem
behavior, including violence, in schools; to learn about the measures
that schools are taking to prevent problem behavior and promote school
safety; and to examine the use of funds allocated through SDFSCA.

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

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

-   Extent of problem behavior in schools, including the types of
    victimization experienced by students and teachers, and how students
    and teachers perceive the safety of their schools. Also included is
    a description of incident reporting systems.

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

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

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

> **Method**

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

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

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

> **Key Findings**

######## Disorder in Schools

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

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

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

-   Collection forms vary widely among schools,

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

-   Victims and offenders are rarely reported in systems.

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

######## Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior

**Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

######## Planning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

table of contents

Chapter Page

executive summary i

1 Introduction and Background 1

Historical Context and Literature Review 1

Study on School Violence and Prevention and Safe and Drug-Free Schools

and Communities Act Program 2

Study Questions 3

Overview of Study Design and Report Organization 4

2 Methods 6

Intensive Level School Selection 6

Data Collection 6

Analysis 7

Strengths and Limitations 7

3 Disorder in schools 9

Methods 9

Disorder in the Schools 10

Perceptions of Safety and Disorder 16

Incident Reporting and Monitoring in Schools 17

4 efforts to prevent problem behavior 25

Violence Prevention Activities 25

School Security 40

School Discipline Practices and Policies 49

School Climate 58

5 Planning 65

Characteristics of Planning Structures 66

Factors Associated with Development of Planning Structures 68

Summary and Discussion 70

6 distinguishing middle schools with different

levels of disorder 72

Method 72

Describing Middle Schools with Different Levels of Disorder 74

What Makes a Difference? 78

References 81

appendix A 83

Table of contents (continued)

List of Tables

Table Page

> 4-1 Prevention Activity Categories and Definitions 26
>
> 4-2 School Wide Arrangements and Definitions 28

List of Exhibits

Exhibit

> 4-1 Examples of Schools with good Student/Staff Relationships 59
>
> 6-1 Profiles of Low Disorder Middle Schools 74
>
> 6-2 Profiles of High Disorder Middle Schools 76

**A Closer Look at Drug and Violence Prevention**

**Efforts in American Schools**

**Report on the Study on School Violence and Prevention**

+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **C      |                                                           |
| hapter** |                                                           |
|          |                                                           |
| **1**    |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

**Introduction and Background**

Concern about youth violence has increased dramatically across the
country. This has been especially true for violence that occurs in
schools. Schools should provide disciplined and orderly environments
that are conducive to learning and should be safe havens from violence.
This report examines the status of school safety in a cross-section of
40 public secondary schools; it also assesses what schools are doing to
promote safety and prevent problem behavior.

> **Historical Context and Literature Review**

In recent years, the murder of students in a Littleton, Colorado high
school and in a half dozen other schools have led to a sense of great
urgency to understand school violence and ensure school safety. These
tragic events seized public attention, in part, because they occurred in
settings that we usually associate with safety: schools in rural or
suburban communities. As a result, many parents began to question the
safety of their own children in their local schools. For example, seven
months after the Columbine deaths, 60 percent of Americans indicated
that school safety "worried them a great deal" (Brooks et al., 2000).
Policy-makers and parents demanded action that could stem what they
perceived as a crisis situation, in spite of the fact that, as most
available data indicate, schools are relatively safe places.

In the last decade, several studies have investigated the prevalence of
school crime and some of the factors associated with it. For example,
the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice (2000) report that 50
school-associated violent deaths occurred nationally during the complete
1998-99 school year[^2], which is down from the 60 school-associated
violent deaths reported by Kaufman et al. (2000) for the previous school
year[^3] (see also Stephens, 1999 and U.S. Departments of Education and
Justice, 1999). Of the 60 school-associated deaths reported in the
1997-98 school year, 42 involved student homicides or suicides (Kaufman
et al, 2000). As a point of comparison, approximately 4,771 young people
between the ages of 5-19 were victims of homicide or suicide in
non-school settings during the 1997-98 school year (Kaufman et al,
2000). Other studies that have investigated school crime include:
Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97
(Heaviside, Rowand, Williams, & Farris, 1998); Violence-Related
Attitudes and Behaviors of High School Students---New York City, 1992
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993); Youth Risk Behavior
Survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999); and School
Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (Chandler et
al., 1998). For the most part, these studies have found that the more
serious types of school crime (e.g., violence with a weapon) is
relatively rare, though less serious types of crime (e.g., theft and
physical fights without weapons) are much more prevalent. For example,
Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97
(Heaviside et al, 1998) indicated that approximately 10 percent of
public elementary and secondary schools reported one or more serious
crimes (i.e., murder, rape or other type of sexual battery, suicide,
physical attack or fight with a weapon, or robbery) to the police, while
57 percent of schools reported any incident of school crime.

In response to concerns about school crime, researchers and school
personnel have developed and implemented a wide variety of prevention
and treatment interventions. Some of these interventions are geared
towards individuals, potential victims or offenders; other interventions
focus on the school environment, for example, seeking to increase
"guardianship" in the schools. Some of these interventions have been
evaluated under controlled conditions and produced encouraging outcomes.
(See Gottfredson et al., 2000.) However, little is known about the types
and number of prevention efforts currently being implemented in schools.
In addition, while we know that interventions are only as effective as
they are well implemented, research on the implementation quality of
these school-based interventions has been rare.

> **Study on School Violence and Prevention and Safe and Drug-Free
> Schools and Communities Act Program**

The Study on School Violence and Prevention was developed to increase
understanding of some of the issues surrounding school safety and
prevention efforts as well as to meet congressional reporting
requirements linked to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Act (SDFSCA) Program. As the largest school-based federal program
directed at preventing student drug use and promoting school safety, the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Program has been
instrumental in funding school-based prevention efforts. This program,
administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), provides funding
to states, each of which has both a state education agency (SEA) program
and a Governor's program. The SEAs distribute almost all of the funds to
local school districts; 70 percent of these funds go to school districts
by formula (based on relative student enrollments), and the remaining 30
percent of funds go to districts that have the greatest needs for
additional funds to implement prevention programs. The Governor's
programs award grants to community agencies and public and private
nonprofit entities. The districts and other grantees support prevention
activities at the school and community levels.

As part of the 1994 reauthorization of SDFSCA, Congress mandated that ED
collect information on efforts to prevent violence in schools
nationally. ED initiated the Study on School Violence and Prevention to
describe the level of problem behavior, including violence, in schools;
to learn about the measures that schools are taking to prevent problem
behavior and promote school safety; and to examine the use of funds
allocated through SDFSCA.

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

> **Study Questions**

The Study on School Violence and Prevention has been guided by several
study questions that emphasize issues critical to policy makers and
school officials. These issues are the extent and nature of problem
behavior in schools; types and quality of prevention efforts underway in
schools; planning and funding of prevention efforts; and factors and
processes that contribute to school safety. The study questions are as
follows.

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

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

-   How well are efforts to prevent problem behavior implemented?

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

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

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

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

> **Overview of Study Design and Report Organization**

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

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

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

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

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

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

-   **Chapter 2** summarizes the methods for the intensive level study.

-   **Chapter 3** presents findings on the extent of problem behavior in
    schools, including the types of victimization experienced by
    students and teachers, and how students and teachers perceive the
    safety of their schools. This chapter also describes incident
    reporting systems.

-   **Chapter 4** discusses efforts used by schools to prevent problem
    behavior and the quality of their implementation. These efforts
    include formal curricular programs as well as disciplinary practices
    and policies, and security measures. The chapter also covers the
    school climate that we observed.

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

-   **Chapter 6** presents the results of efforts to compare schools
    that differ on the extent of problem behavior. These results allow
    us to consider the characteristics and processes that distinguish
    safe and unsafe schools.

-   **Appendix A** describes the study methods in detail.

+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **C      |                                                           |
| hapter** |                                                           |
|          |                                                           |
| **2**    |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

**Methods**

The intensive level study gathered extensive qualitative and
quantitative information from a purposive sample of 40 schools. In this
chapter, we briefly describe the methods used in this study. We cover
school selection, data collection, and analysis. We also discuss the
strengths and limitations of our methods. For a fuller discussion of the
study's methodology, please refer to Appendix A.

> **Intensive Level School Selection**

In selecting schools for the intensive level study, we identified
schools that differed on school safety, but were similar on background
characteristics associated with safety. This approach was designed to
permit us to answer the study question on the policy-relevant
characteristics and processes that distinguish safe and unsafe schools.
We then drew a purposive sample of 40 public secondary schools (20
middle and 20 senior high schools). The criteria for selecting the
schools included the following:

-   Instructional level -- middle schools and senior high schools;

-   Number of students enrolledsmall and large schools; and

-   Metropolitan statusurban, suburban, and rural schools.

> **Data Collection**

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

The topics covered by this study overlapped with those covered by the
intermediate level study. However, the intensive level study went into
greater depth and drew from additional sources (e.g., police and school
security staff). In addition, other topics that are difficult to capture
well in surveys, such as local dynamics (e.g., youth gang activity) that
contribute to school violence, were investigated in this intensive level
study.

Wherever possible, the data collection drew from extant instruments and
design strategies. Survey items have built on an established research
base to ensure the study's ability to measure implementation and school
climate. Many questions were drawn from studies previously conducted in
the areas of school safety and discipline, youth violence,
victimization, and drug use.

> **Analysis**

We conducted within-school analyses for the 40 individual schools as
well as cross-school analyses. The site visitors conducted within-school
analyses as they developed case study reports based primarily on the
qualitative information that they collected on site. These reports
conformed to a detailed report outline that has tied to the data
collection instruments. The analysts combined information across sources
to address topics in their reports. As needed, the site visitors or
other project staff recontacted respondents to clarify information or to
collect additional information. For a detailed discussion of analysis,
please refer to Appendix A.

> **Strengths and Limitations**

The intensive level study is the first study in over 20 years to examine
in detail what schools are doing to promote school safety. One of the
greatest strengths of this study is that it combined quantitative and
qualitative information. The quantitative information, mainly the
student and teacher survey data, offered strong broad information that
represented each school with fairly high precision. The qualitative
information complemented the quantitative information by offering
details and insights that are typically unavailable with surveys.

Another strength of the study is that it captured a broad range of
perspectives and topics linked to the research questions. At a given
school, we collected information from over ten different sources. Each
source offered a unique lens on complex school safety issues.

A limitation of the intensive level study is that we are unable to
generalize findings from it to other schools. The nonprobability
selection of schools and sample sizes underlie this limitation. Another
related limitation is that the assignment of schools to cells was
imperfect. As mentioned, we based our measures of safety on survey data
from a previous component of the study. Student survey data, one of
those sources, were based on relatively small sample sizes that limited
the precision of the measures. Hence, we found thatusing more precise
measures based on larger samples of studentssome schools were
misclassified on safety. Perhaps more importantly, despite our best
efforts, a very large percentage of the schools included in the sample
did not vary much along measures of disorder. This may be the result of
the relatively high non-response rate associated with the intermediate
study. The schools that complied with the survey requests tended to be
safer, better managed schools. As a result, the site visits, which were
based on the intermediate sample, did not include as wide a range of
schools along the disorder dimension as would have been ideal for this
type of analysis.

A final limitation follows from our approach of having the site visitors
conduct the within-school analyses. While we gained strong summary
reports that facilitated the cross-site analyses, we lost some of the
detail that we potentially could have had in those analyses. In the
cross-site analyses, we would have had stronger analyses had we relied
on, for example, interview transcripts, rather than summary reports.
With many different site visitors, we also introduced some "error" into
the within-school analyses that carried over to the cross-site analyses.

+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **C      |                                                           |
| hapter** |                                                           |
|          |                                                           |
| **3**    |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

**Disorder in Schools**

The purpose of this chapter is to address two questions:

-   What type of disorder is most prevalent in the sampled schools?

-   How do the sampled schools record and monitor disorder occurring in
    school?

The first question elaborates on analysis reported by the survey data
(Gottfredson et al., 2000; Crosse et al., forthcoming). The intent of
this chapter is to provide examples and descriptive information on the
type of disorder that occurred in the sample schools, as well as
providing some insight into how disorder may translate into levels of
fear by the students and staff in the school.

Addressing the second question should provide background on the types of
systems schools have in place to monitor and evaluate the level of
disorder in their schools. Recent initiatives by the U. S. Department of
Education have encouraged districts and schools to begin recording and
tracking incidents of disorder in a systematic way. This should provide
the schools with a useful tool for monitoring potential problems and
evaluating any interventions that are targeted to reduce disorder. It
should also allow for more systematic collection of this type of data
across schools for purposes of state and national reporting.

> **Methods**

This chapter is based on data from three different sources of
information. Much of the discussion is based on data collected by the
site visitors. This includes interviews with key persons on the staff,
as well as direct observations of the functioning of the school. The
second source of information is the surveys that were distributed to
teachers and students in the school. As noted in Chapter 2, these
surveys were identical to those that were used for the national analysis
(Gottfredson et al., 2000; Crosse et al., forthcoming) and include items
on victimization in school, delinquency and perceptions of safety within
the school. The third source is information abstracted by the site
visitors from reports prepared by schools on incidents that occurred
within the schools.

> **Disorder in the Schools**

Overall, the site visitors found that the vast majority of the schools
have relatively low levels of serious crime[^4]. This was borne out by
the surveys of students and teachers. While fighting was common and the
presence of weapons was not unheard of, the combination of the two was
rarely seen in the same school. Theft was much more common than
robbery[^5]. While teachers may have been verbally abused by students,
they very rarely were attacked or threatened with a weapon. Similarly,
data taken from the abstracts documenting crimes reported to the police
found only two schools had called the police regarding a fight with a
weapon, and no calls were made with regard to two robberies occurring in
the schools. In this section, the prevalence of different types of
incidents is described, along with site visitor observations in schools.

# Characterizing Disorder in Schools

The survey data indicated that 6 percent of students reported they had
been threatened with a knife or gun, and less than 1 percent of teachers
reported having a weapon pulled on them. Seven percent of students
claimed to have been physically robbed, or forced to hand over, items
worth more than \$1, and 6 percent of students were robbed of items
worth less than \$1. Three percent of teachers reported that they were
physically attacked during the school year, and less than 1 percent were
seriously hurt. Seven percent of students admitted hitting or
threatening to hit a teacher or other adult at school, and 14 percent of
students actually witnessed a teacher being physically attacked by a
student at school.

The predominant type of disorder found in the schools involved much less
serious incidents. Fighting was found in every school, but infrequently
resulted in serious injury, rarely involved weapons, and was unlikely to
be identified as gang activity. Regarding drugs and alcohol, personnel
in several schools reported having a problem with students smoking,
drinking, or getting high in school; and a fair number of students
reported easy access to, favorable attitudes toward, and personal use of
alcohol and drugs. Perhaps the most widely cited types of disorder in
the schools, however, involved student disruptive behavior in the
classrooms and insubordination to teachers. Truancy, tardiness, and
cutting class also were quite common in the schools. Property damage,
such as vandalism and graffiti, occurred in most schools, but was rarely
thought to be problematic.

Below, we describe the types of crimes that were found in the schools
and the reactions students and staff had when asked about their
occurrence.

**Fighting.** Student altercations occurred to some degree in every
school. Based on interviews with staff and students, verified by
incident reports, about one-quarter of the schools in our sample (mostly
middle schools) had frequent fighting, as much as several times a day;
in other schools it occurred less frequently, around once a month or so.
Site visitors observed fights at a few schools, as well as the aftermath
at one school in which the principal had sustained a broken finger from
trying to break up a fight. Fights resulting in serious injuries were
rarely reported. Across all schools studied, about one in three fights
that the principal found out about were reported to police.

Almost a quarter of students surveyed said that they had to "fight to
protect themselves" at school, and 18 percent of students said that
someone had threatened them with a beating at school. Fighting was the
highest reported type of delinquent behavior in the surveys, with 38
percent of students admitting that they "hit or threatened to hit other
students" in the last 12 months.

As previously mentioned, fights rarely involved the use of weapons. This
is not to say that weapons were absent from schools. Possession of a
weapon, mostly knives, was cited by several school administrators to
have occurred at least once in the past year or so. Hunting knives were
popular in rural schools. These schools tended to have rules that
permitted the possession of a knife shorter than one inch long. Only the
school personnel in a few urban areas seemed concerned about weapons. In
one of these schools, razor knives and mace were common, and in the
other school, weapons were confiscated about six times a year. As
students at one school described, knives usually were brought to school
for protection, although a few brought them to show off. Less than 10
percent of students surveyed reported carrying a "hidden weapon other
than a pocket knife." (We were unable to discern the extent to which
these weapons included guns.) The site visits indicated, however, that
if weapons were present in the schools, they were rarely used to harm or
threaten another person.

Fights in our sample of schools were unlikely to be caused by gang
activity. Although personnel and students from several schools admitted
the presence of "gang-wannabes," site visitors rarely saw any evidence
of gang activity in the schools. Some findings pointed to gang dealings
outside of school. Administrators from one urban school claimed to have
five different gangs that caused trouble off campus. Ten percent of the
students surveyed reported having been involved in gang fights, and 7
percent of students reported belonging to a gang that engaged in
"fighting, stealing, or selling drugs."

Similarly, interviews with school personnel and students rarely
mentioned racial tension, especially as a motivator to fight. This is
note worthy because almost half (16) of the schools in our sample had
more than 25 percent of its students in a race/ethnic group (or groups)
other than the majority race/ethnic group at the school. Only one school
principal claimed that students fought due to differences among
identifiable groups, which were mainly attributed to socioeconomic
levels and where the students lived.

Fighting was explained to most likely be the result of "petty" issues or
gossip directly related to alleged activities of individuals, friendship
groups, or cliques. Several school officials noted the rise of fighting
among girls. As the Assistant Principal at one school described, fights
often were brought upon because "she looked at me the wrong way" or "she
was after my boyfriend." Students felt that fighting was prevalent at
one mid-size, rural middle school, because some students came to school
in the mornings angry and ready to fight; these students would fight
students of other cliques (defined by race, family, socioeconomic level,
and the place where they lived). One of the site visitors reported that,
"There was a general attitude among the students that they had to fight
to establish themselves, and that their parents encouraged that as a way
of resolving conflicts. Students come from homes where fighting is a
normative way of solving problems, and they therefore feel it should be
okay in school."

**Theft.** Theft showed up in nearly half the schools that provided
incident records, but was reported to be a problem in only a quarter of
the schools. (Again, theft refers to unlawful taking of property without
violence or threat.) Administrators who talked about this type of
incident reported that most of the problems were minor theft, consisting
of student possessions being taken from unlocked lockers or gym locker
rooms. From the student surveys, 44 percent of students said that
someone had stolen something worth less than \$1, while 42 percent of
the students said that things were stolen that were worth \$1 or more.
Teachers, too, reported being victims of theft, although in fewer
numbers than the students who reported being victimized in this way.
Twenty-one percent of teachers had personal property worth more than
\$10 stolen from them, while 11 percent had more valuable items stolen.

**Classroom Disruptions.** All but a few schools in our study had data
that supported some type of student disruptive behavior as a prevalent
type of disorder in the school. Mostly, the disruptive behavior took
place in the classroom and included such things as students talking,
being loud or unruly, calling names, using profanity, engaging in
roughhousing or "horseplay," not remaining seated, refusing to follow
directions, throwing things, or chewing gum. Similar types of disruptive
behavior frequently were reported on the busses, too. Dress code
violations were mentioned at a fair number of schools. Some schools were
more serious about this rule than others.

More than three-fourths of the teachers surveyed said that they spent at
least some time each day coping with disruptive student behavior, and 28
percent of teachers claimed that the disruptive behavior kept them from
teaching a "great deal" or a "fair amount" of the time. Overall,
however, teachers reported that they maintained a fair amount of
classroom order. Generally, students paid attention in class, did not
take things that didn't belong to them, and seldom damaged property.
From the survey, almost all teachers (96%) stated that students "almost
always" or "often" did what the teachers asked. The main problem
teachers faced was with students talking at inappropriate times. Almost
half the teachers noted that this occurred "sometimes," and 32 percent
said that it happened "often." While students seldom tried to physically
hurt, make threat to, or curse at others, 73 percent of teachers
reported that students did tease one another. A majority of teachers
reported that students were distracted by the misbehavior of others, but
classroom activity rarely came to a stop because of discipline problems.

**Insubordination to Teachers.** Another common type of disruptive
student behavior involved insubordination. This involves students
showing blatant disrespect for a teacher's authority. Every school in
our sample had reported incidents of this type, and many of the staff
who were interviewed cited this as a prevalent problem in their schools.
The severity of this type of incident varied among schools. In some of
the more serious examples, students yelled at teachers, swore at them,
and even harassed or threatened them. Many teachers and administrators
suggested that students were becoming more disrespectful throughout the
years and refusing to listen or remain under control. "Sassiness" was a
term commonly used to describe the students' behavior. One principal
thought that, "Students are getting more rude each year," and believed
that it was because, in part, "there's less parental backing each year."

