Progress in Prevention

Report on the

National Study of

Local Education Agency Activities

under the Safe and Drug Free Schools

and Communities Act

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Planning and Education Service

Doc #2002-003

Irene Hantman

Scott Crosse

Westat

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, Maryland 20850

2000

This report was prepared for the U. S. Department of Education under
Contract No. EA94052001. 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

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary

Judith A. Winston

Under Secretary (A)

Planning and Evaluation Service

Alan L. Ginsburg

Director

Elementary and Secondary Education Division

Ricky T. Takai

Director

2000

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in
whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this
publication is not necessary, the citation should be: Hantman, I. and
Crosse, S. (2000). Progress In Prevention: National Study of Local
Education Activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Education, Office
of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education 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 1-800-437-0833.

To order online, point your Internet browser to:
www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/.

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

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

1.1 Background 3

1.2 Research Questions and Conceptual Framework 4

1.3 Methods 7

1.4 Report Organization 8

2 Planning and Program Development 9

2.1 Goals and Objectives for Prevention 9

2.2 Program Selection 13

2.3 Information Gathering on Effective Practices 15

2.4 External Influences on Planning Prevention Programs 16

3 Implementation of Prevention Programs 19

3.1 District Organization of Prevention Activities 19

3.2 Types of Prevention Efforts 20

3.3 Implementation of Prevention Efforts 26

4 Resources for Prevention Programs 29

4.1 Funding for Prevention 29

4.2 Spending on Prevention 32

4.3 Importance of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Funding
38

5 Evaluation and Reporting 39

5.1 Monitoring Incidents of Drug Use and Violence 39

5.2 Methods for Assessing Needs for and Evaluating Prevention Efforts 40

5.3 Use of Research 43

5.4 District Assessment of State Policies and Overall Program Impact 44

6 Implementing the Principles of Effectiveness 45

6.1 Background 45

6.2 Principle 1: Base Programs on a Thorough Assessment of Objective

Data about the Drug and Violence Problems in the Schools and Communities
Served 45

6.3 Principle 2: Design Activities to Meet Measurable Goals and
Objectives for Drug and Violence Prevention 46

6.4 Principle 3: Design and Implement Activities Based on Research or
Evaluation that Provides Evidence that the Strategies Used Prevent or
Reduce Drug Use, Violence, or Disruptive Behavior Among Youth 46

6.5 Principle 4: Evaluate Programs Periodically to Assess Progress

Toward Achieving the Goals and Objectives; and Use the Evaluation
Results to Refine, Improve, and Strengthen the Program, and Refine Goals
and Objectives, as Appropriate 47

6.6 Technical Assistance and Resources 47

References 49

Appendixes

Appendix A Questionnaire for the National Study of Local Education
Agency Act

under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act 51

Tables

2-1 Percent of districts reporting specific objectives for prevention
activities 10

2-2 Percent of districts in subsample with specific characteristics of
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act objectives 11

2-3 Percent of districts reporting factors that influenced their
evaluation of research-based programs 14

3-1 Percent of districts funding school activities with Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funds, by objective of activity 21

3-2 Percent of districts using prevention activities that are supported
by research, by type of activity 22

3-3 Percentage of districts naming specific activities as their most
effective type of drug prevention activity 23

3-4 Percentage of districts naming specific activities as their most
effective type of violence prevention activity 24

3-5 Percentage of districts naming specific activities as their most
expensive type of prevention activity 25

3-6 Percent of districts requiring activities for schools related to
their use of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funds 26

4-1 Percent of districts receiving Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act prevention funding, by per pupil funding and district
characteristics 30

4-2 Percent of districts receiving non-Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act prevention funding, by per pupil funding and district
characteristics 31

4-3 Percent of districts allocating Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act

and non-Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act prevention
funding, by type of activity 33

4-4 Percent of districts supporting prevention activities, by source of
funding 34

4-5 Percent of districts allocating Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act funding to their most effective drug prevention
activity, by percent of allocation and district characteristics 35

4-6 Percent of districts allocating Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities

Act funding to their most effective violence prevention activity, by
percent of allocation and district characteristics 36

4-7 Percent of districts allocating Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act funding to their most expensive prevention activity, by
percent of allocation and district characteristics 37

4-8 Percent of districts reporting changes to prevention efforts if they
no longer received Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funds,
by type and extent of change 38

Figures

1-1 Conceptual Framework 6

Exhibits

1-1 Research questions 5

Executive Summary

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) Program
receives more funding and reaches more schools than any other
school-based drug and violence prevention program nationally. Although
local education agencies (school districts) are critical to the
operation of this program, relatively little is known about how they
plan, implement, and evaluate their SDFSCA-funded prevention activities.
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) initiated this study to provide a
more complete description of the ways in which districts nationally
accomplish such tasks; the study also is intended to provide a baseline
for gauging progress on district implementation of new guidelines for
the SDFSCA program, referred to as the "Principles of Effectiveness,"
which became effective in July 1998.

The report is based on a telephone survey of a national probability
sample of school districts. The sample consisted of 600 districts that
we selected after stratifying the pool of districts by district
characteristics such as student enrollment and urbanicity. We collected
information in a computer-assisted telephone interview with the staff
person in each district who was most knowledgeable about the local
SDFSCA program. Although the interviews occurred between December 1998
and April 1999, the reference period for the study was the 1997-98
school year. The survey collected information from 520 districts; with
23 districts ineligible for the survey, it achieved an overall response
rate of 90 percent.

Many districts experienced problems developing measurable goals and
objectives. In selecting prevention activities to meet their goals and
objectives, the majority of districts considered information

on the effectiveness of specific activities. However, the extent to
which their understanding of program effectiveness corresponds with ED's
nonregulatory guidance for implementing the Principles of Effectiveness,
is questionable.

• Approximately half of districts adopted a measurable outcome
objective. Fewer than half adopted a measurable process objective.

• In selecting prevention activities, 58 percent of districts considered
research on the effectiveness of those activities. Only 35 percent of
districts defined research-based prevention in a way that is as rigorous
as the definition provided in ED's nonregulatory guidance.

• Forty-nine percent of districts reported that they needed more
technical assistance on identifying program effectiveness research.

The district staff who coordinate prevention activities often have many
responsibilities. Those prevention activities typically target students
directly rather than classroom or school environments. Only a small
proportion of the prevention activities implemented are research-based.

• Approximately 70 percent of district SDFSCA coordinators spend no more
than 20 percent of their time on prevention activities.

• Eighty-nine percent of districts implement prevention instruction.
This type of activity and other activities that are geared to individual
students are much more frequently used by districts than activities
focusing on the classroom and school environment, such as reviewing and
revising discipline practices.

• Although more than half of districts considered research on the
effectiveness of activities when activities are selected, only 9 percent
of districts are implementing research-based drug prevention activities.
A larger proportion of districts use activities that include
research-based elements. The findings are similar for violence
prevention activities.

The majority of districts receive funding for prevention activities from
other sources in addition to the SDFSCA program. For many districts, the
amount of funding per pupil from either SDFSCA or other sources is
modest. Nonetheless, district prevention programming relies heavily on
SDFSCA funding.

• Two-thirds of districts receive funding for prevention from sources
other than SDFSCA. The most common sources are states, and school
districts or local governments.

• Sixty percent of the districts without supplemental SDFSCA "greatest
needs" funding (received by 9% of districts) receive under \$6 per pupil
in SDFSCA funding.

• Districts were most likely to allocate SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA
prevention funds to the purchase of program materials and
implementation.