Harassment, including sexual harassment or threatening behavior, against
students and sometimes teachers, was reported in a few of the schools'
incident reports. Nearly 30 percent of students surveyed reported seeing
a teacher threatened by a student. Very few teachers reported being
physically attacked, but a fair number of teachers were threatened (18%)
or received obscene remarks or gestures (39%) from a student.

**Truancy.** Next to classroom disruptions and disrespect for authority,
truancy-related incidents were another prevalent type of disorder, as
found in nearly half the schools. These incidents included, in addition
to being truant from school, skipping class or coming late to class. In
some cases, students would leave school or walk out of a class without
permission. At one specific school, tardy incidents were estimated to
represent 85 percent of all the problems at the school. In addition,
some school personnel also complained that a majority of students failed
to report to detention. Many schools had specific policies to deal with
attendance and tardy violations.

**Property Crimes.** Property damage such as vandalism or graffiti did
occur at the schools, as well, but was rarely mentioned as a prevalent
type of disorder. Although site visitors observed property damage, it
was not reported as a problem to the site visitors. Similarly, about 1
in 5 students admitted to destroying either school property (17%) or
personal property not belonging to them (20%) in the last 12 months.

**Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs.** School administrators, teachers,
and students from several schools reported that tobacco was a major
problem in their schools. Site visitors confirmed these reports by
personal observations of some students smoking outside, as well as
evidence from cigarette butts on school grounds and ashes in the
bathrooms.

Other drugs and/or alcohol were reported to be a prevalent problem in
about one-fourth of the schools. When specified, the drug of choice most
often was marijuana. At one school, site visitors observed a group of
students smoking marijuana outside the school. At a few other schools,
visitors witnessed or heard about numerous violations involving alcohol
in school. In most of these schools with reported drug problems,
however, site visitors did not witness any such disorder. The schools
with drug and alcohol problems could not easily be distinguished from
schools without these problems. In fact, at one school where
administrators reported about 30 percent of its student population using
or selling drugs (including within and outside of school), site visitors
observed low levels of student disorder and only a few recorded
incidents of drug violations.

From the student surveys, we learned that drugs and alcohol were
available to students. The majority of students claimed that obtaining
certain substances was "easy" or "very easy": cigarettes (68%), alcohol
(62%), and marijuana (51%). Regarding "other drugs," 43 percent of
students reported easy access to these. We are unable to discern,
however, whether students thought that they could get these drugs within
or outside the school.

Most students reportedly kept most of their drug and alcohol activity
outside of the school. Only 15 percent of the students admitted to going
to school when they were drunk or high on some drugs. This supports
observations by site visitors and personal accounts by staff and
students that showed minimal disorder due to drug and alcohol activity
in the schools.

# Site Visitor Descriptions

The discussion above provides a picture of the types of incidents that
occurred in the schools. Site visitors also conducted observations at
the schools by walking the halls both during classes and in between
class changes. They also went into bathrooms, walked around the school
campus, monitored student traffic as the school day started and ended,
observed lunch periods, and looked into classrooms. The visitors were
instructed to note any disorder among the students, such as rowdiness
and high noise level, amount of loitering in the halls during classes,
and other signs of misconduct such as smoking or fighting.

In roughly one-third of the schools, site visitors noted some student
disorder. They observed "stragglers" in the hallways during classes,
running and pushing in the hallways and near busses, and/or noisy
cafeterias or classrooms. As previously noted, some site visitors
observed students smoking outside (in one case they were smoking
marijuana), and a few fights also were witnessed. In one particular
school with a lot of student disorder, one site visitor observed, "While
bedlam may be an exaggeration, children do run and yell between classes.
This level of noise and motion increased dramatically during lunch and
after school. The school gym, cafeteria and bus lines were chaotic, even
when adults were present."

In about the same number of schools, however, site visitors observed
very low levels of student disorder. They reported students moving about
at a leisurely, orderly pace, with low levels of noise and no loitering
in the halls. Students in these schools appeared to be on task in the
classrooms. As one site visitor observed, "Overall, we found the
students polite, friendly, and orderly. No shoving or rough-housing was
witnessed during the site visit." A site visitor from a different school
reported, "The students, observed during class changes and while
boarding the buses at the end of school, were extremely orderly and
noticeably polite to each other and to the adults monitoring the area."

Disorder was most likely to occur in areas without a lot of supervision
or monitoring, such as bathrooms or areas outside the school. Lunch
periods and other times when large numbers of students congregate
without adequate adult supervision also were cited as places where
disruption was more likely to occur. Several school administrators
mentioned that students waited until after school to cause trouble.
Bathrooms were most commonly cited as places for student disorder in the
school, mainly due to smoking, along with a few examples of fights and
vandalism. In the student surveys, bathrooms were the most common places
in the school that students reported staying away from, cited by almost
15 percent of the students. Fifteen percent of teachers also reported
that student bathrooms were not safe from vandalism, personal attacks
(on students, teachers, and others), and theft. Isolated areas outside
the school also were commonly used for fighting or smoking, and
represented the next highest percentage of student response from the
surveys (14%) regarding places they stay away from. Gym locker rooms
without adult supervision provided opportunities for theft, and 13
percent of teachers thought that these areas were unsafe (for teachers,
students, and others). Students skipped school from unsupervised student
parking lots and vandalized cars.

During lunch periods, large numbers of students were confined to one
place with few adult monitors. This was a common time of the day for
student disorder, particularly in regard to high noise level and
rowdiness. According to site visitors at one school, "Lunch is very loud
with lots of movement from table to table and from the cafeteria to the
gym where lunch-goers play basketball and run around. Even though adults
are present, no attempt was made to keep the noise level down. The kids
were so loud we didn't hear the bella teacher had to come outside to
tell the students to come in." Interviews with students and staff from
other schools as well, showed that fighting was most likely to occur
during lunchtime.

Similarly, areas of bus arrivals and departures were potential sites for
disorder. Site visitors at one school described the scene as
"pandemonium," citing examples of one student slapping someone and
another student throwing pencils. Personnel from a few schools cited the
majority of their student disorder occurring on the buses themselves.
Again, these are areas with a lot of students and little adult
supervision.

> **Perceptions of Safety and Disorder**

Fear of disorder interferes with the learning process. Even though the
schools visited were predominantly free of serious violence, less
serious incidents occurred that could contribute to apprehension about
being in school, although on the whole, site visitors did not find this
to be the case at the schools that they studied. At roughly two-thirds
of the schools, site visitors unanimously described their schools as
safe or very safe, with low or very low levels of disorder. Similarly,
about a third of the site visitors reported that the schools they
visited were completely orderly and safe. Only one site visiting team
characterized their school as "unsafe".

From the student surveys, most students reported feeling safe at school
and in the surrounding community. Almost 57 percent of students reported
feeling "almost always" safe while in the school building. Similarly, 64
percent of students were "almost never" afraid that someone would hurt
or bother them at school, and 72 percent were "almost never" afraid on
the way to or from school. However, as many as 12 percent of students
reported avoiding certain places (e.g., restrooms) because of fear. As
reported earlier in this section, however, about a quarter of students
felt they had to fight to protect themselves at school. A fair number of
students also witnessed delinquent acts against teachers at school,
including teachers being threatened by students (30%) and being attacked
by students (14%).

Thirteen percent of students reported "almost never" feeling safe. Those
students that did report feeling unsafe at times were wary in school
bathrooms, locker rooms, and isolated areas in and around the school.
According to site visitors at one school, "students themselves feel the
school isn't safe. Besides worrying about an outside gunman breaching
school security, a few focus group participants related that they've
felt unsafe in the schools' hallways, bathrooms, and classrooms where
teachers have stepped away. Their apprehension appears to center on
potential physical (pushing and shoving, being attacked) or emotional
(name-calling, threats to fight) incidents. The kids also said they
don't feel safe in the hallways or bathrooms, where they themselves or
friends have been pushed, shoved, or otherwise attacked."

Teachers had a slightly more mixed set of feelings about safety in the
school. From the survey data, the majority (61%) of teachers felt very
safe in their classrooms while teaching. However, less than half the
teachers felt very safe in any other part of the school or grounds. Only
about a quarter of teachers felt very safe in the restrooms used by
students (25%) or in locker rooms or gyms (23%). According to one site
visitor, "Most of the teachers think the school is safe, stating that
the threat of violence isn't their primary challenge, rather keeping
order in the classroom is their biggest problem. One teacher did state
that she felt physically threatened and has made a point to stay out of
the hallways at lunch and during class changes, and does not stay after
school at all. In her words, "I do my job and then I get out." One
teacher at another school commented that she had felt threatened because
the doors were unlocked and anyone from the community could come in at
any time. Finally, site visitors from another school mentioned that
"teachers were also divided on whether they thought the school was safe
or not (although even those who complained said it was not bad in their
own classrooms)."

> **Incident Reporting and Monitoring in Schools**

An important aspect of managing disorder in school is the development of
systems to monitor incidents. The discussion in this section provides a
description of the types of monitoring systems the schools in the sample
currently have in place and how these systems compare with the standards
proposed by the state and federal government.

# Incident Records

While most schools follow similar discipline procedures (See Chapter 4),
they varied quite a bit in how they recorded and used incident data. A
review of the systems that are in place in the schools included in the
site visits found that: (a) collection forms vary widely between
schools; (b) serious incidents usually are reported to the
district/state; (c) victims and offenders are rarely identified by name
in the system; and (d) most schools review incident data informally
rather than systematically.

**Collection Forms.** Each school used its own standard referral form,
developed locally either at the school or at the district level. These
forms were used when students were referred to the central office for
misbehavior. Most forms included a checklist of possible incidents and
actions with additional space for describing them in detail. For
example, checklists of incidents could include excessive talking,
fighting, leaving class without permission, tardiness, use of profanity,
substance abuse, failure to follow directions, and being unprepared for
class. Actions might include in-school suspension, detention,
out-of-school suspension, referral to a counselor, or conference with a
parent. Actions that the teacher took before sending the student to the
discipline office might include parent contact, meeting with the
student, verbal warning, or revised seating arrangement.

Several school administrators mentioned that they prefer to document
each incident in detail, describing what happened and what steps were
taken with the student, including "previous action" by the teacher. A
few school principals mentioned that this documentation is related to
the possibility that legal action might become necessary. For example,
one principal said that he insists that the teachers describe the
problem behavior in great detail, so that the incident reports "can be
taken to court." Another principal mentioned that he maintains very
detailed written documentation of disciplinary action because of
"potential legal action."

Besides noting the incident and action, other items commonly found in
schools' incident reporting forms included:

-   Offender's name,

-   Referring name (usually a teacher),

-   Student's grade, and

-   Date of incident.

> Other items that were found in only a few schools were:

-   Student's race;

-   Student's gender;

-   Time of the incident;

-   Location of the incident;

-   Names of other students involved, such as accomplices or witnesses;

-   Previous action taken (a record of how the student was disciplined
    before being sent to the office);

-   Parents notified; and

-   Student comments.

**Reporting Incidents to the District.** Most school administrators
mentioned reporting only serious incidents to their districts. These
data usually involved suspensions, and could be either in summary form
or as a listing of all serious referrals. At several schools, serious
incidents were kept track of separately from other referrals. However,
in a lot of these schools, serious incidents were so rare that they
readily stood out in administrators' minds. As one school principal
pointed out, "more serious incidents may not be recorded as these are
vivid and rare and can easily by tracked by memory."

Similarly, serious infractions leading to expulsions were routinely made
known to the districts. Most of these cases required district approval.
Likewise, school district personnel were usually involved in alternative
placement decisions, which kept them aware of serious incidents or
repeat offenders. Regardless of how the district personnel received
their information, school districts usually were aware of how many
suspensions and expulsions occurred at each of their schools, and the
reasons why these actions were taken.

**Reporting Incidents to the Police.** School administrators also
mentioned reporting serious incidents to the local police. In some
schools, only criminal offenses were reported, which usually involved
the local police department anyway. In other schools, any serious
offense was reported, such as theft, drug and alcohol offenses, and
serious fights. One school principal pointed out that, by law, he must
report all incidents involving weapons or drugs. In some schools,
summary reports were provided to the officers who work with the schools.
In another school, copies of its standard incident forms were sent to
the School Resource Officer, who must then decide whether or not the
incident warrants reporting to the police department.

**Reporting Incidents to the State.** Some school administrators also
mentioned sending discipline information directly to their states. In
one school, information was sent from its bus and teacher referrals to
the central office and, at the end of the year, to the state. In another
school, a Discipline Incident Summary on violent behaviors was sent to
both the state and district, and at a third school, a State School
Behavior Report on suspensions and expulsions was sent to the district
office and reported to the state.

Other schools had incident data entered directly into statewide computer
systems. For example, in one state, school personnel used a statewide
information system that contains "a wealth of information on each
student, including name, address, social security number, parent's
information, emergency information, immunization record, academic
information, and discipline records (type and date of incident and
action taken)." Data from these records could be aggregated to the
school, county, regional, and state levels. At another school, a
computerized reporting system was used that sought to have all schools
in the state networked with the state education agency (SEA); this would
allow the SEA to obtain, at any time, discipline information for any
school system in the state.

From most schools, how incident data got to the state level was unclear.
States are required, however, to collect data from their local education
agencies (usually districts) regarding incidents in schools. These data
must be submitted to Congress as part of performance reports for the
Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act. For the "State Education
Agency Safe and Drug-Free Program Reporting," states currently use a
reporting form that asks, among other things, about the "frequency,
seriousness, and incidence of violence in elementary and secondary
schools."

Specifically, states are asked to report the number of:

-   Incidents,

-   Victims (students, school personnel, non-school personnel),

-   Offenders (students, non-students), and

-   Weapon-related incidents.

Also, as part of the Gun-Free Schools Act, states are asked to also
report the number of:

-   Student expulsions for bringing a firearm to school (handgun,
    rifles/shotguns, other firearms),

-   Student expulsions shortened to less than one year on a case-by-case
    basis, and

-   Expelled students referred to an alternative placement.

School officials generally report serious incidents to states, either
directly or through their districts. This reporting procedure, however,
is not standard across all schools and some are more efficient than
others. Some schools utilized standard, computerized reporting methods,
while others relied on hard copies or memory. Because of this
variability, information is likely to be inaccurate.

School officials rarely do anything with the information they collect on
the victim and/or offender, if such information is collected at all.
Often, names of students involved in the incident were recorded on the
referral forms. The incident was recorded in the offending student's
file. If need be, school administrators, especially those who track
incident data electronically, could retrieve summary data on offenders.
Victims, however, may be noted by hand on referral forms, but were
rarely entered into computer systems, and even more rarely summarized
into a report.

**U.S. Department of Education Incident Collection and Reporting
Recommendations.** In order to extract this information easily from the
schools, states have asked for recommendations from a National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES) forum for the best ways to collect and
report incident data. Findings from the NCES task force, which included
SEA officials, were published and disseminated to SEAs in July 1996.
SEAs are responsible for distributing these recommendations to the
district and school levels. Although a few schools had incident
reporting forms developed by their districts (which could have adopted
these recommendations), none of the schools that we visited mentioned
anything about specific reporting recommendations from either their
districts or states.

The main finding from the NCES task force was the advice to track
incident data through a **unit record system**. This would avoid
duplication while making sure that all the data was collected.
Specifically, school administrators should document incidents using:

-   One incident record per incident,

-   One or more student record(s) for every student involved, and

-   Link the incident and student records by a unique identifier.

For example, if a fight occurred between two students, an incident
record would be made to document the "fight," and two student records
would be made for the two students involved. All three records (one
incident and two students) would be linked by a unique identifier. Thus,
when the state asks for the number of incidents, school officials would
retrieve all incident records, sorted by the unique identifiers. When
asked for the number of offenders or victims, school officials would
retrieve all student records. Since students would be linked to specific
incidents through the unique identifiers, questions about how many
students were involved in fights, for example, could be answered.

Currently, school administrators appear to document an incident on a
single form. From the example above, it would be noted on one referral
form what happened (fight) and who was involved (names of students). If
this information were entered into a computer database, it usually would
be tracked by incident or student. Thus, with computer tracking systems,
data could be retrieved involving one incident record per incident, and
one or more student records for offending students. We did not observe,
however, that these records were linked by unique identifiers. While
obtaining total numbers of incidents and students involved per type of
incident would be possible, these data would not be linked. A single
fight, for example, that occurred between two students may be listed
under each student's record. The NCES task force recommended other key
concepts for schools' reporting of incidents:

-   Data collection should be organized around the school year (as
    opposed to the calendar year or fiscal year);

-   All incidents should be reported that occurred on school grounds or
    school transportation, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day;

-   The location of the incident should be included (if it happened
    during an off-campus, school-sponsored activity, it only should be
    reported if a student was involved);

-   Students should be identified by only those enrolled in the district
    (a "non-student" would include a student from another district);

-   Incident reports should include whether or not alcohol, drugs, or
    weapons were involved;

-   Incident reports should include whether or not the incident was
    gang- or hate-related;

-   Records should be kept on which incidents were reported to police;
    and

-   If more than one offense occurred at the same time, only the most
    serious one should be recorded on the single incident form.

The schools visited for this study had reporting systems that were
consistent with many of these recommendations. School officials created
records based on the school year, and some reported the location of the
incidents. There appeared to be some confusion, however, about whether
or not to report something, especially if it happened outside the school
walls or school day. This confusion extended to after-school and
off-campus activities. Referrals usually noted whether alcohol, drugs,
or weapons were involved, but did not always document whether police
were called. None of the incident referral forms had a way of
systematically recording whether or not the incident was gang- or
hate-related, although this certainly could have been noted in the
description of the incident. Finally, there were some inconsistencies
among the schools in how incidents were reported if more than one
occurred at the same time. In some schools, more than one incident was
listed on the same student record.

No one from the site visit schools or districts mentioned anything about
the state reporting forms or NCES reporting recommendations. Currently,
states would appear to have a difficult time collecting all of the
information that the NCES task force recommended.

# Monitoring and Reviewing Incident Data

Disciplinary information from each school in our study usually was
reviewed informally within the school. Principals and teachers usually
were aware of the most prevalent types of disorder at their schools as
well as which students were more likely to cause trouble.

In many schools, incident data were sorted by student. This provided an
easy way to review which students were involved in different kinds of
trouble. For example, teachers at one school looked at the referrals to
see if any students were repeat offenders in order to decide the most
appropriate punishment. Other school officials looked at a student's
history of misbehaving before deciding whether or not to send the
student to an alternative school. As one school administrator said,
"reports are filed alphabetically in each student's file. The
information accumulates until the principal or Dean of students feels
that a student has engaged in too many misconduct behaviors. A more
lasting solution is developed, such as sending the student to the local
alternative high school."

Another reason that staff reviewed incident data was to monitor
classroom management. Some teachers issued more referrals than others
did, or different types of referrals, both of which could warrant
attention from administrators. For example, at one school, the principal
reviewed its incident information for internal tracking and as a way to
audit teachers and students with large referrals.

Besides looking at individual students or teachers, incident data was
reviewed within the schools in order to notice trends. This kind of
tracking, however, was more the exception than the rule. It was mostly
done informally by teachers and administrators in the school. A few
school officials mentioned that their districts compiled and provided
trend data, or summary reports, to the school. By looking at trends in
disorder, administrators could decide whether or not to create new or
revise existing programs, rules or policies. For example, the principal
at one school noticed an increase in student drug use. Based on this
information, she considered bringing in a drug-sniffing dog to conduct
random searches. A site visitor at another school reported that, "though
no formal needs assessments are made, the administration examines the
disciplinary reports to see if there are trends with particular
students, offenses, or teachers. They then adjust procedures
accordingly."

Only a few schools in our study had specific procedures in place to
review incident data. At one school, the faculty senate consistently
reviewed data by examining a printout listing all incidents at the end
of the school year. Another school's principal participated in a
systematic review with his district by being involved in a district
safety committee. The committee met monthly to review all accidents and
incidents involving students and employees. They also reviewed reports
of vandalism and destruction to school and district property and
conducted walks through the school buildings to make sure everything
appeared safe (e.g., no torn carpet, fire extinguishers charged, fire
alarms and locks in working order). The committee would then formulate a
plan based on any problems found and distribute a report to all schools
regarding the nature of the problem and how it was being handled. In
another district, two staff members in the central office coordinated
and provided assistance to school staff on collecting data on safety
issues. They tracked incident reports and attendance, as well as health
issues and community involvement.