• Forty-six percent of districts would likely lose their prevention
programs without SDFSCA funding. More than three-fourths of districts
would need to reduce their prevention activities to a great extent if
they lost this funding.

Districts typically collected information on problem behavior in schools
and use the information in many ways. However, the quality of that
information may limit its usefulness.

• Practically all districts require schools to report to them on serious
incidents of problem behavior, such as student possession of weapons.
Many districts place little emphasis on ensuring the quality of the
incident information.

• Many districts also conducted surveys of students on drug use or
victimization in schools; for example, 61 percent surveyed high school
students. However, a sizeable proportion of these districts used
unscientific methods to select students for the surveys, limiting the
extent to which districts should generalize their survey results.

• Although we have concerns about how districts conduct student surveys
and we do not know how systematically information is collected from
other sources (e.g., school administrators, teachers, police, and
community representatives), we are encouraged to see that districts
realize the importance of using information on problem behavior in
program planning. Eighty-nine percent of districts use evaluation
information to adopt new prevention activities and 87 percent use the
information to modify existing activities.

1\. Introduction

The federally funded Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
(SDFSCA) Program is the Nation's largest school-based program for
promoting school safety and preventing substance abuse by youth.
Although local education agencies (LEAs) (school districts) play a
pivotal role in the program, many questions surround how they plan and
implement program activities. This report will answer some of those
questions.

1.1 Background

The SDFSCA Program provides funding to states to support drug and
violence prevention programs. Each state has both a State and Local
Grants Program and a Governors' Program. The state education agencies
(SEAs) allocate 70 percent of funds to school districts by formula
(based on relative student enrollment); the remaining 30 percent of
funds are awarded to districts that have the "greatest needs" for
additional funds to implement prevention programs. The Governors'
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. Providing \$531 million
in state grants for the 1997-98 school year and reaching 97 percent of
school districts, this program is the largest and broadest school-based
drug and violence prevention program nationally.

Because the SDFSCA Program operates at the state, school district, and
school levels, understanding of this program requires study at each
level. Researchers have recently completed or have underway studies at
the state and local levels. For example, the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) has sponsored studies at the school level about different
aspects of the programs funded under the SDFSCA, including the Study on
School Violence and Prevention. However, very few studies have examined
the SDFSCA Program at the district level; none of these other studies
has collected information on a national probability sample of districts.

The National Study of Local Education Agency Activities under the Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was intended to fill the
information gap at the district level, by describing how districts
nationwide plan, implement, and evaluate their SDFSCA programs and
prevention programs funded by other sources. This study also can yield a
valuable baseline for assessing the progress of districts in complying
with recently developed program standards. The standards, which are
called the "Principles of Effectiveness," specify the processes that all
SDFSCA-funded programs have been expected to follow since July 1998. In
addition, this study can provide information for focusing technical
assistance efforts, for example, to increase district compliance with
the Principles.

1.2 Research Questions and Conceptual Framework

The National Study of Local Education Activities under the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Program sought to answer a variety
of research questions. See Exhibit 1-1. These research questions cover
four main items (a) planning and program development, including needs
assessment and activities to gather and use information about effective
practices; (b) program implementation, including types of activities
underway in school districts and the extent to which these efforts are
implemented in adequate and effective ways; (c) resources, including
sources of funding and cost of efforts; and (d) evaluation and reporting
methods.

To guide us in answering these questions, we developed a conceptual
framework that illustrates how community characteristics and other
factors influence district SDFSCA-related activities, and how these
district activities influence student behavior and prevention
activities. See Figure 1-1. The framework consists of three main sets of
components: inputs to districts, district activities, and school
activities and outcomes. In addition, the framework identifies "feedback
loops" or flows of information on implementation and outcomes.

In addition to the research questions and conceptual framework, the
study design was driven by the Principles of Effectiveness. Responding
to concerns about the effectiveness and accountability of the programs
being implemented with SDFSCA funds, ED developed the Principles of
Effectiveness. These principles mandate that state education agencies
and school districts do the following for their SDFSCA-funded prevention
efforts (a) conduct needs assessments, (b) develop measurable goals and
objectives, (c) use prevention efforts that have been demonstrated to be
effective, and (d) evaluate program activities. Although the Principles
became effective after the reference period for the study (the 1997-98
school year), we collected information on activities prescribed by the
Principles to provide a baseline against which ED can gauge how well
districts are implementing the Principles.

Exhibit 1-1. Research questions

Planning and program development

1\. What types of planning processes do districts use in designing their
drug and violence prevention programs? How do they gather information
about effective practices, and to what extent do they use this
information in planning programs?

2\. What types of needs assessments do districts conduct, and how do
they use them for planning their drug and violence prevention programs?

3\. To what extent do districts use research-based prevention
approaches? What are the barriers that prevent districts from using more
research-based approaches?

4\. What kinds of technical assistance do districts receive in planning
and evaluating their programs, and what are their needs for technical
assistance?

5\. How do districts involve parents and community groups, including law
enforcement agencies, in prevention programming?

Implementation

6\. What specific types of activities are underway in districts
nationally to prevent student drug use and violence, and to ensure
school safety?

7\. To what extent do districts establish prevention programming
centrally as opposed to allowing schools to design their own programs?
What efforts do districts make to ensure that centrally-planned
programming is carried out consistently? To what extent does programming
vary within districts?

8\. How intense are district programs, in terms of contact hours and
duration? To what extent does program intensity vary across schools?

9\. To what extent do districts implement their prevention programs in
adequate and effective ways (e.g., provide sufficient training to
teachers and staff)? If districts are using particular prevention models
(e.g., based on research), to what extent do they implement programs
that are faithful to the models?

Resources

10\. What sources of funding (including SDFSCA, other federal sources,
state and local government funds, and private funds) do districts use to
support their drug and violence prevention efforts? What are typical
funding levels, including non-SDFSCA sources?

11\. How much do particular prevention activities or types of activities
cost? How much does program administration at the district level cost?

12\. What factors influence district decisions about how to allocate
their SDFSCA funds to schools and projects? What types of allocations do
they make? Do districts target their funds?

Evaluation and reporting

13\. What methods do districts use to monitor, record, and report their
incidence of drug use and violence?

14\. What methods do districts use to evaluate the success of their drug
and violence prevention efforts? How do they use evaluation results to
modify, improve, or plan their prevention programming?

1.3 Methods

The National Study of Local Education Agency Activities under the Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act collected information from a
cross-section of school districts in the 50 states. From the pool of the
more than 13,000 school districts that enroll students (as opposed to
districts that are "supervisory" or solely administrative), we sampled
600 districts. We based the sample on district characteristics that are
relevant to addressing the research questions. The data collection
entailed computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) of district
officials. In addition, for a small subset of the districts, we
collected and analyzed district goals and objectives for their SDFSCA
program.

Sample Selection. We drew the sample of 600 school districts from the
Common Core of Data (CCD), which is prepared by the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES). We used the 1995-96 version of the file,
the most recent information at the time of sample selection. The CCD
includes information on more than 16,000 public school districts, of
which only 13,304 enroll students. The sampling process involved
stratifying, or sorting, the CCD by six variables that are correlated
with how data is presented in this report. These variables are as
follows (a) urbanicity, (b) type of district, (c) district size, (d)
poverty, (e) percent of minority students enrolled district, and (f)
census region.