+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **C      |                                                           |
| hapter** |                                                           |
|          |                                                           |
| **4**    |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

**Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior**

This chapter addresses two questions:

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

-   How well are efforts to prevent problem behavior implemented?

Two previous reports for this project (Gottfredson et al., 2000; Crosse
et al., forthcoming) addressed each of these questions using information
collected from a representative sample of schools, teachers, students
and program providers. The goal of the present chapter is to get a
better understanding of these results by providing a qualitative picture
of what schools are doing to prevent problem behavior.

This chapter is organized into 4 sections, including: (a) violence
prevention activities; (b) school security; (c) school discipline
practices and policies, and (d) school climate.

> **Violence Prevention Activities**

The previous report analyzed violence prevention activities that were
classified into 19 different types. These are divided into two overall
groups: prevention activities (Table 4-1) and school-wide arrangements
(Table 4-2). In this section, we amplify the results from the previous
report for all of these activities except security and surveillance,
which we discuss separately in the school security section of this
report.

**Table 4-1**

**Prevention Activity Categories and Definitions**

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Categories of School            | **Definition**                    |
| Activities**                      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 1)  Prevention curriculum,        | Training or instruction in which  |
|     instruction or training       | the content involves knowledge,   |
|                                   | skills, attitudes or values       |
|                                   | intended to prevent problem       |
|                                   | behavior. Instruction or training |
|                                   | may be brief (less than an hour)  |
|                                   | or of extended duration.          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2)  Counseling/social             | Provision of advice or guidance   |
|     work/psychological/           | to remedy or prevent problems     |
|     therapeutic interventions     | using identifiable techniques of  |
|                                   | psychology, counseling, or social |
|                                   | work.                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3)  Use of external personnel     | Includes the use of parent or     |
|     resources in classrooms       | community volunteers, authority   |
|                                   | figures (e.g., police officers),  |
|                                   | classroom consultants, aides, or  |
|                                   | older students.                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 4)  Culture or climate change,    | Includes efforts to establish,    |
|     norm change                   | encourage, or sustain a special   |
|                                   | school climate or culture though  |
|                                   | symbols, ceremonies, or           |
|                                   | systematic procedures;            |
|                                   | communication of expectations;    |
|                                   | and use of social influence or    |
|                                   | attitude change techniques to     |
|                                   | obtain commitment to norms.       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 5)  Behavioral or behavior        | Tracking student behavior,        |
|     modification interventions    | setting behavior goals, and       |
|                                   | feedback or punishment to         |
|                                   | decrease undesired behavior or    |
|                                   | rewards to increase desired       |
|                                   | behavior.                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 6)  Recreational, enrichment, and | Provision of or access to         |
|     leisure activities            | activities, play, amusement, or   |
|                                   | diversions; exploration outside   |
|                                   | the school; for fun or            |
|                                   | relaxation.                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 7)  Improvements to classroom     | Activities applied to entire      |
|     organization and management   | classes to establish and enforce  |
|                                   | classroom rules, use rewards and  |
|                                   | punishments, improve the use or   |
|                                   | management of time, or change the |
|                                   | way in which students are grouped |
|                                   | for instruction by ability,       |
|                                   | achievement or effort within the  |
|                                   | classroom.                        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**Table 4-1 (continued)**

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **Categories of School            | **Definition**                    |
| Activities**                      |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 8)  Services to families          | Outreach or service to families   |
|                                   | to improve their child management |
|                                   | and supervision practices, or to  |
|                                   | provide other family services.    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 9)  Mentoring, tutoring,          | Provision of one-on-one attention |
|     coaching, or apprenticeships  | to students other than counseling |
|                                   | or behavioral programming.        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 10) Improvements to instructional | Activities applied to entire      |
|     practices                     | classes that involve the adoption |
|                                   | or expansion of improved          |
|                                   | instructional techniques or       |
|                                   | practices. Includes training,     |
|                                   | supervision or assistance to      |
|                                   | improve instructional methods.    |
|                                   | Not included are curriculum       |
|                                   | changes.                          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 11) Intergroup relations,         | Activities to promote interaction |
|     interaction between school    | among members of diverse groups   |
|     and community                 | and celebrate diversity, to       |
|                                   | promote relations between the     |
|                                   | school and the community, and     |
|                                   | improve intergroup relations or   |
|                                   | resolve or reduce conflict.       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 12) Youth regulating and          | Student participation in making   |
|     responding to student conduct | school rules, in resolving        |
|                                   | disputes, or in responding to     |
|                                   | problem behavior (e.g., student   |
|                                   | court, peer mediation, or student |
|                                   | conflict resolution).             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 13) Planning structure or process | Structured or facilitated         |
|                                   | planning activities as well as    |
|                                   | activity to coordinate or manage  |
|                                   | change in the school. Includes    |
|                                   | the use of methods or processes   |
|                                   | for planning or program           |
|                                   | development, inclusion of a broad |
|                                   | range of individuals or           |
|                                   | perspectives in planning, or the  |
|                                   | use of consultants to advise on   |
|                                   | school practices or solve         |
|                                   | problems.                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 14) Security and surveillance     | Application of procedures to      |
|                                   | discourage intruders from         |
|                                   | entering the school; watching     |
|                                   | entrances, hallways and school    |
|                                   | grounds; facilitating reporting   |
|                                   | of problem behavior; searching    |
|                                   | for weapons or drugs; removing    |
|                                   | barriers to observation or        |
|                                   | inspection; action to avert       |
|                                   | potential unsafe events.          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**Table 4-2**

**School Wide Arrangements and Definitions**

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| **School Wide Arrangements**      | **Definitions**                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 1)  Simple provision of           | Information may be provided by    |
|     information regarding the     | using posters, newsletters,       |
|     harmfulness of violence, drug | brochures, announcements,         |
|     use, or risky sexual behavior | handouts, videos, slide shows,    |
|     or about the availability of  | lectures, presentations,          |
|     services                      | readings, or other methods.       |
|                                   | Information may be directed at    |
|                                   | students, parents, educators or   |
|                                   | community members. Does not       |
|                                   | include instruction or training.  |
|                                   | Does not include information      |
|                                   | conveyed as part of any activity  |
|                                   | listed above.                     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 2)  Reorganization of grades,     | Includes use of specially         |
|     classes or school schedules   | arranged school schedules, group  |
|                                   | of students, formation of         |
|                                   | within-school units, or small     |
|                                   | class size to prevent problem     |
|                                   | behavior or promote school order. |
|                                   | May also include within-school    |
|                                   | units such as "teams" or "houses" |
|                                   | or special grade-to-grade         |
|                                   | promotion criteria.               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 3)  Activities that influence the | Includes are special student      |
|     composition of the school's   | recruitment efforts, school       |
|     population                    | specialization in attractive      |
|                                   | educational programs, selective   |
|                                   | admissions criteria,              |
|                                   | scholarships, assignment of       |
|                                   | students with educational or      |
|                                   | behavior problems to other        |
|                                   | schools, or a requirement of      |
|                                   | tuition or fees.                  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 4)  Treatment or prevention       | Includes prevention or treatment  |
|     interventions for             | of alcohol, tobacco, or other     |
|     administration, faculty, or   | drug use; anger or self-control   |
|     staff                         | problems, or other health or      |
|                                   | mental health problems.           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| 5)  Architectural design or       | Includes the use of fences,       |
|     structural features of the    | space, facilities, barricades,    |
|     school                        | physical arrangements, or         |
|                                   | artwork.                          |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

The previous analysis found that the diversity and quantity of
activities reported by principals was extremely high. For example, on
average, principals reported 9 of the 14 different prevention activity
types listed in Table 4-1 (Gottfredson et al., 2000). The most commonly
reported prevention activity type was prevention curriculum, instruction
or training. Nationally, 76 percent of schools reported using this
category. A substantial proportion of schools used "celebrity" programs,
which are "off-the-shelf" or "canned" programs marketed to schools. A
large percentage of schools also reported school-wide arrangements, with
the most common activity being simple provision of information (80% of
schools).

As part of the site visit, principals and other school personnel were
asked about activities they considered important for preventing or
reducing problem behavior in schools. The number of separate prevention
activities reported by respondents to site visitors was less than would
be expected from the national survey data. On average, 12 prevention
activities per school were reported to site visitors. This compares to
an average of 17 to 18 activities reported for schools nationally during
the survey.

At least some of the difference between the two results stems from the
methods used to collect the information. To some extent, the difference
also may be due to the site selection methods used\--probability
sampling versus purposive selection. During the survey, the principal
was presented with a list of possible activities that could be used to
prevent problem behavior. He/she was then asked to report on appropriate
activity under each category. This contrasts to the procedures used
during the site visit, which consisted of an in-person, open-ended
interview, without specific prompts or cues about particular types of
activities. The open-ended questions are most likely to elicit
information that is prominent in the principal's mind, especially as it
ties into preventing violence within the school. The survey provided a
more exhaustive set of cues to the respondent to assist in defining
eligible activities. However, it may have also placed greater demand on
the respondent to report any possible activity that might qualify as an
activity to prevent violence. This suggests that respondents may have
over-reported activities on the survey.

The survey of program providers found that the quality of implementation
of prevention activities was quite low. For each particular type of
activity, the provider survey asked about specific practices with
respect to the particular activity. The responses were then used to
assess the extent that providers were following "best practices[^6]."
Overall, this analysis found that only 57 percent of the prevention
activities achieved adequate levels of implementation quality. That is,
only 57 percent of the measures met criteria (developed by experts) for
sufficient strength to achieve a reduction in problem behavior or an
increase in school safety.

Interestingly, adequacy ratings on the national survey varied by school
level and location. The ratings tended to be highest in urban areas and
lowest in rural areas. This is opposite to what one might expect, given
that the national survey results indicate that urban areas tended to
have lower levels of safety than suburban or rural areas. Based on those
results, one might expect that schools that are the least safe would be
the least able to implement programs in an effective way. Instead, the
survey data suggest that program implementation is driven in part by the
need to control problem behavior: schools that have greater safety
concerns appear to attend more to the quality of program implementation
than other schools.

The site visit reports amplify this general pattern. As noted in the
previous chapter, many of the schools visited were considered by staff
and students to have relatively low levels of violence. This was also
reflected in the interviews with many of the principals during the site
visits. Principals did not report an overwhelming number of concerns
with safety and, on the whole, did not attribute the safety of the
school to particular types of prevention activities.

The site visits were not designed to do an intensive process evaluation
of particular activities in the school, so we have very little
information on the content of the program (e.g., material covered in
lesson plans; type of counseling strategies used) or the methods of
implementing the activities. Nonetheless, we found great variability
across the different types of programs with respect to basic quality
criteria, including the existence of specific goals, the actual
frequency of participation of students in the activity and any tracking
of outcomes relative to the initial goals of the activity. With a number
of exceptions, the site visitors generally found a lack of information
on these basic elements. One interpretation of this is that many of the
schools that did not perceive themselves as having a safety problem also
did not seem to feel a great need to ensure that the program was being
implemented as initially planned.

To illustrate the issues that came up during the site visits, we discuss
four different types of programs: (a) youth regulation of and response
to student conduct; (b) activities involving individual attention (such
as mentoring, tutoring, or coaching.); (c) activities to change or
maintain the culture or climate of the school, alter or maintain
expectations for student behavior, or secure commitment to norms; and
(d) implementation of counseling, social work, psychological or
therapeutic activity. These program types were selected on the basis of
having a sufficiently large number of schools in the site visit sample
reporting them, as well as having the site visitor actually interview
the provider for the activity.

# Youth Regulation of and Response to Student Conduct

About half the visited schools had instituted some form of prevention
activity that involved students in managing or responding to the conduct
of their peers. The vast majority of such activities were peer mediation
programs. In 12 of these schools, the site visitor interviewed the
program coordinators. The discussion below provides information on the
peer mediation programs in these 12 schools. The schools included in
this group of 12 were evenly distributed across middle and high schools,
along urbanicity and size.

Participation in the program was voluntary in all cases but one. In that
program, students were often given the choice between referral to the
discipline office/suspension and participation in peer mediation.
Typically, students who wanted the services of a mediator completed a
request form located in a counselor's office or in boxes placed in
common areas throughout the school. Mediation sessions were held at a
mutually agreed upon time during the school day. Students generally were
excused from a class period to participate in a mediation session.
Mediations adhered to a set of rules agreed upon in advance. If
successful, mediation ended with some sort of written agreement between
the disputants.

All programs targeted the entire school population. For the most part,
student mediators were drawn from the upper grade or grades of a school.
The number of mediators per school ranged from 10 to 46. The number of
mediators was not related to the size of the school, except perhaps
inversely. Two of the largest schools had the smallest numbers of
mediators.

In most schools, programs were coordinated by one adult staff member. No
school had more than two staff members involved in running the program.
The type of staff varied by school (e.g., counselor, teacher, security
aide), and a minority of staff were actually compensated for running the
program by means of a stipends.

All mediators received training, generally a few days outside school.
Training usually involved practice and role playing. Mediations were
quite structured and closely followed the model conveyed during
training. One program provided mediators with ongoing training and other
activities throughout the year. Funding for the program was provided by
the school district in all but two cases. Most of the districts used
SDFSCA funds for this type of program.

Overall, peer mediation programs in these schools were not particularly
well implemented. Programs were not widely used by students (as far as
site visitors could tell), had scanty monitoring and evaluation data and
were not perceived as being very effective by students or staff.

On the whole, these programs were not widely supported by the schools.
Extreme examples of this are in two schools where the programs were not
implemented at all. One never really started because of a lack of
interest on the part of the student body and the other had operated in
previous years but was not operating in 1998-99 because it did not have
a faculty or staff sponsor. Similarly, only two schools provided an
extra stipend for staff to assist with the activities. In the other
schools the staff running the program picked the activity up as part of
their normal duties. In one school, space was a clear issue. The
principal had not allocated a private space for the program, which made
conducting confidential sessions difficult.

In most schools, the program was perceived as not well used or not well
known. Programs maintained very limited data on the extent of use by
students. Only five schools provided any numbers related to how many
students used the program during the course of the school year. These
consisted of numbers of mediations per year or per week rather than
numbers of students. Three of the five schools provided actual counts of
mediations, the others provided estimates. The range was 30 to 100
mediations per year. In the schools that provided actual counts, roughly
7, 9, and 22 percent of the student body participated in peer mediation
during the past year.

Programs also maintained very limited data for program monitoring and
evaluation. To the extent that programs maintained any data at all, it
was primarily process data---records of individual mediations and their
resolutions. Two programs made a practice of following up with
participants after mediations. One school sought regular feedback from
students and parents about the program.

In the absence of evaluation data, indications of program effectiveness
were anecdotal. Perceptions of effectiveness varied. Program
coordinators and mediators tended to be the most positive about program
potential and about the skills they had acquired. Other school staff and
administrators had mixed reactions. They often felt that the program had
limited uses or was not well implemented. Students tended to have the
most negative perceptions. At one school, although student mediators
were quite enthusiastic about their mediation program, other students
questioned its effectiveness for example, these non-mediators reported
that, rather than resolving differences, medication had the effect of
moving unresolved disputes from school to other venues such as local
restaurant parking lots.

# Activities Involving Individual Attention 

About one quarter of the visited schools had programs in place that
focused on providing individual academic and social support to a
subgroup of students. These included tutoring and mentoring programs,
dropout prevention programs, career orientation programs, and family
literacy programs. These did not include activities that provided
one-on-one attention as a function of counseling or psychological
support. Interviews with program providers were obtained for 8 of the
programs in 7 of these schools.

The programs were fairly evenly distributed between middle and high
schools, large and small schools, and rural and urban schools. The
programs were quite diverse but all provided extra academic or social
support to students and all targeted at-risk students. Teachers and
other school staff identified and referred students to such programs
usually because of their grades, problem behavior, attendance, or
combination of these problems.

Goals of the programs tended to focus on individual students. They were
phrased in terms of improving participants\' grades, social skills,
attendance, and self esteem. One school had the stated goal of reducing
the overall dropout rate. One program aimed for an "80 percent positive
placement rate" (i.e., remaining in school, finding full-time
employment, or entering post-secondary education).

Providers usually worked with students in pullout settings during the
school day, generally no longer than a class period 2 or 3 times per
week. One program (a dropout prevention program) functioned as a class
for participating students that met every day. Two programs met once a
week after school for 1 to 2 hours. Most programs had between 15 and 40
participants.

Quality of implementation is difficult to assess because of the lack of
data maintained by the programs. The programs varied tremendously along
a number of important dimensions correlated with implementation quality.
Staffing ranged from a full-time coordinator with a staff of 9 teachers
to a teacher or counselor coordinating the program in his or her spare
time. Support ranged from two programs that did not receive any cash
funding to several programs funded by the school district, state, or
federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) grant.

These programs were much better than their peer mediation counterparts
at maintaining process information. Programs tended to maintain data
such as attendance and activity logs. Grades, attendance, and
persistence in school were tracked for individual students. One program
also monitored the school-wide dropout rate. However, like the peer
mediation program, efforts to evaluate the programs in any systematic
way were minimal or non-existent.

Staff and provider perceptions of the programs tended to be positive.
Although teachers grumbled about pull-out programs, most school staff
seemed to feel that the additional attention was helpful to
participants. Two programs were in their first year and the consensus
was that the programs showed promise but assessing effectiveness should
wait until the programs had matured.

From the site visits, the lack of resources, either inconsistent or
declining participation of staff or shrinking funds, was cited as a
major barrier to effective implementation. Only one program (an
after-school family literacy program) planned to expand its outreach.
Some programs lacked much intensity of service---either they did not
meet very frequently or the amount of time per session was very limited.
Some programs did not have adequate staff to provide much one-on-one
contact with students.

# Activities to Change or Maintain the Culture or Climate of the School, Alter or Maintain Expectations for Student Behavior, or Secure Commitment to Norms 

We gathered information from program providers on 15 of these types of
activities in 10 schools. The programs were evenly split between middle
and high schools. Eight of the programs were in suburban schools, 5 were
in urban schools, and 2 were in rural schools. Most of the schools had
enrollments of over 500 students; 5 schools had enrollments over 1000
students.

In the visited schools, these activities tended to be variations of
three basic forms: student clubs, activity/discussion groups, and
leadership classes. Student clubs often had anti-drug or anti-violence
themes. They attempted to engage students in positive alternatives to
problem behavior and sponsored school-wide events and community service
projects. The clubs recruited speakers on a variety of topics, sponsored
field trips, and organized theme-based events for the school such as
dances or "Just say no" week. Often these clubs required individual
members to perform a set number of hours of community service or to
initiate as a group one or two major community service projects per
year. Often these clubs were affiliated with national organizations.

Discussion or activity groups tended to focus on a specific group of
students such as students having trouble in school or the lowest grade
in a particular school. They often revolved around social adjustment of
students such as easing the transition to middle school or high school.
Two programs were elective leadership classes. Drawn from the upper
grades of the schools, the students in these classes were expected to
serve as role models for other students. In one high school,
participants led discussions of teenage issues with younger students at
the end of the school year.

Seven of the programs were funded through SDFSCA or the school district,
three received funds from the school, three received funds from local
organizations, five relied substantially on fundraisers, three charged
student dues, one was funded by a local grant, and one received funds
from AmeriCorps. Cash funds paid for materials, activities, or staff
time. In-kind resources consisted mostly of donated time.

Goals tended to focus on creating a drug or violence free environment,
building self-esteem and leadership, improving student social
interactions and decision-making, and easing the transition to middle
school or high school.

Students targeted by these activities varied. Most of the clubs were
open to all. Some groups targeted at-risk students or students in a
particular grade. Leadership classes targeted students in upper grades
with higher grade point averages and teacher recommendations. One
discussion group targeted females. These programs had between 20 and 100
participants depending upon the nature of the program.

Program coordinators were generally counselors or teachers. Most were
run by only one or two staff members. In one very large high school, 10
teachers instructed multiple sections of a leadership class. A couple of
programs were staffed by non-school personnel such as AmeriCorps
members. Most program coordinators had received no specialized training.
Most providers operated these programs as part of their regular duties
(counselors and leadership teachers) or as extra duty (teachers). A few
were paid small stipends for coordinating the program.

Assessing implementation of these programs is difficult because of the
lack of systematic data. Some reached very few students and lacked much
intensity of service. Most lacked the resources to expand. Most
attempted to reach the broader school community through special events
or mentoring relationships with other students; however, these programs
did not measure school-wide effects.