In conjunction with sampling based on the stratification variables, we
"oversampled" the largest school districts, and districts receiving
greatest needs funding from the SDFSCA Program. We selected all of the
Nation's school districts with enrollment of 90,000 or more. These 26
districts account for only 0.2 percent of the Nation's school districts
but enroll almost 12 percent of the Nation's children. We categorize
district size as follows: very small districts enroll fewer than 300
students, small districts enroll 300 to 1,000 students, moderate-sized
school districts enroll 1,001 to 2,500 students, medium-sized school
districts enroll from 2,501 to 10,000 students, large school districts
enroll from 10,001 to 89,999 students, and very large school districts
enroll 90,000 or more students. Using probability sampling methods, we
also drew a subsample of 43 districts from among the districts selected
for the main sample; we included respondents from this subsample in an
in-depth analysis of SDFSCA goals and objectives.

Data Collection. Before telephoning district SDFSCA coordinators to
conduct interviews, we mailed a paper copy of the questionnaire to the
sampled respondents. See Appendix. At the same time as the mailing to
district SDFSCA coordinators, we notified district superintendents about
the selection of their district for the study.

Experienced telephone interviewers collected the information, after
participating in 3 days of training on the study's objectives,
questionnaire, and procedures. To maximize data quality, we used a CATI
approach to collect the data presented in this report. Data collection
extended from December 1998 through April 1999. (The reference period
for the study was the 1997-98 school year.) The survey collected
information from 520 districts, achieving an overall response rate of 90
percent. We collected copies of SDFSCA goals and objectives from 30 of
the 36 districts that were in the subsample and responded in the main
survey.

A number of very small districts were initially unwilling to
participate, because they felt that their small program allocations
prohibited them from implementing all the aspects of the program covered
by the survey. In order to collect at least some information, we asked
them to report on 15 of the critical survey questions.

The reader should note that the information presented is based on valid
responses only. These responses include responses from respondents for
whom given questions applied; they exclude "don't know" responses and
nonresponses to applicable questions.

1.4 Report Organization

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

• Chapter 2 addresses planning and program development, including the
process of assessing needs and gathering and weighing of information on
prospective programs, and role of stakeholders in planning.

• Chapter 3 covers program implementation including types of prevention
activities, centralization of program planning, targeting of activities
to specific types of students, program intensity, duration, and
effectiveness.

• Chapter 4 describes program resources including funding sources and
levels, costs of specific program activities, and allocation of
resources to program activities and schools.

• Chapter 5 discusses evaluation and reporting including methods for
monitoring and reporting drug use and violence, methods for evaluating
prevention activities, and how evaluation results are used.

• Chapter 6 assesses district implementation of the Principles of
Effectiveness.

We present detailed tables of findings in a separate volume of this
report, which we refer to as Volume 2.

Although the focus of this report is on activities under the SDFSCA, we
also present findings on prevention activities funded by other sources.

2\. Planning and Program Development

Well-planned prevention programs unite district needs for prevention
with goals and objectives for preventing and reducing problem behavior
(i.e., alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; and other problem behavior)
and effective prevention efforts. Many districts fall short on one or
more of these ingredients. Developing adequate goals and objectives is
an issue for a large proportion of districts. In selecting prevention
efforts aimed at meeting goals and objectives, many districts also
tended to exclude needs assessments and research on effective practices
from the decision-making process. These districts typically relied more
on internal factors and sources than on external ones. Districts often
did consider the effectiveness of particular prevention efforts, but the
ways in which the districts viewed evidence on program effectiveness
raise questions about how they define program effectiveness. (For this
analysis, we use the definition of program effectiveness provided in the
U.S. Department of Education's \[ED's\] nonregulatory guidance for
implementing the Principles of Effectiveness. Evaluation researchers and
others may use even more rigorous definitions than the one provided in
the nonregulatory guidance. However, at a minimum, the definition in the
guidance is the one districts should apply when assessing program
effectiveness.)

2.1 Goals and Objectives for Prevention

A large proportion of districts lacked measurable goals and objectives.
Overall, districts included key stakeholders in the development of
prevention goals and objectives.

Measurable goals and objectives---main sample. Program objectives are
important for achieving consensus and organizing program activities.
Program evaluation literature stresses that the most useful goals and
objectives are ones that are measurable. Ideally, outcome objectives
should specify the amount and direction of change expected and the
timeframe in which it would occur. Process or operational objectives
should state the amount and type of service units delivered or the
number of persons served, within a specified time frame.

Approximately half of districts adopted at least one outcome objective
that indicated the amount of change expected. Fifty-two percent
specified the extent to which the abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other
drugs would be reduced; 48 percent indicated the extent to which acts of
violence in school would be reduced. See Table 2-1. Some 27 percent of
districts also included an objective that specified the extent to which
the bringing of weapons to schools would be reduced.

Types of outcome objectives varied considerably by district enrollment.
Districts with larger enrollments were more likely to adopt outcome
objectives that specified the types of changes expected. For example, 75
percent of districts with enrollments greater than or equal to 90,000
adopted an objective that specified the extent to which the abuse of
alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs would be reduced, as compared with
only 44 percent of districts with enrollments of less than 300. We found
similar, though smaller, variation on the other types of outcome
objectives among districts with different enrollments.

Smaller proportions of districts adopted measurable process objectives
than adopted measurable outcome objectives. Twenty-five percent of
districts specified a minimum number of hours of drug prevention
education that students would receive. Relatively few districts adopted
objectives that specified the minimum number of hours of violence
prevention education that students would receive (19%) or the minimum
number of hours that parents and community members would be involved in
prevention activities (16%).

Again, districts with larger enrollments generally were more likely to
adopt measurable process objectives than districts with smaller
enrollments. Compared to the outcome objectives, however, we observed
less variation on these types of objectives among districts. See Table
2.1.1 in Volume 2 for additional information on district goals and
objectives.

Measurable goals and objectives---subsample. In addition to the survey
information that we gathered, we collected and analyzed written copies
of SDFSCA goals and objectives for a subsample of 30 districts. The
purposes of this analysis were twofold: to examine and describe in
greater detail district goals and objectives and to reduce the bias and
error that may be present in district self-reports on goals and
objectives. Using probability sampling methods, we drew a subsample of
43 districts from among the districts selected for the main sample. Of
these 43 districts, 36 responded in the main survey; of the 36 districts
that responded, 30 complied with our request to provide written copies
of their SDFSCA goals and objectives. We content analyzed the SDFSCA
goals and objectives from these 30 districts. The number of subsample
respondents limits the extent to which we can accurately generalize to
districts nationally. Hence, the analysis of this subsample yields
results that are more preliminary than conclusive.

The in-depth analysis of goals and objectives for the subsample of
districts suggests that an even smaller proportion of districts may be
developing measurable goals and objectives than that found for the main
sample of districts. Although 53 percent of the subsample districts set
reduced student drug abuse as an objective, 23 percent of the subsample
districts have an objective that specified both the extent to which
student drug abuse will be reduced and the time frame in which the
reduction would occur. See Table 2-2. Seventeen percent of the subsample
districts have an objective that specified both the extent to which the
frequency of violent incidents will be reduced and the time frame in
which the reduction would occur, though 47 percent of the subsample
districts included such reductions in a general objective. Only 3
percent of subsample districts have an objective that specified both the
extent to which the frequency of bringing weapons to school will be
reduced and the time frame in which the reduction would occur.

With regard to process objectives, 14 percent of the subsample districts
have goals or objectives specifying the amount of drug prevention
education that students will receive, though 57 percent of the districts
have an objective that specifies the drug prevention curriculum that
will be used. Only 3 percent have an objective specifying the amount of
violence prevention education that students will receive; again, a much
higher percent of the districts (37%) have an objective that specifies
the violence prevention curriculum that will be used. Virtually none of
the subsample districts has objectives that cover safety or security
measures.

A substantial minority of the subsample districts (47%) has an objective
specifying that parents and other community members will be involved in
school prevention activities. More than a quarter of the subsample
districts (27%) also specified the types of prevention activities in
which they will participate. However, only 3 percent of the subsample
districts have an objective that specifies the amount of time that
parents and other community members will participate, and none of the
subsample districts set as an objective the number of such participants.

At least 47 percent of the subsample districts included an objective
regarding evaluation. The most common objective on evaluation specified
that efforts to reduce student problem behavior will be evaluated. A
substantial minority of the subsample districts (43%) indicated how the
efforts would be evaluated. Up to a third of the subsample districts
have an objective that specified that a needs assessment focusing on
student problem behavior will be conducted.

Individuals participating in developing goals and objectives. The
nonregulatory guidance for implementing the Principles of Effectiveness
directs districts to use goals and objectives to shape prevention
programming with the assistance of a local or regional advisory council.
Broad participation can help to ensure that goals and objectives reflect
community, as well as school, needs for prevention.

A large proportion of districts included key stakeholders in the process
of developing prevention goals and objectives. The stakeholders that
districts most frequently involved in this process include school
administrators (93%), district staff (89%), parents or other community
members (84%), other school staff (80%), and members of local district
SDFSCA advisory councils (78%).

In developing goals and objectives, districts were least likely to
involve staff from a regional technical assistance center (20%) and
evaluators or researchers (21%). See Tables 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 in Volume 2
for additional information on the participation of specific groups.

2.2 Program Selection

Districts relied on internal sources and factors for selecting
prevention efforts more often than on external sources and factors. A
large proportion of districts failed to consider needs assessments or
research on effective practices in making selection decisions.

Factors considered in selecting and developing programming. In selecting
prevention efforts, districts tended to rely much more on sources or
factors from within the district than from external sources and factors.
More districts (97%) based their decisions on their past experience than
on any other single factor. In addition, large proportions of districts
indicated that they considered the amount of available funds (88%),
maintenance and expansion of successful programs already in place (86%),
input from district schools (85%), evaluation of ongoing efforts (85%),
and input from an advisory council (81%). The Principles of
Effectiveness direct districts to use needs assessments in selecting
programs; nearly three-fourths (73%) of districts reported doing so.

In making decisions on which prevention efforts to support, many
districts appear to have taken little advantage of resources from
outside their districts. Districts were least likely to mention external
sources and factors, such as guidance from local comprehensive regional
technical assistance centers (27%) and input from evaluators or
researchers at colleges, universities, or private research firms (21%).

More than half of the districts (58%) considered research on the
effectiveness of potential programs. See Table 2.2.1 in Volume 2 for
additional information on district decisions.

Characteristics of programming considered in selecting and developing
programming. The characteristics of the programming itself that were
considered by districts in selecting or developing programming include
age appropriateness (99%); relevance of proposed program to specific
student alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use problems in the district
(95%); evidence of program effectiveness (93%); cost (92%); and ease of
implementation (88%). Districts were less likely to mention, as factors
in their programming selection or development, cultural appropriateness
(78%), whether or not a program needs to be implemented over multiple
years to be effective (75%), ease of evaluation (75%), whether or not
target schools have the capacity to implement programs effectively
(74%), experiences of staff with other activities (73%), and number of
sessions (65%). At least some of these factors (e.g., whether target
schools have the capacity to implement programs effectively) suggest
that a sizable proportion of districts may adopt programming without
considering features that could bear on the successful implementation of
the program. See Table 2.2.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on
district selection and development of programming.

The finding (reported on page 13) that 93 percent of districts reported
considering evidence of program effectiveness in selecting or developing
prevention programming seems to clash with the finding (reported on page
13) that only 58 percent of districts consider research on the
effectiveness of potential programs in their planning. The apparent
inconsistency may be due, in part, to differences between considering
research as part of overall decisionmaking on programs and considering
research for selecting or developing specific programs. We would expect
the latter situation to be more frequent (which it is), because it is
more focused and tied more closely to district conditions and
circumstances (e.g., availability of funds). Events also may occur
during this focused selection process that improve access to
research---for example, if a publisher provides information on the
"effectiveness" (e.g., testimonials) of a given program as part of a
solicitation to purchase the program. See Table 2.2.3 in Volume 2 for
additional information on district use of information for selecting
programs.

Barriers to the use of information on effective practices. More than any
other factor, districts (76%) reported that satisfaction with the
programs already in place in the district may have deterred them from
reviewing evaluation research on prevention programs. See Table 2.3.
Resource limitations also greatly affected district reviews of
evaluation research on prevention programs being considered for future
implementation. See Table 2.2.4 in Volume 2 for additional information
on barriers to using research-based approaches.

2.3 Information Gathering on Effective Practices

A sizable proportion of districts relied on research information to
learn about potential programs. However, only a minority of districts
define research-based programs in a way that is consistent with the
Principles of Effectiveness.

Review of research. The Principles of Effectiveness place great emphasis
on the use of research-based prevention efforts. Hence, we are
interested in how districts obtained access to research and other
information on prevention options.

A large proportion of districts consulted the research literature
themselves or relied on experts outside their districts who are
presumably familiar with the literature. Seventy percent of districts
directly reviewed research literature on potential programs, 71 percent
of the districts reviewed an evaluation of a proposed program, and 63
percent read professional journals about the effectiveness of potential
programs. A smaller proportion of districts discussed potential programs
with state SDFSCA staff (45%) or with staff from a local comprehensive
regional technical assistance center (30%), or accessed information on
proposed programs on the Internet (28%). These latter three sources of
information potentially could have provided information on
research-based programs. Additionally, a sizable proportion of districts
gained information about potential programs through discussions with
other district staff, school staff, or members of the local district
SDFSCA advisory council (81%); or through talking with individuals
identified as satisfied customers of the proposed program (65%). See
Table 2.3.1 in Volume 2 for additional information on district use of
various sources of information.

One clear difference among districts is that large and very large
districts and urban districts are far more likely than other districts
to review an evaluation of a proposed program or to read professional
journals.

District definition of "research-based." Districts use different
definitions of "research-based programs" than the one provided in the ED
nonregulatory guidance on the implementation of the Principles of
Effectiveness. That guidance refers to a research-based program as one
that, based on evidence from research or evaluation, prevents or reduces
drug use, violence, or disruptive behavior among youth or demonstrates
changes in attitudes that are predictors of or precursors to drug use or
violent behavior. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, we
believe that districts should define researched-based at least this
rigorously. However, only 35 percent of districts provided the
definition that is most consistent with the Principles of Effectiveness:
programs that prevention researchers have demonstrated to be effective
in controlled evaluations. Twenty-four percent of districts defined
research-based programs as programs that have been recommended as
effective by colleagues; 23 percent defined research-based programs as
those that have been evaluated by prevention researchers. Given the
emphasis placed on research on effective practices by the Principles of
Effectiveness, this finding suggests that many districts need better
information on the definition of research-based practices and on whether
or not prospective efforts are indeed research-based. See Table 2.3.2 in
Volume 2 for additional information on district definitions of
research-based.

2.4 External Influences on Planning Prevention Programs

As indicated in the conceptual framework (Section 1.2), the planning of
district prevention programs can be affected by a variety of factors,
including technical assistance and state education agencies (SEAs).
Planning activities also may be influenced by district awareness of
Federal program guidelines.