These programs maintained very little data. Classes monitored individual
student grades and behavior, activity/discussion groups monitored
individual student behavior and attitudes toward the program (one
administered pre- and post-test questionnaires to participants). Student
clubs monitored attendance and activities. No formal evaluations were
planned or had been conducted. Perceptions of the programs were
generally positive, but were based on anecdotal evidence of
effectiveness for individual students. None of the schools measured any
school-wide outcomes against program goals or activities.

# Counseling, Social Work, Psychological, or Therapeutic Activity

Information about these types of programs was available from 27 of the
40 schools visited during the site visits. Generally, these programs
were, at least from outset, one of the most highly structured and most
strongly supported of the different programs reviewed by the site
visitors. This should not be particularly surprising, since counseling
is part of the everyday school activity. We characterized these programs
partly on the basis of the types of populations they serve.
Approximately 30 percent of the programs were *universal* and targeted
an entire group of students (all students in a class, grade, school, or
system). Approximately half of the programs were *selected* *prevention*
whereby students were identified and referred by teachers, counselors,
principals, juvenile justice, parents, and by self-referral. Most of
these students were identified as having or being at risk of developing
behavioral or academic problems. These students had not yet been
formally assessed, only referred to some type of intervention. The
*indicated prevention programs* constituted 18 percent of the programs
reviewed. These students were identified through assessment of test
scores (lowest quartile on standardized tests), significant drop in
grades, failing courses, substance abuse, truancy, or documented
behavioral disruptions.

Mental health specialists (counselors, nurses, social workers,
psychologists, family therapists) accounted for about half of the staff,
with teachers and administrators making up the remainder. About 10
percent of the programs utilized at least two different disciplines in
addressing school violence and related issues.

These programs seemed to have access to significant funds for support.
The majority of program providers are supported by district funding for
their position, meaning they receive funding from no other identifiable
external source. Sources of funding for providers other than district
funding were distributed fairly evenly. Roughly one-third of programs
were funded by SDFSCA, one-third was funded by state education
departments or city and state agencies (other than state and local
education agencies), and the last third did not specify a funding source
for their programs.

Written goals or mission statements were very common among the programs
reviewed (83%). However, these goals varied greatly in their specificity
and measurability, with some programs having very general and broad
goals and others having highly specific and measurable goals. The
remaining programs stated they did not have goals (4%), that they did
not specify any goals (8%), or that they developed goals individually
for each student (4%).

Formal program evaluations were a part of approximately half of those
reviewed, although not all of these evaluations included outcomes or
long term tracking of outcomes. This was relatively high compared to
other types of programs reviewed during the site visits. Approximately
one-third of the programs did not have any evaluation or monitoring of
effectiveness. Perceptions of the programs' effectiveness were quite
positive among providers, staff and students. Only a small percentage of
schools were critical of the way the program operated or its
effectiveness.

# Exemplary Programs

To illustrate some of the factors that seemed to lead to good
implementation, two programs seemed particularly strong. Both of these
are counseling programs.

**Characteristics of Exemplary Programs.** We classified programs as
exemplary programs based on the extent to which they possessed certain
key characteristics. These characteristics are firmly grounded in the
prevention research literature as being the "active ingredients" that
are most likely to produce the desired effects. These key
characteristics include the following:

-   **Large target population.** The two programs had very clear focus
    and addressed universal, selected, and indicated levels of
    prevention. Although the second program was focused on tobacco
    reduction, the development of personal self-management skills and
    general social skills are clearly seen as 'cross-over' skills that
    could reduce violence in the school setting.

-   **Highly trained staff.** The providers for the first program were
    highly trained with many providers having or working towards
    doctoral level training in mental health counseling or psychology.
    The second program had a registered nurse with specific and ongoing
    training in the implementation of the program.

-   **Written program materials.** Both of these programs utilized
    manuals and curriculum guides. Both programs were structured in ways
    to deliver effective interventions. For example, one program has a
    step-down 'dosage' model that provides 'booster sessions' to
    reinforce what has been taught earlier.

-   **Significant monetary support.** The significance of substantial
    funding is evident in the quality of both of these programs. A
    critical level of funding (SDFSCA or State Department of Health)
    provides the foundation for quality programs, high quality
    providers, and sophisticated evaluation components.

-   **Evaluation and monitoring.** The second program used a
    sophisticated evaluation protocol. This program has a significant
    history in being well researched and very well regarded in the
    prevention field. The first program had a less rigorous program, but
    strong as compared to the programs reviewed in other schools. The
    first program implemented process and outcome evaluative components
    that had multiple stakeholders participate in the evaluation
    processes.

-   **Integration into the school.** Both programs are highly integrated
    into the school communities and have evolved from multiple
    evaluations of needs and resources. That is, the programs have a
    substantial history within the local setting, have been critically
    reviewed and adapted to cultural norms, are part of an ongoing
    feedback evaluation process, and are openly and actively promoted
    within the local settings.

**Program 1.** The first program is in a relatively large middle school
in an urban setting. The program is currently funded by the Safe and
Drug Free School and Communities Act. The program was initiated after
consultation with the school district's Safe and Drug Free Schools
Advisory Council, as prescribed by legislation.

Program specialists were typically Masters degree level counselors,
although many had Ph.D.'s or are enrolled in a doctorate program. The
specialists provide individual, group, and family counseling. Some
specialists focus on teen dating violence that includes presenting to
students issues surrounding date rape and alternatives to violence. The
specialists also conduct instructional preventive interventions as well
as assisting teachers in technical implementation of the curriculum. The
curriculum allows for adaptation to specific school needs.

The programs are evaluated at the district level. Surveys of a random
sample are conducted that ask teachers, counselors, and administrators
about their level of knowledge of the program in their school (who
provides what programs; what was the modality, type, duration,
intensity; target population), opinions about the program, and benefits
from having the program in their school. This process evaluation is
self-imposed by the program. Program staff prepare quarterly summaries
of activities conducted by the TRUST specialists.

**Program 2.** The second program is based in a small middle school in a
rural setting. The program is funded from a \$50,000 grant from the
state to reduce the use of tobacco by students. The program includes the
teaching of prevention-related information, promoting anti-drug norms,
teaching drug refusal skills, and fostering the development of personal
self-management skills and general social skills. The program has
explicit performance objectives and timelines for each objective through
the year, with a review of the effectiveness of the program by the state
legislature occurring at end of two years.

The program consists of a twelve lesson curriculum conducted over 15
class periods during the first year, 10 class periods the second year,
and 5 class periods the third year. The program is designed for students
attending middle or junior high school, with the first year intended to
be implemented in either 6^th^ or 7^th^ grade. The district, which
created the overall program for the state grant application, hired the
school nurse to implement the program in grades 6 through 8, a modified
program with grades 9 and 10, and chose to include life skills training
as part of it, and also to serve in the three elementary schools in the
county. The total number of students served is 750. One major strength
of the program is its clear objectives and performance indicators for
evaluation purposes.

In September 1998, the school nurse began implementing the program in
grades 6 through 8. She follows set lesson plans and uses the textbooks
and materials associated with the program published by Princeton Health
Press, Inc. In the school, she is able to teach for 30 minutes every day
in the homeroom period rather than only three times per week, which was
the schedule in another middle school in the district. The nurse
attended a two-day training program in October with other nurses and
teachers from around the state so she could conduct and coordinate
training for classroom teachers in the county as well. She attended a
second training in February that afforded opportunities to exchange
experiences and information with other nurses and teachers of the
program in the state. The publisher of the program sponsored both
training sessions. The funding for the program is from the state
legislature's settlement with the tobacco companies.

The district chose the program because it has been rigorously evaluated
and recognized by the American Medical Association (AMA), American
Psychological Association (APA), and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) for its excellence as a prevention program. The
district is monitoring the activities overall as outlined in the grant
proposal, but the nurse documents every activity she implements as well
as the number of students served and other details. Although she is not
required to document activities, she is used to documenting her work as
a nurse. Progress reports are completed in the middle of the program
(January) and at the end of the school year to assess if the program is
being implemented as planned.

Evaluation of the program takes several forms. These include a pre- and
post-program survey of the students designed by the nurse that also
affords the opportunity for feedback and a formal evaluation measured by
pre- and post-tests.

# Summary

In summary, our review of 19 different types of programs found large
variation across a number of characteristics important for effective
violence prevention. Our findings amplified those of the analysis of the
survey data (Gottfredson et al., 2000; Crosse et al., forthcoming) that
many programs do not meet minimal quality criteria along a number of
basic characteristics, including financial support, frequency of
participation by students and monitoring and evaluation. These problems,
we believe, reflect an overall view on the part of the schools that
these programs do not generally have a critical role in preventing
problem behavior in the school. In fact, many of these programs are
implemented within schools that are seen as being relatively safe and
not in great need of such programs.

> **School Security**

Unlike the activities reviewed in the previous section, school personnel
viewed maintaining school security as the first line of defense against
violence and other problem behavior. Security is ubiquitous across all
schools and consists of different types of personnel to monitor student
activity, as well as hardware. The previous analysis found that this
type of prevention activity was implemented significantly better than a
number of other prevention measures (Gottfredson, et al., 2000).

Schools use a variety of strategies and measures to promote safety for
their students and staff. The most commonly used security effort
involves monitoring students and the school building to ensure proper
student behavior, as well as to keep outsiders away from the school.
Several schools in our study also provide security by conducting drug
and weapon searches, sometimes using metal detectors. Other schools may
use protection measures such as developing emergency or crisis plans, or
using classroom devices such as two-way intercoms, phones, or emergency
buttons. Security may take the form of different organizational
arrangements in some schools, such as block scheduling (See the section
in this chapter on policies to monitor student movement), and the
removal of disruptive students. Finally, some schools may use the
architectural design of their buildings to promote security.

Schools reported using an average of six security measures, strategies,
or devices at their schools. About a third of the schools reported using
7 to 12 different ways to administer security. These schools tended to
be urban schools, as well as large schools.

This section elaborates on the security used in schools. The section is
divided into three parts. The first describes the security provided by
staff. The second section describes the use of law enforcement personnel
and the relationship between the police and school. The third sections
discusses security devices and strategies.

# School Security Staff

A number of different types of security staff are used by schools. The
most common are teachers and/or administrators. They are expected to
assume these extra duties on top of their regular teaching or other
responsibilities and are usually not compensated for the additional
work. These individuals perform the most common type of security
activity by monitoring student behavior in the halls, cafeterias,
bathrooms, parking lots, bus stops and other areas of the school campus
where disorder has the potential to arise. Monitoring high traffic areas
is seen by many schools as a key prevention strategy as this adult
presence is designed to "discourage loitering and misbehavior." While
monitoring, staff may be expected to check hall passes, confront
unauthorized persons on school grounds, escort school visitors to their
destinations, verbally reprimand inappropriate student behavior, break
up fights, issue tickets or citations, or escort disruptive students to
the office.

Some schools credit monitoring as an effective practice for preventing
student disorder. Teachers and administrators at one school felt that
monitoring "has been instrumental in preventing misbehavior." Site
visitors at another school reported that "we saw a few teachers in the
hallways, and it seemed to be an effective practice for minimizing the
amount of horseplay and running in the halls." The teachers at a
different school did not mind their monitoring roles and felt that it
was "effective in preventing problems in and around the school." This
kind of practice also lends itself to the "proactive" philosophy of
discipline on which several schools commentedmonitoring situations and
catching incidents before they escalate.

Other schools did not treat their monitoring practices as seriously.
Even with an adult presence during the cafeteria period at one school,
site visitors observed much disorder. As they reported, "the principal
stated that lunch was a good time for students to let off steam and thus
he tolerated the disorder." At the same school, teachers did not monitor
the hallways during class changes, and site visitors observed a lot of
yelling and pushing in the halls. At a different school, teachers were
supposed to write tardy notes and check hall passes. Site visitors,
however, observed that some teachers were grading papers in the hallways
and ignoring students. Some students at another school complained that
teachers who were supposed to be monitoring hallways spent more time
talking to other teachers. The limited availability of teachers to cover
monitoring duties caused problems at some schools. At one school,
teacher absences were common and enough substitutes were not always
found so that some teachers had to be pulled from hall duty to cover
classes.

A small number of schools mentioned having security "aides" that are
responsible for monitoring or assisting with other aspects of security
(e.g., locking doors and gates). Some schools rely on their school
resource officers to provide additional assistance monitoring key
problem areas. In addition, some schools have security guards (off-duty
police officers or guards from private companies) that were hired to
provide daily security for their schools. One large urban school
reported having over thirty security guards employed to provide security
during regular school hours; however, this seems to be an exception
rather than the rule.

# Law Enforcement Personnel

The majority of schools we visited reported having some sort of
relationship with police officers from their local police departments.
The capacity in which these officers serve ranges from very informal to
formal, and includes a variety of activities. Three major roles
performed by police in local schools are: (a) security, (b) law
enforcement, and (c) education.

The most frequently reported capacity in which police officers serve in
relation to schools is as some form of school security. Most often,
police officers are present at school events such as football games or
dances and serve to patrol areas prone to disorder. At a few of the
schools, these police officers offer their assistance as a public
courtesy. However, at a majority of schools, these officers are off-duty
police officers and compensated for their time monetarily or through
fringe benefits (e.g., free tickets to all sports events).

In addition to providing security at special school activities, some
schools reported that local officers often \"drop by\" or regularly
patrol school grounds or the surrounding areas. A number of the officers
who visit the schools are the designated \"School Resource Officers\"
(SRO) and regularly visit area schools. The responsibilities of SROs
vary by school and may include providing security, advising school staff
on safety issues, teaching prevention program activities, and promoting
positive relationships between students and the local police. The
salaries for these officers may come from the local police department;
or at least partially, from the school district. Other officers simply
\"drop by\" as a public courtesy and have no formal agreement with the
schools. Still others are off-duty police officers hired by school
districts to act as security guards. Visiting police officers (on- and
off-duty) often patrol halls, parking lots, and other areas that have a
high risk for disorder.

Police presence in schools is often part of a "community policing"
program. As one site visitor noted, the objective of these school-based
community-policing programs is to "decrease disruptive behavior by
increasing officer visibility." For example, one school site visitor
explained, "by roaming the school and the property, the officer became
known to the students and helped prevent disruptive behavior by writing
trespass charges, smoking citations, and other charges...(making) it
"unattractive" to hang out by the school. By taking care of little
infractions, the bigger problems went away. The uniformed officer was a
common sight at the school, visiting at least 2 to 3 evenings per week
and 1 to 2 times during lunchtime. In addition, the officer was
immediately available to react to disruptive behavior by writing
citations and providing counseling."

The most formal relationship police officers have with local schools
involves operating in a law enforcement capacity. Most schools reported
calling the police to respond to incidents of disorder and criminal
activity, including fighting, weapon possession and substance abuse. In
response to disorder, the police may counsel students, issue citations,
or make arrests. In addition, several schools reported that local police
bring in police dogs to conduct drug and weapons searches. These
searchers are usually conducted at random and occur twice a year. One
school, however, reported that the local police use their school as a
training ground for new K-9 officers and conduct searches more
frequently (already 4 times within the current school year). Most
schools where these K-9 searches take place indicated that they feel
this activity is an effective deterrent to students bringing drugs
and/or weapons to school.

Police also operate as educators in their local schools. Some police
officers make presentations to students on the duties of police
officers, the effects of drugs and alcohol, and the consequences of
delinquent behavior. For example, officers at one school brought a pair
of special goggles called Fatal Vision that \"alters the wearer's vision
to approximate intoxication\" to give students an idea of how alcohol
can impair one\'s ability to function.

In addition, some police officers offer in-services for teachers and
administrators. Topics include how to identify certain drugs, and how to
recognize substance abuse and gang symbols. For example, officers
brought samples of drugs to one school for teachers and administrators
to see and smell.

The majority of the schools we visited reported positive relationships
with their local police. These ranged from "good" to "excellent." For
example, one site visitor reported, "the relationship between the police
department and the school, as evident mainly by the relationship between
the principal and the chief of police, is friendly and supportive. The
principal and sheriff are friends, and two police officers are usually
at major games. In such a small community, the police are well known and
have a good relationship with the school." Another site visitor reports,
"the link between the school and the police is, of course, a direct
one---as a result of the Deputy Sheriff assigned full-time to the
school, and the working relationship is said to be excellent."

A few schools, however, reported having a less than positive
relationship with their local police department. Characterizations of
these relationships include descriptors such as "distant," "strained,"
and "frustrating." For example, one site visitor reported, "the
relationship between the police and the school is distant. The police do
not routinely stop by, there are no SROs, and the police officer told us
he never talks to the kids or the principal unless he's called." Another
site visitor reported, "the relationship between the school and the
local police department can best be described as strained. Communication
between these two agencies seems to be minimal and the communication
that does occur is through formal channels only. The police believe that
the school administrators push problems, such as fights, off campus so
that it is no longer their problem and the police have to deal with
them. The school also complains that when incidents happen off campus,
the police bring the students to them to discipline, when the school has
no jurisdiction off campus."

# Security Devices and Strategies

A number of security devices and strategies were found during the site
visits. In this section, we discuss the most common ones found in the
schools, including policies to monitor student movement, devices,
searches and communication methods.

**Policies to Monitor Student Movement.** This includes requiring
students to have a pass, issued by a teacher or administrator, if they
need to leave the classroom for any reason. This seemed to be
inconsistently enforced at the schools that were visited. From the site
visitors\' observations, we did not always see school staff (teachers,
administrators, guards) ask students for hall passes. Several of the
students we interviewed said that the staff showed favoritism by asking
some students for passes and not others. The staff at some schools
appeared to ask for a hall pass only if they did not know the student,
or if the student seemed suspicious.

Many schools also have a policy of requiring visitors to make themselves
known to school staff. Most schools mandate that all visitors sign in at
the main office. Some schools require visitors to \"buzz in\" through a
locked main entrance. Most of the site visitors were not, however, asked
to wear anything to show visitor status, and not all of them were asked
to sign in at the main office. At several schools, however, school staff
stopped the site visitors and asked who they were. The schools may have
been more lax in their enforcement of the visitor policy because most of
the school staff knew that site visitors would be coming.

Some of the schools in our study, mostly high schools and large schools,
require staff and/or students to wear ID badges. A few of these badges
contain photo identification. This kind of policy often seemed to be
mandated at the district level, in order to deter intruders. Schools
varied in how well the policy was carried out. One school started its
policy recently and it continued to be observed by all staff. Another
school only required student identification at dances and sporting
events. At one school, the policy was enforced mainly at the beginning
of the school year, when staff did not know the students very well.
Students stopped wearing their badges after the start of the year, and
site visitors observed that at the time of the visit, few teachers and
no administrators were wearing their badges.

The architectural design of the school also played a role in how
students were monitored during the day. Some schools appeared to be
designed with safety monitoring in mind. For example, one school's
design included a single driveway leading to parking lots in front and
behind the school, one primary entrance where students and visitors must
enter, a commons/cafeteria room at the front entrance that is very
visible through the glass walls of the principal's office, and wide
corridors that branch off from the central commons that provide very few
places that are not in clear view. A few other schools also used glass
windows to monitor the cafeteria, parking lot, and gymnasium.

Schools that had several buildings complained about their situations.
Having students transfer between buildings for classes created a lot of
student traffic and potential disorder. One school attributed its vast
number of students loitering in the hallways during class time to the
size of the school, and the fact that many students have to travel from
building to building. Another school complained about students skipping
gym class at the end of the day when it required walking to the ball
field up the road. To combat this problem at one school, a staff member
literally walked their middle school students to high school music
classes.

A handful of schools mentioned having fences surrounding their schools
to prevent outsiders from coming in. Some of these fences displayed
barbed wire. The amount of disorder in these schools did not seem to
vary from schools without fences. No one at the schoolstudents,
teachers, or administratorsseemed to notice any effects from having a
fence around their school.

Another way to assist in monitoring student movement was through the
school schedule. Various scheduling issues within a school may promote
better orderliness. For example, block scheduling was cited by some
schools as an efficient preventive strategy. Students remain in a fewer
number of classes for longer periods of time, thus reducing the number
of times spent transferring between classes and the possibilities for
disruptions in the hallways. Several schools shortened time spent
between classes for this reason, as well. Block scheduling also
lengthens the amount of time each teacher spends with each class,
promoting the chance for more interaction and greater familiarity with
specific students. Grade level teams help with this, as well. For
example, one school held team meetings three times per week in which
teachers could work to resolve issues that might have arisen concerning
their students, including discipline issues.

**Security Devices.** Common devices used for monitoring include
walkie-talkies, cell phones, video cameras and metal detectors.
Walkie-talkies are usually given to principals and security staff as a
way to communicate with one another regarding student safety, while a
few schools use cell phones for the same reasons. These devices promote
communication among staff and are less disruptive than an intercom
system. They are especially helpful in larger schools where tracking
down staff may be more difficult. More than half the schools in our
study reporting the use of walkie-talkies were large schools. The
schools were predominantly urban, as well.