Technical assistance. The finding that only 58 percent of districts
consider research on the effectiveness of potential programs suggests
that districts need help in selecting research-based efforts. (This
finding also may indicate that some districts place relatively low value
on research-based information---either because they recognize that much
of the "research" is weak or inconclusive, or they operate under a
different value system. Such districts might receive little or no
benefit from technical assistance in selecting research-based efforts.)
Only 41 percent of districts received technical assistance on
identifying program effectiveness research. In response to a separate
question, 49 percent reported that they needed technical assistance in
this area. Similar proportions of districts received technical
assistance in evaluating potential programs (39%) and reported needing
technical assistance in this area (45%). See Table 2.4.1 in Volume 2 for
additional information on the amount of technical assistance received
and needed.

SEA influence on district drug and violence prevention programs. More
than half of districts indicated that their SEA influenced one or more
aspects of their SDFSCA program. The most frequently reported aspects
were reporting (62%), record keeping (59%), program evaluation (58%),
and planning (54%). One-third of the districts reported that SEAs
influenced their choice of programs or purchases of materials. See Table
2.4.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on SEA influence.

The SDFSCA grant applications that SEAs require from districts are
potentially an important tool for shaping district prevention
activities. While a sizable proportion of districts reported that SEAs
influenced their SDFSCA programs, SEAs seemed generally satisfied with
the SDFSCA applications they received from most districts. For example,
SEAs disapproved one or more parts of applications from only 4 percent
of districts. Only 23 percent of districts received comments from SEAs
on their applications. For 15 percent of the districts, SEAs required
additional information on student drug use and violence. See Table 2.4.3
in Volume 2 for additional information on SEA reviews of district
applications.

These findings could be interpreted in at least two different ways. One
interpretation is that SEAs use a vehicle other than the application
process to influence district programs. Technical assistance is a
possible approach. Another interpretation is that SEAs are satisfied
with the prevention activities planned by districts and with the
justification provided by the districts for the activities. This might
be cause for concern given that, for example, only a small proportion of
districts regularly conduct needs assessments. (See

Chapter 5.)

Awareness of Federal initiatives. Approximately two-thirds of districts
were aware of at least one major Federal initiative pertaining to the
SDFSCA Program. For example, 75 percent were familiar with the Federal
emphasis on assessing the effectiveness of programs. In spite of ED's
efforts to disseminate information on the Principles of
Effectiveness---including distributing guidance on the Principles to all
SEAs and organizing a conference in June 1998 on implementing the
Principles---only 65 percent of districts were aware of the Principles
at the time of the survey. See Table 2.4.4 in Volume 2 for additional
information on district awareness of Federal initiatives.

3\. Implementation of Prevention Programs

Once they select prevention efforts, districts coordinate with schools
to implement the efforts. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Act (SDFSCA) coordinators, who presumably lead implementation, often had
limited time for prevention activities. Districts tended to implement
activities that target students rather than school environments. More
than half of the districts require schools to provide prevention
activities and to meet other program requirements. Districts typically
monitor the implementation of their prevention activities.

3.1 District Organization of Prevention Activities

Districts tend to administer prevention activities funded by SDFSCA and
by other sources from the same organizational unit. SDFSCA coordinators,
who typically have multiple work roles, have limited time available for
prevention activities. Relatively few districts assign full-time
prevention coordinators to individual schools.

Districts tend to administer the vast majority of prevention activities
from the same organizational unit in which the SDFSCA coordinator is
located. Approximately one-third of districts administer prevention
activities from an office other than the SDFSCA office. This pattern
varies substantially by district enrollment. Although only 18 percent of
the very smallest districts operate any prevention activities out of
offices other than the SDFSCA office, 63 percent of the very largest
districts do so. See Table 3.1.1 in Volume 2 for additional information
on operation of programs funded by SDFSCA and other sources.

SDFSCA coordinators in districts tend to play multiple other work roles.
Only 15 percent of them are officially known as SDFSCA coordinators.
Other common job titles are superintendent or assistant superintendent
(15%), counselor or social worker (14%), principal (11%), director of
special projects (9%), director of health services (8%), and director of
curriculum and instruction (7%).

SDFSCA coordinators also typically devote limited time to prevention
activities. More than half of SDFSCA coordinators spend no more than 5
percent of their time on the SDFSCA Program; another 20 percent of
coordinators spend no more than 10 percent of their time on program
activities. Only 2 percent of SDFSCA program coordinators are fully
dedicated or almost fully dedicated to program activities. Some of these
individuals may also work on prevention efforts funded by sources other
than SDFSCA.

Relatively few districts (21%) have full-time prevention coordinators
assigned to schools. Even in districts with these staffing arrangements,
generally fewer than 20 percent of schools are staffed by such an
individual. Fifty-seven percent of the very large school districts and
52 percent of the large school districts are providing this staff
resource to at least some of their schools, while only 12 percent of the
small districts provide this resource. See Table 3.1.2 in Volume 2 for
additional information on staff resources allocated to prevention
services.

3.2 Types of Prevention Efforts

Districts more frequently supported prevention efforts directly targeted
at individuals than at the classroom or school environment. Large
districts adopted types of prevention activities that are
research-based. However, the prevention activities that districts viewed
as their most effective activities often were not research-based.

General types of activities. School districts are supporting many
different types of drug and violence prevention activities with SDFSCA
funds. (In addition to activities initiated at the district level,
schools may initiate their own efforts. We were unable to capture
information on those efforts in this study.) Prevention curriculum,
instruction, or training activities are most frequently supported by
school districts using SDFSCA funds---89 percent of school districts
have such efforts in place. See Table 3-1. Programs that warn of the
dangers of drugs (88%) and programs that focus on self-esteem (80%) are
the activities next most frequently used by school districts to prevent
or reduce both drug use and violence. Counseling, social work, or
related activities are used by 57 percent of school districts.

In comparison to activities designed to change directly student
knowledge, attitude, and behaviors, districts less frequently implement
efforts targeted at environmental change. Thirty-six percent of
districts provided training, supervision, or technical assistance in
classroom management for teachers; 30 percent of districts engaged in
the review, revision, or monitoring of discipline practices and
procedures; and only 11 percent of districts conducted reorganization of
school, grades, or schedules (e.g., school within a school, "houses," or
"teams"). See Tables 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 in Volume 2 for additional
information on use of specific prevention activities.

Staff training. A substantial proportion of districts provided
SDFSCA-funded training to students or school staff. Sixty-nine percent
of districts offered training to students, presumably for peer mediation
or similar activities. Just more than 70 percent of districts offered
SDFSCA-funded training to teachers, guidance counselors, and school
psychologists during the 1997-98 school year.

The very large and large school districts were substantially more likely
to offer training to staff than the very small school districts. For
example, slightly more than 90 percent of very large districts and 86
percent of large districts offered training to school administrators.
However, only 43 percent of the very small districts provided training
to school administrators. See Table 3.2.3 in Volume 2 for additional
information on staff training.

Use of research-based prevention approaches. Perhaps in part because
districts have a limited understanding of what constitutes an effective
program, very few districts are using research-based prevention efforts.
In a comprehensive review of the prevention literature (including
literature on drug and violence prevention) for a report to Congress,
Gottfredson (1997) identified the following types of efforts as having
been demonstrated to be effective in controlled evaluations: (a)
building school capacity (e.g., organizational development), (b)
establishing norms and setting rules, (c) implementing curriculum and
instruction directed at social competencies (e.g., problem solving
skills and conflict resolution), and (d) using behavioral and
cognitive-behavioral modification efforts. In addition, one should be
mindful that "Even the best designed program can show uneven results
because of obstacles to implementation" (Drug Strategies, 1995).

Using the Gottfredson (1997) assessment, we found that only 9 percent of
districts are using drug prevention efforts that are research-based. An
equivalent proportion of districts are using violence prevention efforts
that are research-based. See Table 3-2. A much higher proportion of
districts---25 to 37 percent---are using elements of research-based
programs; however, we are unable to judge the likely effectiveness of
the resulting whole activities. Because the comparisons of district
prevention efforts against the external criteria are based on district
reports that were often incomplete and ambiguous, we urge the reader to
interpret these results as more preliminary than conclusive.
Nonetheless, the findings suggest that the emphasis placed by the
Principles of Effectiveness on using research-based prevention efforts
may be well justified.

Perceptions of most effective and costly prevention activities. Although
the findings presented in the previous section raise doubts about the
extent to which the vast majority of districts are adopting
research-based prevention efforts, districts readily identified
activities---in response to open-ended questions---that they are
implementing and they perceive as effective. In interpreting the
results, one should be mindful that the district perceptions are often
based on SDFSCA coordinator observations and conclusions. As discussed
in Chapter 5, this basis is likely to be seriously flawed.

Districts identified a diverse array of activities as their most
effective drug prevention activity (which may or may not be
research-based). The activities include mental health services, peer
mediation/counseling, and extracurricular activities. They also include
specific, named curricula such as Here's Looking at You 2000 and Life
Skills. See Table 3-3. In addition, 18 percent of districts identified
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) as their most effective drug
prevention activity. (We report on DARE separately because, in response
to open-ended questions, districts much more frequently identified it
than any other specific prevention education activity.) See Table 3.2.6
in Volume 2 for additional information on specific prevention education
activities. Districts considered activities as their most effective drug
prevention efforts based on evaluation results from either internal
(33%) or external (5%) sources, as often as they based their judgements
on SDFSCA coordinator observations and conclusions (38%). See Table
3.2.4 in Volume 2 for additional information on district perceptions of
their most effective and costly prevention activities.

As with drug prevention efforts, districts viewed many different types
of activities as their most effective violence prevention effort. See
Table 3-4. These activities include general, unnamed prevention
activities (e.g., classroom education) and mental health services. Nine
percent of districts considered DARE as their most effective violence
prevention effort. Although considering DARE a violence prevention
effort may be surprising to some, because drug use is associated with
violent behaviors, many practitioners and researchers argue that
preventing drug use is an important part of preventing violence.
Slightly more districts based their assessment of violence prevention
program effectiveness on evaluation results from either internal (40%)
or external (5%) sources than on SDFSCA coordinator observations and
conclusions. Fourteen percent of school districts viewed the same
activity as most effective at preventing drug abuse and at promoting
school safety and preventing violence.

Districts also identified the prevention activity on which they
allocated the most resources. For more than 60 percent of districts, the
drug prevention program viewed as most effective is also the one on
which

the district spent the greatest amount of funding. This means that the
most costly drug prevention

activity for 40 percent of districts was something other than the drug
prevention activity that they viewed as their most effective activity.
In contrast, in only 12 percent of districts, the violence prevention
program viewed as most effective received the greatest amount of
prevention funding. Districts most frequently considered as their most
expensive efforts specific, named prevention activities (20%) and
general, unnamed prevention activities (17%). See Table 3-5. See Table
3.2.5 in Volume 2 for additional information on the students served by
the activities that districts perceive as their most effective and
costly prevention activities.

3.3 Implementation of Prevention Efforts

The majority of districts required schools to provide prevention
activities for students. A sizeable proportion targeted prevention
activities to types of students or schools. Districts frequently engaged
in program monitoring of one sort or another.

Requirements for prevention. More than half of the districts required
schools to provide a specified minimum number of hours of prevention
activities for elementary, middle, or high school students. The minimum
number of hours required ranged from 5 to 250 hours. See Table 3.3.1 in
Volume 2 for additional information on the extent of prevention
activities required for students.

A number of districts also required schools to perform certain
activities in order to receive SDFSCA funding. A substantial minority of
districts (44%) require schools to assess

the need for prevention activities; 49 percent require schools to
prepare plans on how they will use prevention funds; and 51 percent
require schools to evaluate prevention activities. See Table 3-6. See
Table 3.3.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on district
requirements for schools relating to their SDFSCA funds.

Targeting services. Some districts target services to high risk students
and students who are moving from one educational level to the next. High
risk students are especially likely to be targeted for services in very
large school districts and in urban school districts. See Table 3.3.3 in
Volume 2 for additional information on targeting of services to high
risk students.

Only 39 percent of districts target schools for specific drug and
violence prevention services. When deciding whether or not to target
schools for prevention services, districts are very likely to consider
the extent of student drug abuse. Many districts also consider the
levels of one or more of the following student suspension, expulsion, or
referral to alternative education programs. They also consider school
administration support for prevention efforts; victimization, bullying,
and vandalism; student absenteeism and drop out rates; and parental
concern or political pressure. See Table 3.3.4 in Volume 2 for
additional information on targeting of services by extent of drug and
safety problems.

Program monitoring. A large proportion of districts engaged in some type
of program monitoring. Eighty-six percent of school districts monitored
the extent to which program activities were implemented as intended, and
74 percent of school districts monitored the number and characteristics
of students served. See Tables 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 in Volume 2 for
additional information on monitoring program implementation.

4\. Resources for Prevention Programs

Funding for prevention activities is a serious issue at the district
level. For the vast majority of districts, the per student Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) allocations are small.
However, districts do typically receive funding for prevention from
additional other sources. Many districts report that their prevention
efforts rely heavily on SDFSCA funding.

4.1 Funding for Prevention

Districts typically receive small amounts of SDFSCA funding per student
from the main program. A small proportion of districts also receive
funding from the "greatest needs" and Governors' portions of the
program. In addition, the majority of districts receive funding from at
least one source besides SDFSCA.

Overall levels of funding. The 1997-98 SDFSCA budget, \$531 million for
state grants, may appear to be a huge sum of money. When spread among
the 42 million children enrolled in public schools (plus the millions of
children enrolled in private schools), however, the funding available
per child for prevention is less than the cost of a single textbook.
Except for the small number of districts receiving greatest needs
funding (9% of districts), most school districts receive nominal SDFSCA
allocations. For 60 percent of school districts without greatest needs
funding, the allocation amounts to less than \$6 per pupil. See Table
4-1.

Two-thirds of districts received funding from sources other than SDFSCA
for prevention activities in the 1997-98 school year. These sources and
the proportion of districts that received them are as follows: state
funds (34%); school district or local government funds (31%); private
foundation grants (9%); businesses (19%); law enforcement agencies
(31%); and community groups, such as the Lions and Kiwanis Clubs (24%).
See Table 4-2. See Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 in Volume 2 for additional
information on non-SDFSCA sources of funding.

Greatest needs funding. Twenty-eight percent of children nationally were
enrolled in the 9 percent of school districts that are receiving
supplemental greatest needs funding. The funds were more likely to

be targeted at districts with large enrollments than districts with
small enrollments: 75 percent of very large school districts (i.e.,
districts enrolling 90,000 or more students) received greatest needs
funding, compared to 29 percent of large school districts (i.e.,
districts enrolling from 10,001 to 89,999 students), 15 percent of
medium sized school districts (i.e., districts enrolling from 2,501 to
10,000 students), and 5 percent or fewer of the smaller school districts
(i.e., districts enrolling 2,500 or fewer students).