Video cameras are used in schools to monitor the building as well as
student behavior. One school talked about wanting to purchase a video
camera for the computer room as a way to prevent theft. Several schools
mentioned having one rotating camera on school busses, hidden by a
camera box thus making students unaware of which box actually holds the
camera on any given day. Other schools may use video cameras in the
hallways. Most students as well as administrators said that video
cameras are ineffective in preventing disorder. The cameras often are
not equipped with tapes and rely, instead, on someone viewing the
monitoring screen. This responsibility usually rests with the principal,
who often may not be in his or her office, and most likely does not have
time to sit and watch a video monitor. At one school, a camera was
installed in the detention room. Students knew that no one consistently
monitored the camera from the principal's office, so they used their
detention time for sleep or roaming the halls. Another school had
monitors in the administrative offices, but site visitors observed that
none were turned on.

To help monitor school grounds, lighting systems are utilized,
especially in parking lots. Many schools use alarm systems to protect
the school at night and on weekends.

Locks on doors are used as a way to control who is allowed in and out of
the school. Every school that was visited mentioned locking their doors.
Many schools locked the doors during the day. One school admitted that
it did this because of problems with non-students entering the building.
Some schools kept only the main entrance open, while a few required a
buzz-in system. Some schools only locked doors after the end of the
school day. Often, classes that were not in use got locked, as well.
Observations at schools showed variations in how well these locks were
employed. In some schools, many doors were not locked, some locks were
broken, and other ways to get into the building were usually available.

Some schools locked gates on driveways in order to prevent outsiders
from entering. One school reported that it put locks on its driveway
gates to prevent non-students from driving into the school, causing
trouble, then quickly driving off. The strategy eliminated this specific
type of incident.

Metal detectors are also a device that was used in less than half of the
schools. Metal detectors were more common in the large schools. More
than half the schools in our study that used metal detectors had
enrollments of more than 1000 students. Half of the schools, also, were
located in urban areas. One way to use these devices was to have a
standing metal detector that is stationed at entrances. In one school
where this was a practice, the detectors were placed in two spots (out
of 17 total), but were currently inoperable. One school reported that
its metal detector was located in the door of the in-school suspension
room. This school used to make students walk through the standing metal
detector during random classroom spot checks, but the activity was
discontinued because parents told the principal that it violated the
rights of the students. Another school mentioned having a standing
detector that was used for games, but most schools used hand-held metal
detector wands.

Wands were mainly used for random searches. On occasion, they could be
used to search individual students suspected of carrying concealed
weapons. Many of the schools that used metal detectors did so because of
district policy. Districts acquired the wands and mandated their use in
the schools. Usually, schools were required to conduct random searches a
set number of times per day or week. For example, one district acquired
manual metal detectors when it was going through a particularly violent
period several years ago. School officials, however, have never used
them because they felt no need to do so. Another school was supposed to
conduct random searches several times a day, but the principal felt they
caused more disruption than they were worth. His school currently uses
the wands only occasionally during "tardy sweeps" for students without
passes lingering in the halls after the late bell has rung.

We observed some pressure, as well, to have metal detectors in the
schools. As one assistant principal pointed out, they needed the metal
detectors just to show the public that they have them. Some districts
and schools reacted to crime elsewhere in the nation, wanting to make
sure that such violent incidents did not happen in their own schools.
One superintendent ordered metal detectors for his rural district after
coming from a large, urban school. The principal thought he was a
"little paranoid" and has never used the wands in his school. He told a
site visitor that if he suspected a student of having a weapon (like a
knife), he would just bring the student to his office and tell him or
her to hand it over.

Searches. Searches were done in several schools that we visited. The
purpose is typically to uncover hidden weapons or illegal drugs. The
scheduling of the searches varied across schools. In some schools, they
are routinely scheduled with staff receiving prior notification; in
other schools, they are conducted on a random basis. They are performed
by school personnel or local police forces. One school mentioned its
relationship with a private security firm to conduct random searches
using hand-held metal detectors.

Several schools mentioned using drug-sniffing dogs for random drug
searches. For example, the K-9 patrol conducts random drug and weapon
searches at one school. As one site visitor described, "No one at the
school knows when the searches will take place. On the day of the
search, staff and students are alerted and given the opportunity to dump
any drug or weapon into the collection bins. Students do so anonymously
and are not held accountable for whatever they drop off. If an illegal
item is found during the search, however, the student will be
prosecuted. The searches have yielded significant amounts of contraband,
mostly marijuana."

Some middle schools did not provide student lockers. Students were
required to keep everything in their possession throughout the day. This
strategy aimed to deter hidden drugs and/or weapons. A few schools did
not even allow students to carry standard book bags, but instead would
accept clear mesh bags.

**Communication Strategies**. Schools have implemented a number of
strategies to communicate across their buildings in the case of an
emergency or when situations arise within classrooms. Most schools had
plans in place to respond to natural disasters such as fires, tornadoes,
and earthquakes. These plans instruct students and staff what to do if
such crises occur, such as specific routes to follow in case of fire,
where to assemble if a tornado hits, or how to remain safe during an
earthquake. In addition to plans for responding to natural disasters, a
few schools have also developed ways to respond to other school-wide
emergencies. At these schools, emergency codes are commonly used as a
way to alert students and staff to dangerous situations. For example, in
one school, certain codes announced over the intercom system would alert
students to proceed immediately to a classroom. These have been used in
the past when a student was killed in an accident on the way to school
and when another student overdosed at school.

Another way to communicate within the school is through classroom
intercoms. About half the schools we visited used two-way intercoms
and/or phones in the classrooms. These were implemented with safety and
communication in mind. The front office can monitor classrooms and
communicate with teachers better than they could without these devices.
One school stated that it used a two-way intercom and phones in
classroom as a way to monitor the class when the teacher steps out.

A few schools, mostly urban ones, implemented emergency buttons in the
classrooms. With these devices, teachers can easily signal for help when
disruption arises. For example, a site visitor described the procedure
at one school, "Classroom teachers have an 'emergency button' in the
classroom that connects to the main office. If the button is pushed,
someone in the office will contact the classroom via an intercom and
ask, 'what's the nature of the emergency.' If the teacher requires
assistance, a security officer will be sent to the classroom."

# Summary

As described above, schools used many different strategies and practices
to maintain security. This was, in fact, the most common type of
activity administrators reported as specifically set up to prevent
disorder in the school. The most prevalent strategy used throughout the
schools was various ways to monitor student and non-student movement
within the school. The staff and administrators were primarily
responsible for this task. Generally, other types of security
strategies, such as hiring special security personnel, use of metal
detectors and random searches were also used by a smaller number of
schools. These additional strategies tended to be implemented in those
schools where student movement and, perhaps safety, may be more of an
issue (large, urban schools).

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

> **School Discipline Practices and Policies**

All schools had similar discipline practices and policies. Rules are
commonly developed by school districts and used by every school within
the district. Almost every school mentioned having student handbooks,
which were provided to all students at the beginning of the school year.
Individual schools usually have discretion in revising the handbooks,
and most do adapt the rules to fit their particular situations and
discipline management styles. Many schools discuss the handbooks as they
are given to the students, and several require student and parent
signatures.

The site visitors felt that students knew most of their school rules,
mainly through word of mouth and observation. Students simply paid
attention throughout their years of schooling. When asked in the focus
groups, most students said that they knew the rules and that they have
not changed from when they first began attending school. Many commented
that they were "common sense."

In most of the schools, teachers were encouraged to handle discipline
problems on their own inside the classroom, unless the incident was
serious enough to warrant more attention. As one school summed their
school-wide strategy, "If you (the teacher) can deal with the disorder
in your classroom, then deal with it. If you need assistance or if
violence erupts, call (the security officer) and the front office
immediately." Or as another respondent pointed out, "the administration
encourages the teachers to deal with these types of problems (general
misbehavior and horseplay) in the classroom so as not to bring every
little problem to the attention of the office staff."

When incidents do occur and discipline action is taken, teachers often
are encouraged to follow through with phone calls to the student's
parents. Whether or not this happens seems to depend upon the
relationship between the teachers and parents, as well as the school's
discipline policy. Other teachers prefer not to handle student
misbehavior on their own. They would rather remove the disruptive
students from their classrooms so that they might teach rather than
constantly act as a disciplinarian. In schools with larger discipline
offices and procedures in place to systematically handle individual
cases, teachers may be more willing, and even encouraged, to send
students to the office. For example, in one school, a type of detainment
classroom is set aside to hold students until a discipline administrator
is ready to meet with them.

# Consequences of Violating or Complying with Rules

Consequences associated with rules almost exclusively involved some sort
of punishment for violating rules rather than rewards for complying with
the rules. The consequences associated with breaking the rules were most
often determined by school district staff. Administrators within the
schools could change or adapt them as they saw fit. The type of
consequence administered depended upon the incident. School officials
usually had a great deal of flexibility in deciding the consequence for
a particular incident, although certain serious incidents dictated
specific consequences. The schools had in place a wide array of
consequences, mainly involving either some kind of focused attention on
the student, a process of removing and containing the student, or
outside involvement from parents or law officials.

For initial infractions or minor rule violations, students were given
warnings. Sometimes, teachers or administrators would hold personal
conferences with the student, to talk about their behavior and deal with
problems before they got out of hand. Removing student privileges was
often the first line of defense that schools used for minor offenses.
Examples might include revoking a student\'s break, off-campus lunch, or
driving privileges. Students in vocational education programs may be
dropped from the program.

Schools try to routinely involve parents in discipline matters
concerning their children. In some schools, teachers are encouraged to
call parents with every infraction. Other schools routinely call parents
when students are absent from school. Some schools send written notices
home regarding discipline actions. Parents are almost always involved
with student suspensions, and are often required to attend a conference
with school administrators. Parent contact is also required for matters
of truancy, and may involve attending a school board meeting. At one
school, parents are asked to accompany their child to school for a day
when the student misbehaves. At another school, parents must sign their
children into school after an "overnight suspension." Whether these
helped deter future misbehavior or not is unclear.

**Detention**. This strategy involves containing students in a
supervised setting for a set period of time in which they are required
to work and study silently. It differs from in-school suspensions
because it operates outside of the normal school day, usually before
school, after school, or for a block of time on Saturdays. The exception
is lunchtime detention, offered at a few of the schools in our study.
Teachers usually have the authority to assign this type of punishment
themselves. It is commonly given to students for minor classroom
offenses such as being tardy or disruptive, and often is used as an
automatic response for certain infractions, such as reaching a set
number of tardies or unexcused absences. It also almost always precedes
more serious consequences such as suspensions. Saturday school
detentions, especially, are used as the last step before an
out-of-school suspension is issued.

The idea behind this strategy is to remove some of the free time of
students and make after-school or weekend transportation inconvenient.
The principal and others at one school seemed to think detention was an
effective deterrent because "the kids don't like being kept after school
or on Saturdays." At another school, students told the site visitors
that they\'d rather take corporal punishment than waste a Saturday or
figure out alternative transportation after school. Parents are often
inconvenienced by this type of consequence, as well. According to
students at one school, parents often complained about detention and
transportation and thought that, "If the school assigns detention, they
should provide transportation."

While staff members at several schools thought that detention was an
effective strategy due to the inconvenience factor, teachers from other
schools did not share those beliefs. At one school, detention was
considered to be an ineffective deterrent to misbehavior because
attendance was unenforced and students did not have to do their own work
if they did attend. According to most schools employing this type of
consequence, the major drawback is finding the staff to monitor the
detention rooms. Many school districts cannot afford to pay for it.

**Corporal Punishment.** This approach was used in a number of schools
that were visited, mainly in southern schools. Certain rules govern its
use: paddling must be administered with an approved instrument (often
referred to as the "Board of Education") on the student's buttocks and
cannot exceed three "pops," "swats," or "licks" per day; it must be done
by the principal or assistant principal, in the presence of another
professional and out of the view of students; and parents must sign a
release form authorizing its use. In some schools, a waiver must be
received from the district. Parents and the community seem to support
it. According to the principal in one school, parents think that
corporal punishment should be administered sooner, harder, and more
often. In some schools, teachers paddled the students, but mostly the
punishment came from the principal. Corporal punishment could be
administered for any infraction. Students were usually given the choice
of paddling over another form of consequence. Many students, when given
the choice, preferred to be paddled rather than receive another
consequence such as detention. At one school, the students told site
visitors that they would rather "take the swats than waste a Saturday or
figure out alternative transportation after school." In another school,
students preferred two or three licks by their coach to running laps.

Some administrators believed corporal punishment was effective. At one
school, a site visitor noted, "the principals themselves are not in
favor of corporal punishment, but have resorted to it because of
problems getting parents involved in resolving disciplinary issues."
Administrators at another school use the paddle when they feel it is
necessary to "straighten out a kid." A different principal joked that he
would need to take disability for his shoulder if he continued to paddle
students as frequently as he was (284 times in one year). On the other
side of the debate, some teachers at one school did not believe it works
to "fight fire with fire." An assistant principal cautioned that this
punishment is not effective with angry students, and admitted its
ineffectiveness with repeat offenders. At this school, site visitors
concluded that, "it appears that swats are not effective because
students do not take them seriously. The guidance counselor said she
witnessed a 'swatting' while we were visiting and the youth openly
laughed as he was struck."

**Suspension.** Another common type of consequence, found in every
school, is suspension. With this, students are suspended from normal
school activities and must serve their sentence either in-school or
out-of-school. Out-of-school suspensions were reserved for serious
offenses, such as fighting or drugs, and could automatically be
assigned, usually for a period of 3 to 10 days. Most schools preferred
in-school suspensions, however, because students were removed from their
classes and normal school activities but remained in school and not at
home watching television or roaming the streets. Also, funding and
school performance indexes use daily attendance information, which is
affected by students serving out-of-school suspensions.

Like detention, some schools find staffing the in-school suspension
rooms difficult. A new person must be hired, or teachers or
administrators could proctor the room during free periods. In some
schools, however, a video monitor substitutes for an actual person. As
suspected, this type of consequence is not taken seriously at these
schools. For example, at one school, students serving an in-school
suspension had to stay in one room with a video camera for supervision.
They were supposed to work on homework, but no one monitored the camera,
so they used the time to sleep or walk the halls.

Schools vary quite a bit in how in-school suspensions are carried out.
Depending on the infraction and school policy, some students may serve
anywhere from a lunch period to several days. While serving time,
students are supposed to be working on class assignments. A lot of the
schools reported that students waste time in the suspension room. Being
bored may serve as the deterrent. In addition to working on class
assignments, students may also work on behavior adjustments. For
example, at one school, students must participate in 45 minutes of
conflict resolution; at another school, students must, in addition to
completing school assignments, copy the school rules, a discipline
packet, and the County Code of Conduct.

Many schools viewed in-school suspensions as a positive way to deal with
student misbehavior. It removes students who cause disruptions and
benefits disruptive students, as well, by keeping them at school in a
structured learning environment, as opposed to serving out-of-school
suspensions. As one school, staff pointed out, "the intent of the
program is to keep the students at school in a confined manner, while
allowing them to do school work so they don't get behind. The philosophy
behind the program is that if one cannot act responsibly in school, one
will suffer the consequences of having all their rights and privileges
taken away, including the ability to talk to others and to move freely."

**Alternative Schooling.** Another type of consequence is to completely
remove the student from their home school and place them in alternative
schooling. With this, students are sent to another school to continue
their education for a set period of time. These alternative schools
usually are run by the district and are used as a last resort before
expulsion. Alternative schooling is a way to reach students when
conventional schooling does not work. It may take the form of a separate
school during the day, night school, or home schooling. This strategy is
often provided for students who had committed more serious infractions,
or for repeat offenders for whom other types of consequences did not
help. Students with special needs\--such as pregnant teenagers, troubled
youth, academically challenged students, or those with attendance
problems\--also could be sent to an alternative school.

Alternative schools accommodate a smaller number of students, usually no
more than 15 to 20. Students are sent to the school for a set number of
weeks, usually six, and at the end of the term, students are
re-evaluated and may be sent back to the home school on probation.
Activities at alternative schools vary between districts. Mostly,
students are expected to work on regular classroom assignments in order
to keep up or catch up to their peers. At some alternative schools,
students are required to work on their own, individualized tutoring is
provided at others, and some alternative schools may also provide some
kind of behavior modification training. Students are given individual
attention and are expected to adhere to strict rules.

Many school officials with alternative schooling in their districts
thought that this was an effective strategy for maintaining order within
their schools. Many view this as a last effort to reform students,
before expulsion or dropping out. While many students drop out of school
from these programs, the majority of students do return to their home
schools. Both the staff and community police officer spoke highly of one
center in their district, with the officer quoting, "this is the best
thing that ever came to (our community)." Students miss socializing with
their friends; and the alternative school in this district has a
military-style structure. Parents are inconvenienced by having to
provide transportation, as well. In this district, few students return
to the alternative school after being sent back to their home schools.

The biggest complaint regarding this strategy is the lack of staff
available to monitor the schools. One school thought it was ineffective
because it was too small and had a long waiting list.

**Transfer.** Some schools may transfer disruptive students to another
school in the district. This is known at one school as "opportunity
transfers." The idea behind this is to remove the student from his or
her friends and give an opportunity for a fresh start in a different
school. This strategy often is used to break up gangs. For example,
students at one school noticed the formation of a gang and school
officials acted quickly by transferring the ring-leaders out of the
school. Of course, schools that send disruptive students away also need
to deal with the disruptive students that other schools send their way.
As some teachers and students in one school pointed out, "the students
who transfer in from other area schools have much more serious problems
than the students (our school) ships out. (We) also feel that the
problem is not really solved, it is just dumped on another school.
Furthermore, students lose continuity because they fall out of touch
with (our) teachers \[who\] they may have developed positive
relationships with."

**Expulsion.** The most serious consequence a school can administer to
students is expulsion. This completely removes the student from the
public school system, often for a semester or longer, even permanently.
This occurs infrequently and usually is reserved for serious offenses,
numerous repeat offenders, or as part of a zero tolerance policy[^7]
involving weapons, drugs, or assault. The process of expelling a student
from school always involves the district and must follow certain legal
guidelines. Students usually have the chance to appeal the decision.

**Rewards.** As noted above, a few schools did mention that they try to
promote good behavior through the use of rewards rather than punishment.
Citizenship and attendance awards are commonly given to students to
encourage these behaviors. Site visitors from one school reported that
"extensive rewarding is used to boost the morale of students and
teachers." This school had a student of the month, awards at each grade
level, and an awards banquet. One program at the school provided rewards
such as 5 minutes early release to lunch, food at local restaurants, and
T-shirts. Teachers, also, may provide rewards within their classrooms in
the form of extra points.

Other programs rewarded students for giving information on school crime.
One school offered monetary rewards for information in solving a crime.
Another school incorporated this practice with its "Caught Being Good"
program, which gives students prizes for telling on their peers. The
program uses sponsors to buy various prizes. If a student gives a tip to
the principal or assistant principal that leads to the capture of
another student doing something wrong, the informant can choose a prize.
The site visitor at that school reported that, "The assistant principal
felt that this was working to help reduce fighting in the school."

# Consistency of Rule Enforcement

The two keys to effective discipline practices are communicating the
rules clearly to all students and consistently enforcing the rules. As
noted, the schools visited seemed to do an adequate job communicating
the rules to all students. Actually getting a good measure of how
consistently rules are enforced is difficult from the site visits, since
this depends on reports from a relatively small number of persons in the
school. Keeping this caveat in mind, site visitors reported that many
schools did not seem to be consistently enforcing the rules. This last
result overlaps with the conclusions from the national survey, which
found schools generally did not consistently enforce rules across
situations and students (Gottfredson, et al, 2000). The site visitors
found that consistency of rule enforcement was the exception rather than
the rule across schools.

Many of the inconsistencies seemed to be related to the seriousness of
the offense. Several schools indicated that serious offences were more
likely to be met with consistent enforcement. For instance, one site
visitor at a large high school indicated that "rules involving violence
or drugs are strictly enforced and carry severe penalties" whereas rules
involving minor offences such as "no gum chewing in class is only
enforced by certain teachers." A site visitor at a large suburban middle
school noted, "while smaller infractions such as dress code violations
are enforced inconsistently, serious violations are dealt with firmly by
school administration."