For many of the districts receiving greatest needs funding (77%), the
funding allowed them to increase services for the neediest students. For
nearly two-thirds of these districts (64%), the greatest needs funding
also permitted them to increase services to the neediest schools. Of the
districts receiving greatest needs funding, 75 percent used the funds to
increase training for teachers. Eighty-six percent of the districts
receiving these funds reported that the funding resulted in the
reduction of drug abuse problems, violence problems, or both types of
problems. See Table 4.1.3 in Volume 2 for additional information on the
influence of greatest needs funds.

Governors' Program funding. Few districts (2%) received grants from the
Governors' portion of the SDFSCA Program. Of the districts receiving
SDFSCA Governors' Program funding, 60 percent used the funds for
community efforts, including school participation in community coalition
prevention efforts; recruiting students for involvement in
community-based prevention efforts; and integrating community projects
into school activities. Districts also reported using these funds to
increase the availability of services (60%) and to support school
participation in community coalition needs assessments (30%). See Table
4.1.4 in Volume 2 for additional information on the use of Governors'
funds.

4.2 Spending on Prevention

Districts most often allocated prevention funding to program materials
and implementation. For some districts, the single most expensive
prevention activity exceeds their SDFSCA budget.

General program activities. Districts were most likely to allocate
SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA funding to program materials and implementation.
Eighty-five percent of districts allocated SDFSCA funds to purchase
materials; half of districts allocated non-SDFSCA funds to purchase
materials. See Table 4-3. Relatively few districts allocated SDFSCA
funds to purchase equipment (e.g., metal detectors). Seventy-three
percent of districts allocated SDFSCA funds to program implementation;
46 percent of districts allocated non-SDFSCA funds to program
implementation.

District estimates of their spending on prevention activities,
especially on implementation, may seriously understate the total amount
of that spending. These estimates are based on the amount of SDFSCA and
other funding that districts have available centrally for prevention. We
expect that, for many districts, the estimates omit costs incurred at
the school level. Prominent among these costs are those for teacher
hours for implementing district-supported prevention curricula. As
discussed in Section 3.2, prevention instruction is one of the most
frequent types of prevention activities supported by districts. Hence,
we suspect that many districts indirectly fund the implementation of
these activities from budget categories other than prevention, such as
general instruction categories that include teacher salaries. In this
sense, some of the district spending on prevention may be "hidden" and
omitted from our estimates of spending on prevention.

Districts were least likely to allocate SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA funds to
program selection and evaluation. Seventy-four percent of districts
allocated no SDFSCA funds to program selection; 86 percent of districts
allocated no non-SDFSCA funding to program selection. Sixty-three
percent of districts allocated no SDFSCA funds to evaluation; 80 percent
of districts allocated no non-SDFSCA funding to evaluation. See Tables
4.2.1 and 4.2.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on district
expenditures.

Type of prevention activities. The use of SDFSCA funding varies
considerably by type of program activity. A large proportion of
districts fund drug and violence prevention instruction either solely
with SDFSCA monies or with both SDFSCA and other funds. Twenty-three
percent of districts fund drug prevention instruction with only SDFSCA
funds; 10 percent use only non-SDFSCA funds; 65 percent use both SDFSCA
and other monies to fund these activities; and only 1 percent of
districts do not provide drug prevention instruction. See Table 4-4.
Similarly, 20 percent of districts fund violence prevention instruction
solely with SDFSCA funds, while 57 percent of districts use both SDFSCA
and other resources to fund this type of prevention activity. In
contrast, forty-two percent of districts fund the communication of
standards for behavior (i.e., informing students about school rules and
the consequences of violating those rules) solely with non-SDFSCA funds.
Notably, 39 percent of school districts provide no assistance to schools
for needs assessment, 54 percent provide no assistance for program
selection, and 48 percent provide no assistance to schools for program
evaluation. See Table 4.2.3 in Volume 2 for additional information on
how services are funded.

Most effective prevention activities. The cost of the prevention
activities identified by districts as their most effective exceeded the
SDFSCA funding of some districts. This means that districts had to
supplement their SDFSCA funding to support those activities. For 15
percent of districts, the drug prevention effort that they identified as
their most effective cost more than 100 percent of their total SDFSCA
allocation. See Table 4-5. For 29 percent of the very small school
districts, the most effective drug prevention effort exceeded 100
percent of their total SDFSCA allocation.

The cost of the violence prevention activity that districts identified
as their most effective activity also exceeded the SDFSCA funding for
some districts. For 14 percent of districts, the cost of their most
effective violence prevention effort exceeded 100 percent of their
SDFSCA allocation. See Table 4-6. For 30 percent of the very small
districts, their most effective violence prevention effort costs
exceeded 100 percent of their total SDFSCA allocation.

The cost of the prevention activity identified by districts as their
most expensive activity is similar to that of the most expensive drug
prevention activity. This is expected given that the most effective drug
prevention program for 65 percent of districts also was their most
expensive effort. See Table 4-7.

4.3 Importance of SDFSCA Funding

Districts reported that SDFSCA funding is critical to their prevention
programs. Almost half of districts (46%) would be likely to lose their
prevention program if they lost their SDFSCA funding. Districts would
decrease the number of hours of services to students either by a great
extent (35%) or by a very great extent (42%), if they lost SDFSCA
funding. See Table 4-8. The majority of districts also would decrease
the number of students receiving services and the number of prevention
programs and activities if funding were eliminated. See Tables 4.3.1
through 4.3.3 in Volume 2 for more information on the expected effects
of SDFSCA funding changes.

5\. Evaluation and Reporting

Evaluation should inform the planning and program development phase of
programming. Districts typically collect information from schools on
incidents of problem behavior and from other sources. However, many
districts use methods that raise questions about the validity and
usefulness of the information collected. Districts use the information
that they collect in a variety of ways. A large proportion of districts
may need technical assistance on program evaluation and on other
program-related topics.

5.1 Monitoring Incidents of Drug Use and Violence

The ongoing monitoring of incidents of drug use and violence by
districts can serve as a valuable tool for gauging progress towards
goals, for detecting trends in problem behavior, and for understanding
how problem behavior responds to changes in policy and prevention
strategies. A large proportion of districts require reporting of serious
incidents by schools. The quality of the information on incidents is
questionable, however. Districts tend to report relatively little
information on incidents to parents and the general public.

Types of Incidents Schools are Required to Report to Districts.
Districts most frequently require reports from schools on the more
serious types of incidents. These types of incidents include student
possession of weapons (97%); student use of drugs at schools or
school-sponsored events (95%); sale of drugs and alcohol on school
grounds (93%); vandalism of school property, including fires (92%);
physical conflict among students (90%); and physical abuse of teachers
(89%). Additionally, a large proportion of districts (89%) required
schools to report absenteeism or class cutting. More than half of
districts also require reports from schools on hate crimes (75%),
robbery or theft of items valued at more than \$10 (75%), and
trespassing (62%). See Table 5.1.1 in Volume 2 for additional
information on district reporting requirements.

Tracking Incidents. Districts vary considerably on how they track and
organize the incident information that they collect from schools. This
is relevant because it defines how districts can use the incident
information. The most frequently reported schemes that districts use for
organizing their information are by school (91%)---which can allow
districts to follow trends within schools---and by type of incident
(77%)---which can allow districts to follow trends in types of
incidents. A smaller proportion of districts organized this information
by individual, either victim or perpetrator (59%). Hence, less than 60
percent of districts have the capability to use information on the
problem behavior of individual students or others (e.g., school staff,
parents, and other community members). For example, as part of
documentation on disciplinary actions or to identify the need for
special services. See Table 5.1.2 in Volume 2 for additional information
on district tracking of incidents.