Consistency in rule enforcement, although less common generally, was
reported to exist in several schools. In one suburban middle school, a
site visitor concluded, "teachers and administration consistently
enforce school rules and policies." At a different middle school, a site
visitor summarized that "the principal and counselor follow these
consequences strictly. Students and teachers both felt that rules were
enforced very consistently. They were unaware of any favoritism in the
school, and students said they liked the fact that the principal did not
"play favorites" and gave the same consequences to any student breaking
rules, regardless of whether or not that student was a star athlete or
class clown."

Many students and some teachers specified "[favoritism]{.underline}" as
the source of rule enforcement inconsistencies. For example, one site
visitor reported, "the teachers in the discussion group felt that
certain students received special treatment from the administration,
such as athletes. Some students felt that the "preps" or richer students
received preferential treatment because they were better liked by the
principal than other students. Another site visitor at a large suburban
high school noted that students "as well as the teachers in the teacher
discussion group, felt that the teachers and administration are not
consistent in how they handle similar situations with different students
and that perhaps there was some favoritism among those students who
frequent the discipline office and have gotten to know the staff better
and among those students who are athletes." A third site visitor at a
large rural high school mentioned that, "it seems that the principal
shows favoritism to students who have prominent parents."

Another explanation for inconsistencies was variation in [discipline
styles across teachers and administrators]{.underline}. For example, as
related by one site visitor, "the students felt that some teachers are
stricter than others are and take offenses---even minor ones---more
seriously and give out greater punishments." Another site visitor at a
large urban high school stated that "the major problem with discipline
at the school was inconsistencies between assistant principals.
Students, teachers and administrators all stated that the two assistant
principals handle discipline issues very differently. One assistant
principal adheres to the student handbook discipline rules, while the
other 'negotiates' with each student, so that the student receives a
smaller penalty in comparison."

How problems are handled in the classroom varies from teacher to
teacher. Some teachers yell, some threaten with extra homework or a
lower grade, and some try to keep students on task to avoid any free
time for acting out. As one site visitor reported from her school, "all
of the teachers we spoke to talked about keeping ahead of incidents and
trying to prevent them by talking to students ahead of time, keeping
students on-task, establishing routines, and maximizing the amount of
time that the teacher controls the classroom." At the same school,
however, a recent incident involved a teacher pushing a child over a
chair. At the time of the site visit, the teacher was under
investigation. Obviously, at that school, as in many of the schools we
visited, classroom management practices varied widely.

Site visitors did observe some variability in the schools regarding what
the teachers and administrators are expected to handle. As one site
visitor observed, "there is a slight struggle between the administrators
wanting teachers to handle more incidents themselves, and teachers
wanting administrators to handle lower level cases." Administrators
sometimes express annoyance that teachers do not handle more discipline
problems on their own, and that they refuse to take responsibility for
disorder in their classrooms, let alone in the rest of the school.
Administrators complained at one school that teachers did not enforce
the rules consistently, and let students out of class early. The
teachers disagreed, however, claiming that they handle most disorder
problems within their classrooms themselves and that only a very few
teachers write up students. At another school, the principal admitted
that he handles discipline referrals differently depending on the
teacher and student involved. If a teacher writes up students for "every
little thing," it is not taken quite as seriously as with a teacher who
has good control of the class and writes up a student as a last resort.

A third common explanation for inconsistency was [principal personality
or management style]{.underline}. For instance, a site reporter at one
large urban high school recounted that, "the principal is very
supportive when it comes to programs, but not so supportive when it
comes to matters of discipline. The principal forces many problems back
to teachers to deal with, problems that would be handled by the
principal in other schools." A site visitor at a different school
illustrates another example: "according to the principal, the
administration is committed to setting an appropriate tone and being
very clear about the rules. However, the teachers described the
principal as having 'no vertebra,' as being 'weak,' and feel the rules
are very unclear. The students also feel that he is soft on discipline
and avoids dealing with incidents when possible."

# Summary

We found considerable overlap in discipline procedures across schools.
The rules were generally guided by the school district and involved
varying levels of punishment as the offenses became more serious. Very
few rewards were structured into the procedures. Schools seemed to have
few problems with communicating the rules to all students. However, we
found some evidence that rules are not consistently enforced across
students. How common inconsistent enforcement was across relatively
minor and serious infractions is unclear. Many of these inconsistencies
may stem from the general process of letting teachers handle many of the
infractions within the classroom. As noted by a number of
administrators, teachers do vary on how they deal with disorder
problems. Much of the inconsistency reported by students may be related
to these differences in individual style across teachers and other
staff.

> **School Climate**

An important correlate of the level of school disorder is the climate of
the school. For purposes of this report, we have adopted a definition of
climate from two sources (OERI, 1993; Kelly, et al, 1986). The essential
components of our school climate model are: (a) staff/student
relationships, (b) goals, (c) rules and procedures, and (d) facilities
and environment.[^8] In the remainder of this chapter we discuss our
findings on these components.

# Staff/Student Relationships

The majority of the sites reported good communication between all
parties (teachers, administrators, parents, and students). In some
cases, the sites produced contradictory messages regarding relations.
For example, a site that reported limited communication regarding
management issues also reported high levels of comfort with all parties
at the school. A site that reported disrespect toward teachers also
reported a family atmosphere between some teachers and students. These
two examples portray the complicated and sometimes mixed communication
patterns that are documented by site visitors. However, these examples
appear to be the exception to the rule. Schools were assessed overall
very positively in regards to teacher-student, teacher-administration,
and student-student relationships. The two areas that consistently
appeared to be the weakest links in the communication chain were
parent-school and community-school relations. Even within the strongest
examples we found in overall relationships, these two areas were
lacking. Exhibit 4-1 provides examples of schools that exhibited very
strong relationships.

> **Exhibit 4-1**
>
> **Examples of Schools with Good Student/Staff Relationships**
>
> One middle school that provides an example of good student/staff
> relationships appears to begin with this positive climate predicated
> on the principal's communication style. At this particular school, the
> principal is described as collaborative and welcoming with teachers
> and administrators. He is described as genuinely liking the students
> and is supportive of them. Students in turn, report feelings of
> respect for the principal. The students appear to treat each other
> with respect and treat the teachers with respect as well. Teachers
> believe that the administration is "on the same page" with
> themimplying clear and consistent communication patterns are the
> norm. The teachers report their enjoyment of working at this school
> and that they treat the students "as if the students are their own and
> expect them to behave accordingly." Communication with parents appears
> to be "of great importance at the middle school, "and procedures are
> in place to involve parents when issues arise with students.
>
> A high school setting highlights the importance of creating and
> maintaining open lines of communication. In this example, teachers and
> students reported positively on the communication between teachers,
> students and administration. This positive communication appears to
> reflect the commitment of the teachers to the school and the students.
> The teachers report being supported by the administration and that
> decision-making is handled collaboratively. According to students and
> teachers, relationships with students are positive. Students feel
> comfortable talking to teachers about problems. Based on our
> observations, the interactions between administrators and students
> were relaxed and friendly.

Both of these examples leave something to be desired in the
parent-school relationships and the community-school relationships.
Administrators appear to be trying to involve the parents and the
community through guest speakers and having parents work as greeters in
the schools. Links with the community generally are through parents and
this appears to be the primary format that most schools take in engaging
the surrounding community into the life of the schools.

These impressions from the site visitors seem to support the
quantitative survey data collected during the site visits. As noted in
the introduction, these surveys were administered concurrently to
teachers and students. They included questions on school morale, which
was rated very high. Similarly, the students who completed the survey
rated their relations with other students as very good, indicating
overall positive relations.

An example of poor relationships in a high school setting begins with
teachers reporting that they don't have the support of their
administration. Further, the teachers report that the administration
does not value their input and, therefore, the administration does not
have "buy-in" with the teachers on policy issues. The level of
communication between teachers and the administration was reported to be
not very good. Students also reported not being treated with respect and
that classes were too big. Parent involvement at the high school level
is notoriously low. The relationship between the school and the local
police department can be best described as strained. Communication
between these two agencies seems to be minimal, and that communication
is through formal channels only.

These impressions from the site visitors are supported from the survey
data collected during the site visits, which indicate that teachers
rated their school morale as very low. Similarly, the students who
completed the survey rated their relations with other students as poor,
indicating generally poor relations at this particular school.

When looking at school climate through the lens of relationships, a
trend was observed that cut across school levels as well those strong
and weak examples of school relations. This trend was the active
engagement of the principal into the 'life-flow' of the school. That is,
we often observed highly visible, communicative, and engaging principals
working at schools that had some of the strongest climate relations.
These principals were observed in the cafeteria with students, talking
with staff and teachers informally, and generally engaged in the
on-going, daily activities of the schools, or the life-flow. These
principals were also described by teachers as collaborative, supportive,
open to ideas and input, and "on the same page." Students often
described these principals as caring, approachable, and fair.
Conversely, principals in some of the schools with the least healthy
relations were often distant, narrowly focused, and even absent. These
principals were often described as non-collaborative, unapproachable,
unengaged, and intimidating by teachers and students. Principals'
communicative style within the school culture appears to permeate the
entire system to some degree, and this can facilitate healthful or
harmful relations.

# Goals and Mission

The second component of climate examined is the school's overall sense
of purpose and mission. This includes the academic orientation of staff
and students, behavioral values, and the general reputation for
academics and safety. The visited schools fell into four general types.
The first type of school tended to be characterized by a strong focus on
academics on the part of students and staff. They tended to have a good
academic reputation relative to other schools in the community and above
average performance on standardized tests. Examples include a small
middle school in a large city. It is a magnet school where the students
are admitted on the basis of academic performance. Most go on to magnet
high schools. Although physically unassuming and somewhat dreary, the
school supported numerous computers and had recently been the cited in a
newspaper article for its use of technology. Another rural school had
recently gone from worst to first academically in the district and was
"working hard to become a superior academic setting." These schools
tended to be relatively small.

The second type of school focused primarily on its academic mission but
was struggling to improve performance. Although these schools were often
large and located in neighborhoods with economic or social problems,
they managed to keep academics in the forefront. One large suburban high
school had a generally poor reputation but was viewed by students and
staff as "one of the best kept secrets in the district." Students were
generally serious about learning and teachers took their roles
seriously. Neighborhood gangs viewed the school as neutral territory.
Although surrounded by a chain link fence, the school gave the
impression of being an oasis in the surrounding community.

The third type of school was characterized by wide variation in academic
reputation and performance, but was notable for a strong emphasis on
controlling student behavior and maintaining discipline. Some were in
communities where students or parents did not place high value on
education. Some were in communities where order and respect for
authority were important. Others struggled to maintain order in large
schools with diverse populations. In one rural middle school, the
"emphasis is rather more on behavior than academics." The school had a
reputation as strict and controlling and seemed to fear disorder more
than it had experienced disorder. The school day was structured to limit
opportunities for students to act out in any way. Another rural high
school in a "conservative and old fashioned" community also placed
considerable emphasis on discipline. "Teachers \[said\] that if there
was as much attention to the curriculum and instruction as there is to
behavior, the school could solve some of its real problems---student
apathy toward studies, parental apathy, truancy, and tardiness." One
urban high school with a good academic reputation had made improvements
in discipline and security over the past few years. However, students
"felt the administration was preoccupied with discipline and focused
more on rules related to the dress code than those concerning safety or
education." Staff pointed out "that there are more administrative staff
assigned to handling discipline than there are handling academic
issues."

The fourth type tended to place a great deal of emphasis on
extra-curricular aspects of school. Their reputations were often defined
by their sports teams. They tended to be in communities where the social
aspects of schools were as important as the academic aspects. In one low
achieving rural high school, teachers felt that students and the
community were not committed to education. Few students went on to
post-secondary education and sports were important. Similarly, in
another rural high school, teachers felt that "students are not very
interested in learning and many come to class just to socialize with
their friends." The school supported a very successful football team.
One suburban high school was characterized by students and staff as
lacking diversity and as being, "a throw-back to the 1950's, focusing on
pep rallies...\[and\] sports." The emphasis on academics was not strong.
Both students and staff reported that the school had a reputation for
extra-curricular activities, and students reported having a reputation
as "stuck-up snobs."

# Rules and Procedures

Another aspect of school climate is the school's approach to rules and
school management. This includes the fairness and consistency of
enforcement of rules, instructional management, and principal
leadership. Procedures for enforcing rules and dealing with discipline
issues are described in another section. In this section, we discuss
some overlapping themes and approaches that contribute to school
climate.

Although classroom teachers had the primary responsibility for
discipline in all cases, schools fell into two general types. In the
first type, teachers tended to deal with all but the most serious
discipline issues within the classroom, including setting punishments
(such as detentions) and calling parents if necessary. Administrators
dealt only with the most serious or intractable problems. In many cases,
these schools were small or did not have the resources to allocate
administrators to deal with discipline full time. In the second type,
teachers tended to deal with small infractions within the classroom and
then refer students to an administrator for repeated or more serious
infractions. The administrator(s) (usually an assistant principal or
dean) was responsible for assigning punishment and contacting parents.
These schools tended to be larger or have a larger administrative staff.

School approaches to disorder and discipline ranged from proactive to
reactive. Schools with proactive approaches tended to enforce rules more
strictly and deal with small incidents quickly before they escalated.
Reactive schools dealt with situations and incidents as they happened.
Proactive schools tended to have a strategy for managing the school day
and dealing with discipline. This strategy could either be explicitly
stated or just a shared understanding among administrators and teachers.

No matter what the approach toward discipline in the study schools,
consistency of rule enforcement emerged as an important issue especially
among students in our focus groups. Both middle and high school students
were quick to note real or perceived inconsistency in the enforcement of
rules. This included variation among teachers in their tolerance for
classroom disorder, variation among administrators, selective
enforcement of rules, and variation in enforcement by type of student
(e.g., good students, athletes, or students with prominent parents).
Perceptions of inconsistent enforcement were widespread among students
and less so among teachers and administrators. This highlights the
difficulty of maintaining a balance between enforcing rules consistently
and maintaining the flexibility to deal with students as individuals.

Another theme that emerged was the importance of principal leadership in
setting the overall tone in a school regarding discipline and
enforcement of rules. Principals varied in their involvement with school
management and discipline. Some took a "hands-on" approach and were
involved in the day-to-day application of discipline. They were often a
frequent presence around the school building and encouraged teachers to
be a presence outside the classroom as well. Others left discipline to
teachers and other administrators. Whatever the level of direct
involvement in discipline and management, school staff expressed more
satisfaction if the principal set clear expectations, communicated
regularly with staff, and gave them a voice in management issues.

# Facilities and Environment

Site visitors observed the condition of the school buildings and
grounds, looking for signs of graffiti, litter, vandalism, and
disrepair. Most of the schools were reported to be clean, both inside
and out. If graffiti appeared, it was usually painted over by the next
day. If litter was present, usually only a small amount was observed on
the school grounds or in the bathrooms, although several schools did
report areas littered with cigarette butts outside the school. Vandalism
was rarely seen, but a few site visitors did observe bathrooms without
stall doors or supplies.

Regarding the condition of the school buildings, some variety was shown
in the schools in this study. Some schools were new or recently
renovated, while others showed their age with leaky roofs and crumbling
architecture. A few schools had broken windows, and site visitors at one
school did not observe any fire extinguishers at the site.

No trends emerged in the amount of physical disorder and instructional
level (high or middle school), but schools did show some trends in terms
of urbanicity and size. Urban schools were more likely to have
disorderly appearances, and small schools, along with rural and suburban
schools, were more likely to be clean and in good condition.

The community environments sometimes contrasted with the school
ecologies. For example, the surrounding neighborhood of a large urban
middle school is run-down with boarded-up and abandoned houses scattered
throughout the area. A large public housing project that has a very poor
reputation in this large city is situated next to the middle school.
Counter to what one might expect of the school's physical environment,
it boasts large colorful murals outside as well as inside. Colorful
banners with positive and motivational messages hang in the halls of
this school. Pictures of famous African Americans fill bulletin boards
in the hallways. Very little graffiti exists and fresh paint is
apparent. These positive environmental conditions create a "safe haven"
for these students, most of whom live in environmentally stressful
situations.

These positive environmental conditions at schools may foster stronger
school attachment, which has been linked to reduced school disorder and
is a protective factor for youth (Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992).
That is, students for whom school attachment is high have more at
stake---more to lose---by misbehaving in school than students with low
school attachment. Schools with high levels of school attachment among
students, hence, are more likely to have lower levels of disorder and
higher levels of safety than schools with low levels of school
attachment.

+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **C      |                                                           |
| hapter** |                                                           |
|          |                                                           |
| **5**    |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

**Planning**

An important part of managing and controlling disorder in a school is
the use of planning to assess needs and make decisions on appropriate
actions. To this end, this chapter addresses the question:

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

Analysis of national survey data (Gottfredson, et al., 2000; Crosse, et
al., forthcoming) found that 57 percent of schools seem to use sound
planning structures when deciding on what types of prevention measures
to use. These analyses also found that planning structures were much
more common at the school level. That is, prevention programs and
activities were stronger on a school-wide, rather than on a
program-specific basis.

In this chapter, we elaborate on these results by examining the planning
processes used by six schools that were found, in the aforementioned
survey, to have sound planning processes. The goal is to try to
characterize more specifically how these schools operate, how planning
relates to specific prevention activities and some of the reasons these
particular schools seem to be more successful in the planning process.

The first section describes the methods of sample selection and data
collection. The next section describes the characteristics of the
planning structures or processes that these schools have implemented,
including their functions, outcomes and level perceived of success. In
the third section, similar patterns across schools are described. In the
final section we summarize the results and draw out some general
conclusions about the methods used by these schools for planning
prevention activities.

The study team developed a general definition of planning, which is as
follows.

> *The application of a school management structure or process to reduce
> problem behavior in schools. Sound planning entails the use of
> information in the ongoing systematic (a) assessment of needs, (b)
> development of goals and objective, (c) selection of prevention
> activities, and (d) evaluation of those activities.*

For our examination of planning, we selected a purposive sample of six
secondary schools that reported sound planning practices related to
prevention in the national survey and conducted telephone interviews
with a staff member in each school. (These six schools are in addition
to the schools that we visited.) The six schools selected included three
high schools, two middle schools and one combination middle school and
high school. Two of each of the schools were urban, suburban and rural
respectively. Their populations ranged from 690 students to 1,600
students. In regard to the nature of the schools' curricula, three of
the schools were "specialty" schools (such as magnet or technical
schools), and three of the schools were nonspecialty schools.

> **Characteristics of Planning Structures**

The [kinds of school-level planning structures]{.underline} or processes
implemented varied across schools. The schools reported having
leadership/administrative teams (principal and vice-principals), safety
committees, discipline committees, school advisory councils or
site-based management teams and a few miscellaneous committees initiated
to deal with specific safety or discipline issues. Regardless of the
variability between schools, all of the schools reported at least one
school-level planning structure that addresses the prevention or
reduction of problem behavior.

The [main functions]{.underline} of the majority of the planning
structures are to assess school needs, to develop goals based on needs
and objectives to meet these goals. This may or may not result in the
selection and implementation of prevention activities. Some of these
planning structures are specifically focused on school safety. As such,
these safety-focused planning structures are primarily concerned with
issues such as fire safety, evacuation procedures, and how to prevent
outside intruders who might pose a threat to the school. Substance abuse
and delinquency prevention do not appear to be the current main focus
for most of these schools, although the respondents acknowledge that
their planning structures would address these issues if the need
presented itself.

Several commonalties were noted across school-level planning structures.
In particular, four main themes emerged regarding the characteristics of
school-level planning structures. One theme was that prevention was not
the main focus of the school-level planning. Although all of the schools
reported having planning structures that deal with prevention programs,
this does not appear to be the primary function of most of these
structures. The main function of the majority of the planning structures
is the ongoing assessment of school needs and the development of goals
and objectives to address these needs. Other functions include: (a)
review of safety and security procedures; (b) development of the School
Improvement Plan; (c) discussion of current school issues; (d)
evaluation of school services; (e) organization of campus activities;
(f) review and revision of school rules and polices; and, (g) in the
case of the administrative teams, overall management of the school.

A related theme was, when a "prevention program" concern did exist,
school-level physical safety and security was more likely to be stressed
than individual-level activities (e.g., curricula designed to build
resistance skills). The focus on physical safety could be a reaction to
recent publicity involving school shootingsone respondent noted that
the "media hype" contributed to several safety reforms initiated in that
school. As a result, most safety-oriented committees focus on security
and safety issues such as crisis management related to natural disasters
and outside intruders. Other prevention issues (e.g., preventing student
substance abuse or other problem behavior) are incorporated into the
goals "to the extent it's considered a need." Most of the schools do not
recognize this as a current need but asserted that any district policies
on the issue were being implemented (usually education). For example,
when asked about the extent to which school-level planning structures
focus on substance abuse issues, one respondent reported, "to the point
of making sure we have adequate education on it. It hasn't been a big
problem in the past, so it's just something we have to be made aware of
and make sure we keep the students educated."

A third characteristic of the structure was membership diversity. Most
of the schools reported that their planning structures not only included
administrators, but also teachers, students, parents and/or community
members.

A fourth characteristic is using multiple sources of input when making
final decisions. For the most part, the selection or discontinuation of
prevention activities is a process involving a variety of concerned
individuals. In most cases, selection or discontinuation involves input
from a variety of outside resources (e.g., research, solicitors,
resource centers, and consultants) as well as from members of the school
and surrounding community (e.g., students, parents, teachers,
administrators, and community members). Even in those cases where the
principal makes the final decisions, input is solicited and considered
from a variety of sources.

When asked about the [outcomes]{.underline} of these planning
structures, respondents were remarkably similar in the nature of their
responses. Rather than noting specific programs or activities, most of
the respondents expressed the major outcomes of these structures in
terms of perceptions. Most noted increased perceptions of safety on the
part of students, parents and teachers. As stated by one respondent,
"our kids feel safer. Parents think their kids are in a safer
environment and I feel everyone is in a win-win situation from it (the
implementation of a planning structure)."

For the most part, the respondents reported that most students, faculty,
parents and community members appear to be pleased with the outcomes of
these planning structures. Several of the respondents noted that school
community members were satisfied because they see these planning
structures as an avenue to express their concerns and suggestions for
improvement. For example, one respondent reported, "I think they (the
school community) are very much satisfied because they know that if they
have any concerns, they can address them here...they are a vital part
(of the planning process) so they feel good." Not surprisingly, the
majority of the school-level planning structures rely on the members of
the school community and surrounding community as either members of or
advisors to these planning structures.

> **Factors Associated with Development of Planning Structures**

Across these six schools several themes emerged that seemed related to
their success.

**Freedom.** Most schools stated that their districts give them the
freedom to develop and select their own prevention activities as long as
they are not in conflict with any district policies. Some mentioned that
requests for money often invite more district involvement. One
respondent reported, "the school sites are left to a great degree to
what they need to do...typically, we're free to choose our own
(activities)." This conclusion is important when considered in relation
to the finding from the national survey that programs implemented by
school personnel, rather than those mandated by an outside entity,
tended to be better implemented (Gottfredson, et al., 2000).

**Budget.** Surprisingly, budget constraints were not listed as major
factors affecting the implementation of prevention activities. However,
all respondents noted that increased funding could provide additional
opportunities currently not available due to budget constraints.

**Formation of Structure.** Three reasons were reported as factors
leading to the formation of school-level planning structures. A few
respondents made reference to recent media coverage of incidents of
school violence ("media hype") as a factor contributing to the perceived
need for prevention planning. Other respondents noted a state or
district mandate as a catalyst for the formation of these planning
structures. Still others reported that the development of their planning
structures was related to safety concerns (or assessed needs to improve
safety) which may or may not have been based on real incidents of
violence that were occurring on these school campuses.

**Level of Safety.** All six respondents reported that their schools
were safe and noted that incidents of disorder were few and most were of
a minor nature. Serious threats of violence or other safety issues were
reported as few and far between and considered the exception rather than
the rule.

**Principal Management Style.** All of the respondents indicated a
similar management style of their principals. Although these principals
tend to delegate a great deal to their vice-principals, most of the
respondents reported that their principal was well informed and in touch
with the climate of the school. Most of the principals had very little
daily contact with students and teachers, but were still open to
suggestions from all members of the school community with regard to
prevention issues.

**Non-Quantitative Outcomes.** Most of the schools do not look at
quantitative outcomes, noting size and level of safety of the school as
contributing factors to their approach. As one respondent noted, "to
have a quantitative goal in a school of 1600 kids (is
unreasonable)...and they (the goals) are event-driven. It's driven by
the kids, not by any (quantitative outcome)...You're sort of in a
reactionary mode, so everything is a prevention and, of course, we react
when we need to."

**Meeting Frequency.** Our content analysis revealed that most of these
planning structures meet regularly. Some meet as frequently as once per
week and a few meet as infrequently as once per school year. A few meet
only when the need arises.

**Needs Assessments.** All of the schools have planning structures that
conduct needs assessments of some form or another. These range from
reviews of school data (number of incident reports) and informal
discussions with interested parties to lengthy surveys involving
students, faculty, and/or parents. In turn, these assessments are used
by the planning structures to develop goals and objectives, and
contribute to the selection and development of prevention activities.
These planning structures ensure that prevention activities are
evaluated and that goals and objectives are adjusted in order to meet
changes in need.

> **Summary and Discussion**

This chapter has described the process by which some of those strongest
in school-level planning engage in sound planning practices. Although
the kinds of planning structures that have been implemented may vary
across these six schools, similarities between these structures and
between the schools themselves are evident. All six schools have ongoing
school-level planning structures that assess the needs of the schools
and develop goals and objectives to meet these needs. In addition, when
appropriate, these structures select prevention activities and evaluate
those activities on a regular basis. In general, we found that the
manner in which these planning structures operate is consistent with
sound planning as defined by our study team.

Aside from these similarities in process, these planning structures also
demonstrated similar structural characteristics. All the respondents
reported that their school's planning structures address prevention, but
indicated that prevention was not the main function of the structure.
When prevention is addressed, security and safety, rather than the
substance abuse or delinquency prevention seem to be the main focus. In
addition, these structures have diverse membership and consult a variety
of resources when selecting or discontinuing prevention activities.

As for similarities between these planning-strong schools, these schools
tend to be allowed by the district free to select their own prevention
activities and are not burdened by budget constraints. These structures
formed as a response to disorder (a result of incidents of violence
within the school or incidents reported in other schools), or as a
result of a state or district mandate. In addition, these schools are
perceived as safe and exhibit similar styles of principal management.
Furthermore, respondents noted a lack of emphasis on quantitative
outcomes.

This chapter does not attempt to make generalizations about the extent
to which all schools practice sound planning. However, it does describe
the extent to which those schools identified as strongest in the area of
school-level planning are using sound planning and information on school
prevention options to improve school management. All six schools have
ongoing planning structures that assess the needs of the schools and
develop goals and objectives to meet these needs. When appropriate,
these structures select prevention activities and evaluate those
activities on a regular basis.

In summary, the extent to which schools use sound planning and
information on prevention options to improve school management is
related to the level of a perceived need to do so. In the case of the
six schools selected for this portion of the study, each of them has at
least one school-level planning structure that regularly assesses
(through formal or informal need assessments) the need for reduction or
prevention of problem behavior. If a need is uncovered, the schools
(through these school-level planning structures) further engage in sound
planning and use of information on prevention options.

+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| **C      |                                                           |
| hapter** |                                                           |
|          |                                                           |
| **6**    |                                                           |
+----------+-----------------------------------------------------------+

**Distinguishing Middle Schools with Different\
Levels of Disorder**

In this chapter, we address the study question on characteristics and
processes that distinguish safe and unsafe schools. We identified a
limited number of schools based on a measure of disorder that enabled us
to array schools on a continuum from high to low disorder. Drawing on
all of the findings from the previous chapters, we compared these two
sets of schools to identify policy-relevant differences. Although the
study method limits the extent to which we can assert causal
relationships, these differences suggest approaches that policy-makers
and school personnel may wish to pursue to increase school safety.

The analysis discussed in this chapter is restricted to middle schools.
This was done because of the limited variation in safety across the high
schools in the sample.

> **Method**

In answering the study question on characteristics and processes that
distinguish schools with different levels of disorder, we relied heavily
on the quantitative information gathered from the surveys of students
and teachers at the intermediate level. Several measures of school crime
were created. The measure that we used to distinguish schools was the
percent of students reporting that they were the victim of a serious
crime (threatened with a weapon or robbed) in school during the current
school year. We recognize that the schools in our groups represent
different points along a continuum.

We conducted analyses across all schools. Separately for the middle
schools and senior high schools, we identified the three schools with
highest percentages on this measure and the three schools with the
lowest percentages.

Analysts then sought to identify any characteristics or processes that
differentiated schools in the two groups. The characteristics and
processes on which we compared the schools are covered in Chapters 4 and
5 of this report:

-   School characteristics: size, urbanicity, student demographics;

-   Community characteristics: crime and safety in surrounding
    community, risk factors for violence (poverty, unemployment, single
    parent, mobility, age, race);

-   Programs: number, type, and quality of programs and strategies used
    to prevent violence and other problem behavior;

-   Security: security staff, police involvement, and security devices;

-   Discipline: procedures to administer, record, and report
    disciplinary action; types of disciplinary actions, zero tolerance
    policies, and rules; and consistency of rule enforcement;

-   Climate: staff/student relationships, goals, rules and procedures,
    physical environment; and

We also performed a similar analysis within the original selection cells
that, based on the intensive level study data, yielded a sufficiently
large difference between schools on the disorder measure. This analysis
allowed us to control for some of the background characteristics that
may affect disorder. Again, we sought to identify any characteristics or
processes that differentiated schools in the two groups.

As mentioned in Chapter 2, as a whole, the 40 schools in our sample
tended to have relatively low levels of disorder. In addition, middle
schools tended to have higher levels of disorder than high schools. For
the high schools, less than five percent of students in the low disorder
schools had experienced being robbed or threatened with a weapon;
approximately 16 percent of students in the high disorder schools were
victims of such violent incidents. This range (11%) was exceeded by the
range for the middle schools (33%). Between 28 and 37 percent of
students in high disorder middle schools experienced one or more violent
incidents.

Because of the small variation in our sample across high schools, the
results described in the remainder of the chapter are restricted to
middle schools. For high schools, we decided against comparing and
contrasting schools with "high" and "low" levels of disorder because
clearly distinguishing among schools on school safety was impossible.

> **Describing Middle Schools with Different Levels of Disorder**

We present overall findings by levels of disorder. In exhibits, we
provide more detailed information on specific schools.

# Low Disorder Schools 

Although these schools varied considerably along a number of
characteristics, they shared some important principles in their
operation and atmosphere. They had a clear consistent approach to
maintaining order and discipline. They did not merely react to problem
behavior, they worked to ensure that problem behavior did not occur or
that small problems did not escalate. In these schools, teachers and
administrators had internalized this ethos and seemed to feel that
maintaining order was a shared responsibility. School staff conveyed
clear expectations for behavior to students that went beyond publicizing
rules.

-   The schools all had strong principals. Their leadership styles
    differed but they were clear leaders and were active and involved in
    the life of the school.

-   School staff, especially teachers, viewed themselves as working on a
    team. Teachers supported each other and all shared a sense of
    academic mission.

-   Whether required to or not, teachers were actively involved in
    maintaining order both inside and outside the classroom. Teachers
    monitored hallways between classes, shared lunch duty, and were
    generally observant.

-   Relationships among students, teachers, and administrators were
    generally positive and characterized by respect and collegiality. In
    the one case where relations between teachers and the principal were
    strained, other factors compensated for the problem such as
    collegiality among the teachers, good relationships with the
    students, and the strong academic mission of the school.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| > **Exhibit 6-1**                                                     |
| >                                                                     |
| > **Profiles of Low Disorder Middle Schools**                         |
|                                                                       |
| ## School A                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| > [School and community characteristics]{.underline}: This is a small |
| > magnet school in an urban area. It has an enrollment of about 200,  |
| > almost all of whom are African American. About 20 percent qualify   |
| > for free or reduced price lunch. Enrollment is competitive.         |
| > Students come from a wide area of the city and are accepted based   |
| > on grades and test scores. The school is located in an urban        |
| > neighborhood with moderately high levels of unemployment and        |
| > poverty.                                                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Programs]{.underline}: The school participates in a gang           |
| > prevention program, which is district-wide. Some students are       |
| > involved (on a voluntary basis) in support/discussion groups for    |
| > boys and girls that deal with issues of growing up and adolescence. |
| > School A has block scheduling and no bells.                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Security]{.underline}: The school employs no security devices save |
| > for walkie-talkies. All doors except the main entrance are locked.  |
| > No specific staff are responsible for security, but teachers and    |
| > administrators keep on the lookout for intruders. The school also   |
| > participates in a citywide "safe corridors" program, which uses     |
| > parent volunteers to watch students as they make their way to and   |
| > from city bus stops before and after school.                        |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Discipline]{.underline}: No administrative staff are responsible   |
| > for discipline. Teachers are expected to handle most issues in the  |
| > classroom. In addition to handbooks and assemblies, many rules are  |
| > posted throughout the school. Everyone is aware of the rules and    |
| > students feel that they are mostly reasonable.                      |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Climate]{.underline}: The school is very academically oriented and |
| > students are highly motivated. Relationships between the students   |
| > and the teachers and counselor are very positive. Students get      |
| > along well with one another and teachers are collegial and feel     |
| > they are part of a team. The principal is a strong leader, but some |
| > teachers chafe at her rather authoritarian style.                   |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Disorder]{.underline}: Disorder is extremely low with only minor   |
| > incidents. School staff are more concerned with neighborhood        |
| > disorder than disorder within the school. Cars are occasionally     |
| > vandalized and a student was recently in an altercation with        |
| > someone from a neighborhood middle school.                          |
|                                                                       |
| **School B**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| > [School and community characteristics]{.underline}: School B is a   |
| > suburban school with an enrollment of about 900. Students are       |
| > mostly white with about 30 percent qualifying for free or reduced   |
| > price lunches. The school reflects its surrounding community.       |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Programs]{.underline}: The school has a building-level SDFSCA      |
| > coordinator. The prevention programming consists mostly of          |
| > classroom presentations and special days devoted to presentations.  |
| > The school offers an anti-peer pressure club that sponsors various  |
| > school-wide activities. Troubled students can be referred to a      |
| > district program for delinquent youth.                              |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Security]{.underline}: A video camera (inoperative at the time of  |
| > our site visit) is installed near a public phone and camera boxes   |
| > (but not necessarily cameras) have been installed on all school     |
| > buses. The school has log books for signing in and out of           |
| > classrooms and staff wear ID badges. The school also has a security |
| > plan in case of a serious incident.                                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Discipline]{.underline}: Rules are clear and generally understood. |
| > Teachers are expected to handle most discipline issues within the   |
| > classroom including documentation and calling parents. Standards    |
| > for behavior are high and communication with parents is good. The   |
| > school attempts to nip problem behavior in the bud. It also uses    |
| > in-school suspension.                                               |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Climate]{.underline}: School B is a friendly, supportive           |
| > environment. Relationships among staff, students, and               |
| > administration are good. The principal is a strong leader. Turnover |
| > among teachers is very low.                                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Disorder]{.underline}: Disorder consists mostly of tardiness and   |
| > "disrespect." Most roughhousing occurs on school buses. Staff       |
| > maintain a constant presence in the hallways. The building is old,  |
| > but clean and well maintained, although school staff reported that  |
| > the back doors are outdated and in need of replacement.             |
|                                                                       |
| **School C**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| > [School and community characteristics]{.underline}: School C is     |
| > rural with about 300 students. A little over three-quarters are     |
| > white and about 40 percent qualify for free or reduced price lunch. |
| > The school is located in a small racially segregated community.     |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Programs]{.underline}: The school has two mentoring programs, one  |
| > that pairs gifted and talented students with those having           |
| > difficulty and one that uses high school mentors. Grade levels are  |
| > physically separated and the school employs block scheduling. The   |
| > school has a crisis prevention team.                                |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Security]{.underline}: The school is equipped with motion detector |
| > alarms, and each classroom has a 2-way PA system. Administrators    |
| > have walkie-talkies. Doors are locked during the day and staff      |
| > monitor hallways and the lunch room.                                |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Discipline]{.underline}: School C has clear rules and a strict     |
| > dress code. Students generally feel the rules are common sense.     |
| > Both teachers and administrators are responsible for discipline     |
| > issues. The school uses corporal punishment and in-school           |
| > suspension. The district has an alternative school.                 |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Climate]{.underline}: The school and community are                 |
| > small---everyone knows everyone. Relationships within the school    |
| > are generally good. The school was described as "conservative but   |
| > caring." The principal is a strong and authoritarian leader who     |
| > garners respect from staff and students. Teachers work in a team    |
| > atmosphere. Students and teachers hold a strong respect for         |
| > authority in the school. The building is newly renovated. Students  |
| > do well on the state tests.                                         |
| >                                                                     |
| > [Disorder]{.underline}: Disorder is low. Most problems revolve      |
| > around tardiness. Rules are strict, well known, and enforced.       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

# High Disorder Schools 

These three schools also varied considerably along a number of
characteristics. In addition, two had clearly improved greatly in recent
years. Nevertheless, they shared at least some of the same types of
problems. These schools lacked a clear approach to discipline (or staff
had not yet internalized the approach). Some had strict rules, but they
did not convey clear behavioral expectations.

Staff in these schools tended not to function as a team. Communication
between teachers and administrators was sometimes poor. A sense of
shared responsibility was relatively weak. An example of this was the
school where teachers and the campus police pointed fingers at each
other over between-classes monitoring. Similarly, teacher involvement in
discipline outside the classroom tended to be inconsistent.

Perhaps because of the problems mentioned above, students in these
schools have more opportunities to get into trouble than students in low
disorder schools.

**Exhibit 6-2**

**Profiles of High Disorder Middle Schools**

**School D**

[School and community characteristics]{.underline}: School D is a large
school in an urban area. It enrolls a little over 1000 students, the
majority of whom are from low-income families. A little over 50 percent
are Hispanic and about 40 percent are African American. Students are
bused in from many problem neighborhoods.

[Programs]{.underline}: The school has a peer support group for at-risk
students. It is a district-wide program. It also offers tutoring,
mentoring, and counseling to at-risk students. School D has instituted
professional development dealing with classroom management as well as
common planning time for teachers. The school uses in-school suspension.

[Security]{.underline}: Search wands (hand held metal detectors) are
mandated but rarely used. The campus is surrounded by a fence with
locked gates; however, the fence has gaps through which anyone can pass.
Administrators have walkie-talkies and classrooms have intercoms that
may or may not work. The school employs a campus police officer.

[Discipline]{.underline}: Teachers and administrators are responsible
for enforcing discipline. The school has general rules and a code of
conduct. Rules are posted. The school monitors incidents through
individual records as well as a database of referrals. The district
allows troublesome students to be transferred to other schools. The
school has recently instituted school uniforms.

[Climate]{.underline}: The school is working on changing its reputation,
which used to be terrible. It has a new principal who has instituted new
policies and hired many new teachers. The school also has a new focus on
academics. Relationships are improving but tension and finger pointing
continues between the campus police and teachers regarding laxness in
monitoring students between classes.

[Disorder]{.underline}: Disorder has decreased recently with the new
principal and new policies. Most disorder involves roughhousing,
fighting, and theft. Recent serious incidents included an attempted
rape[^9] and a student who brought a gun to school. Disorder is more
likely in the lunch area and in bushes outside the school.

**School E**

[School and community characteristics]{.underline}: School E is a small
rural school with about 200 students. Almost 70 percent are African
American and about 80 percent qualify for free or reduced price lunch.
The community is poor and agricultural. It has few activities or outlets
for youth and is experiencing an increasing drug problem.

[Programs]{.underline}: The school participates in a drug abuse
resistance program (although the instructor, a police officer, was
described as not reliable). A peer mediation program was not being
implemented during the year of the study because of lack of staff time.
The school also uses a character-focused curriculum and has a family
literacy program that deals with academic and social problems of
students.

[Security]{.underline}: Doors are locked, and the school plans to
install motion detectors in computer labs. Staff use a one-way intercom.
The school has emergency plans for tornadoes and nuclear accidents.

[Discipline]{.underline}: Rules are posted and are well known. Some of
the many rules are ignored. Teachers are responsible for discipline but
can send students to the principal. The school uses corporal punishment
and has access to an alternative school.

[Climate]{.underline}: Rules are fairly strict and staff are involved in
students' lives in and out of school. The principal is active and
involved but sends inconsistent messages to students regarding behavior
(for example by paddling and then hugging students). The building is
shabby and run down

[Disorder]{.underline}: Some students felt fighting was a problem. The
most common problems were foot traffic across school grounds by
outsiders (school campus not fenced), and boys throwing rocks and dirt
clods.

**School F**

[School and community characteristics]{.underline}: School F is in an
urban area. It enrolls about 900 students, about 80 percent of whom
qualify for free or reduced price lunch and about 60 percent are
identified as at-risk; approximately 54 percent of the students are
African American. The surrounding community (which is the catchment
area) is a very poor neighborhood characterized by high unemployment and
drug activity.

[Programs]{.underline}: The school has a building SDFSCA coordinator.
Prevention programming consists of classroom presentations and
activities throughout the year. The school also offers an athletic club
designed to foster positive behavior. Students who have serious problems
can be referred to a behavior modification program.

[Security]{.underline}: Staff have walkie-talkies and classrooms are
equipped with emergency buttons.

[Discipline]{.underline}: Rules are published and posted. Teachers are
the primary enforcers of discipline. The school has instituted corporal
punishment, in-school suspension, and school uniforms. Block scheduling
limits the time students spend at lockers. Teachers are required to
monitor hallways but many do not.

[Climate]{.underline}: The school has serious academic problems and a
relatively new administration. The principal is also principal of the
feeder high school so is not much of a presence at School F; an
assistant principal is largely responsible for school discipline.
Relationships between teachers and students are generally good, but
teachers did not exhibit much evidence of caring. Communication problems
exist between teachers and the administration. The school lacks a
cohesive team atmosphere.

[Disorder]{.underline}: Disorder has decreased with the new
administration. Most disruptions occur in the classroom. Teachers feel
students have few social skills. Not much fighting occurs on campus;
students fight after school instead. The most recent serious incident at
the school involved a student who was caught with codeine in his
possession.

> **What Makes a Difference?**

We examined the domains that guided our review of the high and low
disorder schools to identify whether they made a difference in overall
school safety and order and if so how.

**School and Community Characteristics**

Although we focused on policy-relevant factors, community
characteristics such as poverty, unemployment, and exposure to violence
clearly affected the general safety and levels of disorder in the
schools we visited. With one exception, the high disorder schools served
students from communities where the risk factors for disorder were
higher and the low disorder schools served students in communities with
fewer risk factors. The one exception was a magnet school with
competitive admissions and a low level of disorder that happened to be
located in a neighborhood with higher risk factors.

Census data indicate that the low disorder schools in our study are
located in more affluent locations. For example, the census tract
surrounding the high disorder schools is more than twice as likely to
have individuals on public assistance and twice as likely to have
families living within the census poverty classification.

Research indicates that in neighborhoods plagued by problems of high
unemployment and poverty, children are more likely to be taught to be
violent by exhortation, witness violent acts, and have role models who
do not adequately control their anger (Prothrow-Stith, 1991; Wilson,
1995). Because youth violence occurs within a context, understanding the
ecological settings is of critical importance when describing school
violence.

**Programs**

The number and types of prevention programs and activities did not seem
to be related to school safety and disorder. We also saw no evidence
that prevention programming made a difference, but this was primarily
because so few of the schools evaluated the effectiveness of their
programs. We found anecdotal evidence that the quality of program
implementation and the appropriateness of a program for the specific
needs of a school made a difference in its effectiveness for individual
students or groups of students.

Schools that were ranked as low disorder schools had less prevention
programming than schools that were rated as high disorder. Our
hypothesis about this difference is that schools increase programming
based on level of need. Hence, the low disorder schools do not allocate
their resources towards these preventive programs, as their problems do
not warrant these measures. The low disorder schools were more likely
(3:1) to use architectural changes (fencing, lighting, windows, opening
up hallways and gathering areas) than were the high disorder schools.
This approach is more systemic and expensive, and it may be related to
financial resources and overall school climate.

**Security**

Appropriateness was key to school security measures. Having security
devices, personnel, and strategies that were adequate to the situation
of a school made all the difference. For example, the low disorder
schools had few security measures but they did not need more and they
consistently applied those that were in place. The high disorder schools
reported three times as many security interventions (emergency buttons
for teachers, walkie-talkies, police presence) as the low disorder
schools. However, these security measures were sometimes incompletely
implementedfor example, intercoms that did not work or a fence with
gaps.

**Discipline**

Specific discipline structures within schools (e.g., specific staff
responsible for in-school suspension versus out-of-school suspension)
were less important than clear expectations for behavior and a general
respect for school rules. The low disorder schools had a variety of
discipline structures but all set clear expectations for student
behavior. High disorder schools were twice as likely to report being
inconsistent in their discipline procedures compared with low disorder
schools.

The approaches toward handling various problematic behaviors varied. For
example, high disorder schools reported much more use of "zero
tolerance" policies as compared with low disorder schools (5:1). (See
the section in Chapter 4 on the consequences of violating or complying
with rules.)

**School Climate**

School climate was assessed along the dimensions of relationships,
goals, rules, and environment. We found subtle differences between low
and high disorder schools regarding relationships. Generally, both types
of schools had good relationships reported between students, teachers,
administration, and community members. However, more communication
problems (strained relationships, unclear messages) were found in the
high disorder schools. Regarding the goals of the both types of schools,
students reported feeling safe more often at the low disorder schools
than at the high disorder schools. Relating to the rules of the schools,
the high disorder schools reported a lack of consistency of leadership
more often than did the low disorder schools. Finally, regarding the
physical environments of these schools, the high disorder schools were
consistently described as older, in more disrepair, dirty, highly
secured; and residing in neighborhoods described as poor, with high
unemployment, and with drug, prostitution and gang activity. The low
disorder schools (except for School A, which is a magnet school) were
consistently described as clean, new, and located in areas of low crime,
with resources such as new computer facilities often cited as examples.

As discussed earlier, the factors that seemed to most affect school
safety and disorder were related to school climate and management. These
include:

-   Clear, consistent, proactive approach to maintaining discipline;

-   Strong, active, and involved principals;

-   Sense of teamwork and shared responsibility among staff;

-   Active involvement of teachers in maintaining order in and out of
    the classroom; and

-   Positive relationships characterized by respect, collegiality, and
    open communication.

> **References**

Brooks, K., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2000). School house hype:
Two years later. Washington, DC: Center on Juvenile and Criminal
Justice.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance − United States, 1999. *Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report 49* (SS-5).

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

Gottfredson, G., Gottfredson, D.C., Czeh, E.R., Cantor, D., Crosse,
S.B., & Hantman, I. (2000). *National Study of Delinquency Prevention in
Schools*. Final Report for the National Institute of Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice, Grant \# 96-MU-MU-008. Ellicot City, MD:
Gottfredson Associates, Inc.

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R.F., & Miller, J. Y. Risk and protective
factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early
adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. *Psychological
Bulletin* 112 (1), 64-105.

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

Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S.P., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Fleury,
J.K., Chandler, K.A., Rand, M.R., Klause, P., & Planty, M.G. (2000).
*Indicators of School Crime and Safety* (NCES 2001-017/NCJ-184176).
Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice.

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

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

Prothrow-Stith, D. (1991). *Deadly consequences*. New York, NY: Harper
and Collins.

Stephens, R.D. (1999). *School associated violent deaths.* Westlake
Village, CA: The National School Safety Center.

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. (1999). *1999 Annual Report
on School Safety*. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and
Justice.

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. (2000). *2000 Annual Report
on School Safety*. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and
Justice.

Wilson, W. (1995). Jobless ghettos and the social outcomes of
youngsters. In P. Moen, G. Elder, and K. Luscher (Eds.), *Examining
lives in context* (pp. 527-544). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

> **Appendix A**

**Methods**

The intensive level study gathered extensive qualitative and
quantitative information from a purposive sample of 40 schools. In this
chapter, we briefly describe the methods used in this study. We cover
school selection, data collection, and analysis. We also discuss the
strengths and limitations of our methods.

> **Intensive Level School Selection**

In selecting schools for the intensive level study, we sought to
identify schools that differed on school safety, but that were similar
on background characteristics including number of students enrolled and
metropolitan status of the area in which the school was located. This
approach was designed to permit us to answer the study question on the
policy-relevant characteristics and processes that distinguish safe and
unsafe schools; it also ensured that the schools would vary on safety
and characteristics, which would make for richer descriptions.

We drew a purposive sample of schools, with the objective of including
40 schools (20 middle and 20 senior high schools) in the intensive level
study. All of these schools were among the over 230 intermediate level
study schools that achieved relatively high levels of participation in
the student and teacher surveys conducted in 1998. We limited our
selection to public secondary schools. The criteria for selecting the
schools included the following:

-   Instructional level -- middle schools and senior high schools;

-   Number of students enrolledsmall and large schools; and

-   Metropolitan statusurban, suburban, and rural schools.

The result was a 12-cell matrix: two levels of instructional level by
two levels of size by three levels of metropolitan status. In addition,
we included a thirteenth cell for vocational education schools.

After categorizing each of the schools from the intermediate level study
into these cells, we ranked them within cells according to their safety.
We developed and combined several measures of safety based on the
results of the principal, teacher, and student surveysfor example, on
teacher and student victimizationconducted as part of the intermediate
level study.

Since we intended to contrast comparable schools that differed on
safety, we sought to match relatively safe schools and relatively unsafe
schools within each cell. The matching variables included school poverty
(e.g., based on percentage of students eligible for the Free or
Reduced-Price Lunch Program), student race/ethnicity, and measures of
social disadvantage within the communities immediately surrounding the
schools (e.g., percent of single parent households and percent of
households under the poverty level in the census tract). Based on
previous experience we expected a 75 percent response rate at the school
level. We purposively selected four primary candidates (two safe and two
unsafe), and two back up candidates (one safe and one unsafe) from each
cell. In three of the senior high cells, after applying the selection
criteria, we had only three primary candidates. We also selected two
primary vocational schools and 1 back up.

We attempted to recruit all primary candidates. Initial efforts were
successful with 19 of the 24 middle school candidates---at least three
in each cell. However, one middle school had to withdraw its offer to
participate as we were preparing for data collection activities. We
contacted two back up schools in the affected cells, and both agreed to
participate for a total of 20 middle schools. We were able to reach our
recruitment goals in four of the six senior high school cells. Two of
the primary candidates in one cell were unable to participate. We
recruited our back up candidate. In addition, two of the schools in
another cell were unable to participate. Because our original sampling
efforts had not identified any back up candidates for that cell, we
reexamined all of the previously unselected candidate schools. Of those
candidates, we selected and recruited the two schools with the most
similar background characteristics. The reasons for school
nonparticipation include the unavailability of school staff to
coordinate data collection efforts and competing school activities
(e.g., state testing and building construction).

> **Data Collection**

We collected qualitative and quantitative information from diverse
sources at each of the 40 schools in the intensive level study. The
primary vehicle for collecting this information was one round of
three-day site visits to each of the schools. After successfully
recruiting schools, project staff coordinated closely with a school
staff person at each school (school coordinator) who was responsible for
identifying appropriate information sources, scheduling appointments,
and making other arrangements. While at a school, a senior site visitor
and a junior site visitor made systematic observations; reviewed records
on incidents of violence; and conducted in-depth interviews with
district officials, principals, and school staff. With the assistance of
the school coordinator, we also conducted surveys of all teachers and a
sample of students.

The topics covered by the intensive level study overlapped with those
covered by the intermediate levelbut in somewhat greater depth and from
additional sources (e.g., police and school security staff)and other
topics that are difficult to capture well in surveys, such as local
dynamics (e.g., youth gang activity) that contribute to school violence,
and the development of community and school prevention strategies that
are intended to change these dynamics. The information sources are as
follows.

-   Interviews with the school principal, program providers, head of
    security/facilities, district administrator for school safety
    issues, and police officer for school/community relations;

-   Focus groups with students who have and have not been victims of
    school violence; [^10]

-   Survey of all teachers and a sample of students;

-   Information from school and police records; and

-   Site observation forms.

Wherever possible, the data collection drew from extant instruments and
design strategies. Survey items have built on an established research
base to ensure the study's ability to measure implementation and school
climate. Many questions were drawn from studies previously conducted in
the areas of school safety and discipline, and youth violence,
victimization, and drug use. These studies include the Safe Schools
Study, Monitoring the Future, the National Household Education Survey,
and the Schools and Staffing Survey. We discuss each of the data sources
and instruments used.

**In-depth Interview and Focus Group Guides.** These instruments covered
different, but overlapping, topics. In all, the data collected describes
violence prevention efforts, evaluation efforts related to violence
prevention projects, and school climate. For example, interviews with
program providers covered the following topics: (a) interviewee
background, role, and activities in the program; (b) history of, and
initial impetus for, the program, including how it was started and who
was involved; (c) organization, staffing, and funding of the program;
(d) degree, level, and type of collaboration among the school, police,
and community; (e) strategies and approaches to the program design and
perceived successes of different activities; (f) barriers to
implementing the program and what was done to overcome them; and (g)
assessment of strengths, weaknesses and overall quality of the program.
We selected program providers to interview based on the five or so
activities that school coordinators identified as the most important
ones for preventing or reducing problem behavior in their schools.

**Teacher and Student Surveys.** These surveys collected information
from all the teachers and a sample of students in each school on their
experience with violence prevention efforts and with school disorder.
The information on teacher- and student-reported school disorder
provided valuable information on how school characteristics may be
related to the selection and implementation of prevention efforts. At
each school, we drew a stratified random sample of approximately 400
students; the strata were defined by grade levels and gender. At schools
that had fewer than 400 students, exactly 400 students, or slightly more
than 400 students, we surveyed all students. We obtained passive
parental consent for student participation in the surveys. Following
study procedures that guaranteed confidentiality (as approved by the
Westat Institutional Review Board), school staff surveyed the students
in intact classrooms.

The self-administered questionnaire for **teachers** focused on school
safety, victimization, school climate, and level of implementation of
prevention programming. It collected information in the following areas:
(a) background information, including years of teaching and years
teaching in this school; (b) amount of in-service training in classroom
management, instructional methods, and prevention of problem behavior in
the past two years; (c) student behaviors in class; (d) personal safety;
(e) school climate, including the relationships between administrators
and teachers, how these teachers perceive administrators and the rest of
the teaching staff, and ability of staff to collaborate and work
together towards shared goals and objectives; and (f) information on the
school's programs and practices to prevent problem behavior or to
increase school safety or orderliness.

The self-administered questionnaire for **students** covered the
following topics: (a) demographic information; (b) educational plans and
efforts; (c) school safety; (d) victimization; (e) students' access to,
and experiences with, drug use, violence, and other delinquent behavior;
(f) school climate, including fairness of rules and their enforcement;
(g) correlates of problem behavior, such as "risk and protective
factors;" and (h) participation in prevention programming activities.

**Abstract Forms.** These forms recorded data on criminal and
noncriminal disorder from school and police records. Data were collected
for each serious incident reported. This included, for example, location
of the incident within the school, day and time of day the incident
occurred, and situations that led up to the event. A school record
abstract form also collected enrollment information, student
characteristics, staff information, instructional information, and
discipline data.

**Observation Form.** This form recorded signs of disorder on the school
campus and in the surrounding community. It also captured information on
the physical security of the school, including how well lit the parking
lot is; presence of adults on school grounds, in hallways, and in other
non-classroom areas before, after, and between class periods; and
whether or not students loiter on these grounds during the time that
school is in session. In addition, the form described aspects of
classroom management, such as the extent to which students were "on
task."

> **Analysis**

We conducted within-school analyses for the 40 individual schools as
well as cross-school analyses. The site visitors conducted within-school
analyses as they developed case study reports based primarily on the
qualitative information that they collected on site. These reports
conformed to a detailed report outline that has tied to the data
collection instruments. The analysts combined information across sources
to address topics in their reports. As needed, the site visitors or
other project staff recontacted respondents to clarify information or to
collect additional information.

In addition, we processed the quantitative data collected for each of
the schools. These data included the student and teacher survey data,
and incident report data and other data collected on the abstract forms.
The quantitative data typically were unavailable to the site visitors
while they were preparing their reports. We used them in the cross-site
analyses.

The cross-site analyses involved iterative combing of the case study
reports and quantitative data. The analysts typically reviewed the
available information within the context of answering a specific study
question. For example, the analysts assigned to the question on types of
prevention efforts focused on the parts of reports that dealt with this
topic. Although they collected some information on practically all
prevention activities within a given school, the analysts tended to rely
most on the information on the limited number of activities that they
collected in interviews with program providers. (As mentioned, these
interviews were on activities that the school coordinators nominated as
the most important ones for preventing or reducing problem behavior in
their schools.)

In the iterative review of the qualitative information, the analysts
sought to identify themes and patterns of findings. They typically
created electronic spreadsheets based on information extracted from the
case study reports. This approach permitted the analysts to reduce the
information to a manageable level for the purposes of review. Although
the analyses were largely descriptive, some of them compared schools
that differed on some important characteristic, such as the extent to
which they relied on police officers or other personnel for security.

In answering the study question on characteristics and processes that
distinguish safe and unsafe schools, we relied heavily on the
quantitative information to categorize schools on safety. We developed
several measures of school crime from the student and teacher survey
results. The measure that we used to distinguish safe and unsafe schools
was percent of students reporting that they were the victim of a serious
crime (threatened with a weapon or robbed) in school during the current
school year.

With the safety measure in hand, we conducted analyses across all
schools. Separately for the middle schools and senior high schools, we
identified the three schools with highest percentages on this measure
and the three schools with the lowest percentages. Analysts then sought
to identify any characteristics or processes that differentiated schools
in the two groups.

We also planned to perform a similar analysis within the original
selection cells, based on the intensive level study data. This analysis
would have allowed us to control for some of the background
characteristics that may affect school safety. However, because we found
that the differences in school safety between schools within cells were
relatively small (typically less than 10%), we decided that the analysis
would yield little useful information.

> **Strengths and Limitations**

The intensive level study is the first study in over 20 years to examine
in detail what schools are doing to promote school safety. One of the
greatest strengths of this study is that it combined quantitative and
qualitative information. The quantitative information, mainly the
student and teacher survey data, offered strong broad information that
represented each school with fairly high precision. The qualitative
information complemented the quantitative information by offering
details and insights that are typically unavailable with surveys.

Another strength of the study is that it captured a broad range of
perspectives and topics linked to the study questions. At a given
school, we collected information from over ten different sources. Each
source offered a unique lens on complex school safety issues.

A limitation of the intensive level study is that we are unable to
generalize findings from it to other schools. The nonprobability
selection of schools and sample sizes underlie this limitation. Another
related limitation is that the assignment of schools to cells was
imperfect. As mentioned, we based our measures of safety on survey data
from a previous component of the study. Student survey data, one of
those sources, were based on relatively small sample sizes that limited
the precision of the measures. Hence, we found thatusing more precise
measures based on larger samples of studentssome schools were
misclassified on safety. Perhaps more importantly, despite our best
efforts, a very large percentage of the schools included in the sample
did not vary much along measures of disorder. This may be the result of
the relatively high non-response rate associated with the intermediate
study. The schools that complied with the survey requests tended to be
safer better-managed schools. As a result, the site visits, which were
based on the intermediate sample, did not include as wide a range of
schools along the disorder dimension as would have been ideal for this
type of analysis.

A final limitation follows from our approach of having the site visitors
conduct the within-school analyses. While we gained strong summary
reports that facilitated the cross-site analyses, we lost some of the
detail that we potentially could have had in those analyses. In the
cross-site analyses, we would have had stronger analyses had we relied
on, for example, interview transcripts, rather than summary reports.
With many different site visitors, we also inevitably introduced some
error into the within-school analyses that carried over to the
cross-site analyses.

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

[^2]: July 1, 1998-June 30, 1999.

[^3]: July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998.

[^4]: As used in this chapter, "serious crime" refers to crimes such as
    aggravated assault, weapons violations, and robbery.

[^5]: Theft is the unlawful taking of property without violence or
    threat. Robbery is the unlawful taking of property by violence or
    threat.

[^6]: Best practices were based on expert judgement and a review of the
    literature on the effectiveness of prevention activities (see
    Gottfredson et al., 2000).

[^7]: \"Zero tolerance\" policies imply that a school has predetermined
    consequences for the violation of certain school policies. The
    majority of the schools we visited reported that they had some sort
    of \"zero tolerance\" policy. The most common \"zero tolerance\"
    policies established automatic suspension or expulsion for students
    who engage in certain activities. The most common behaviors covered
    by \"zero tolerance\" policies included fighting, use or possession
    of drugs, and possession of a gun or other weapon.

[^8]: These components consist of:

    [Staff/student relationships]{.underline}: teacher-student
    relationships, student-peer relationships, teacher-administrator
    relationships, parent-school relationships, and community-school
    relationships;

    [Goals]{.underline}: student academic orientation, behavioral
    values, and school reputation;

    [Rules and procedures]{.underline}: instructional management,
    administration, and guidance; and

    [Facilities and environment:]{.underline} level of cleanliness,
    supplies, space, and community environment.

[^9]: The principal voiced his suspicion that the incident being
    investigated was a consensual encounter between two students.

[^10]: We carefully selected students who had been victims of school
    violence, based on consultations with school mental health staff. No
    students who had experienced severe or traumatizing events were
    selected for these focus groups. We obtained parental permission for
    the participants.