Ensuring That Schools are Reporting Incidents Appropriately. Although
information collection and reporting systems should contain procedures
for ensuring information quality, many districts lack these types of
procedures. Only 75 percent of districts routinely followup with staff
when incident forms are submitted with missing or inconsistent
information. A smaller proportion of districts train staff on completing
incident forms (59%) or distribute a handbook on procedures for
completing the forms (54%). Only 14 percent of districts reported that
they audit school records to ensure that schools accurately report
incident information. See Table 5.1.3 in Volume 2 for additional
information on district information quality procedures.

While they raise questions about the quality of district incident
information, the survey findings are silent on whether the lack of
measures to ensure the quality of incident information (e.g., training
and procedures on completing incident forms) found for many districts
reflects more the simple nature of the forms in use (e.g., forms may be
straightforward enough to make these measures unnecessary) or potential
information quality problems.

Reporting Information on Incidents to the Public. On the whole, the
majority of districts report little information on school safety and
student drug abuse to parents and the general public. Although 40
percent of districts report general information on some or all
incidents, smaller proportions report more specific information on
incidents: 27 percent report all incidents individually, 10 percent
report certain categories of incidents, and 6 percent only report severe
incidents. Seventeen percent of districts report no information on
school safety and student drug abuse to parents and the general public.
See Table 5.1.4 in Volume 2 for additional information on district
incident reporting.

5.2 Methods for Assessing Needs for and Evaluating Prevention Efforts

Districts can use information on incidents of problem behavior and
information from other sources to assess needs and evaluate their
prevention efforts. A large proportion of districts used valid measures
for these purposes. However, the use of the measures still raises
concerns, because the quality of the information underlying them may be
suspect.

Measures Districts Used to Evaluate the Outcomes of Prevention Efforts.
Districts have available to them an array of different measures for
assessing needs and evaluating their Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act (SDFSCA)-funded prevention efforts. Each type of measure
provides a somewhat different type of information; each has strengths
and limitations; and each may be more or less relevant to a specific
district prevention effort. Ideally, districts will use multiple
measures to compensate for the limitations of individual measures.

For evaluating problem behavior prevention efforts, a widely used
measure is the percentage of students self-reporting criminal or violent
victimization. Sixty-three percent of districts reported that they used
this type of measure, which is typically based on surveys of students,
during the 1997-98 school year. Additionally, 77 percent of districts
used the number of criminal and violent incidents at schools, which is
typically based on incident reporting systems. The percentage of
students self-reporting criminal or violent victimization measure has
the advantage of capturing information on less serious incidents that
may be invisible to incident reporting systems. Those less serious
incidents (e.g., threats of violence) are important because they are
much more frequent than the serious incidents; they can still interfere
with learning (e.g., by deterring students from attending school); and
they can indicate the potential for more serious incidents. The number
of incidents measure may capture serious types of incidents more
completely than student reports of victimization, because those reports
are often collected from a sample of students; however, the number of
incidents measure will miss many unreported less serious incidents. See
Table 5.2.1 in Volume 2 for additional information on district use of
measures.

For evaluating drug prevention activities, a widely used measure is the
percentage of students self-reporting alcohol, tobacco, and other drug
use. This type of measure could refer to any use or to

use in schools. Eighty percent of districts reported that they measured
any use during the 1997-98 school year. Large proportions of districts
(73%) also reported using the percentage of students using alcohol,
tobacco, and other drugs in schools. Two-thirds of districts also
measured student attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. The
any use measure provides a more relevant view of drug use than the use
in schools measure, because drug use is suppressed in the controlled
environment of a school. Moreover, the spirit of the SDFSCA program is
to prevent any drug use, regardless of where it occurs. Student
attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs are a weaker measure
than either of the othr two measures because they are less directly tied
to behavior; however, some researchers and practitioners argue that they
are associated with the likelihood of future use.

Information Collected by Districts From Different Sources. Measures of
problem behavior are only as useful as the information on which they are
based. For example, rates of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use among
students are most useful if they are based on a well-designed and
well-implemented prevalence survey of students. (Such prevalence surveys
include, for example, the Youth Risk Behavior Survey and the Monitoring
the Future Survey.) During the 1997-98 school year, 35 percent of
districts conducted a periodic prevalence survey of elementary school
students; 57 percent of districts conducted a periodic prevalence survey
of middle school students; and 61 percent of districts conducted a
periodic prevalence survey of high school students. During the 1997-98
school year, most districts collected information on the scope of drug
and violence problems from school administrators, other school staff
(e.g., teachers, guidance counselors, or school psychologists), and
police or security. Districts reported that administrators (86%) and
security (43%) were asked about incidents of drug use and violence.
Other school staff were asked about their personal impressions of school
safety (84%). They also reported that these individuals were asked for
their personal impression of program effectiveness (administrators
\[75%\], other school staff \[87%\], police and security \[44%\]).
Eighty percent of districts used this information to assess the impact
of existing programs; 81 percent used it to assess the need to add new
prevention strategies. Evaluation information was also collected from
community members such as parents (73%) and health care agencies or
providers (49%). Eighty-one percent of districts collected personal
impressions of program effectiveness from these sources---most (85%)
also collected personal impressions of the level of drug use and
violence in schools from them. More than three-fourths of districts used
the information to assess the impact of existing programs (84%) and to
assess the need to add new prevention strategies. See Tables 5.2.2
through 5.2.7 in Volume 2 for additional information on district
information sources.

The quality of information is an issue for the districts that collected
information with periodic prevalence surveys. To be valid, prevalence
surveys must collect information from practically all potential
respondents or from a sufficiently large probability sample of those
potential respondents. A large proportion of districts failed to meet
this standard. (We were unable to assess the adequacy of the sample
sizes used by districts in probability samples. For this report, we
assume that the sample sizes were sufficient.) Of those that surveyed
elementary school students (35% of districts), 73 percent surveyed
practically all students or a probability sample of students; of those
that surveyed middle school students (57% of districts), 82 percent
surveyed practically all students or a probability sample of students;
of those that surveyed high school students (61% of districts), 82
percent surveyed practically all students or a probability sample of
students. Hence, a relatively small proportion of districts collected
information with a periodic prevalence survey using a valid selection
method: 26 percent of districts surveyed elementary students using a
valid method, 47 percent of districts surveyed middle school students
using a valid method, and 50 percent of districts surveyed high school
students using a valid method. See Tables 5.2.8 through 5.2.10 in Volume
2 for additional information on district student information gathering.

An additional factor than can affect the quality of an evaluation is
whether it is conducted by an internal or external evaluator, or whether
or not it is based on the observations of the program administrator. A
window on this issue is provided by district responses about the basis
for their identifying a specific drug prevention program as effective.
Although 38 percent of districts indicated that an evaluation from an
internal or external source was the basis for their judgment on the
program, an additional 38 percent of districts based their judgment on
SDFSCA coordinator observations or conclusions. Judgments based on
coordinator observations or conclusions are likely to be weaker, given
the potential for bias and the probable lack of systematic research
methods. Similar rates apply for the violence prevention programs that
districts identify as their most effective. See Tables 5.2.11 and 5.2.12
in Volume 2 for additional information on bases for identifying the most
effective prevention programs.

Technical Assistance on Evaluation and Reporting. Although a large
proportion of districts appeared to need technical assistance on program
evaluation (e.g., based on the quality of prevalence survey information
that they collected for evaluation), less than half of districts
received it (39%) or reported that they needed it (45%). The largest
districts were more likely to receive technical assistance than other
districts (e.g., 71% for the largest districts vs. 45% for districts
with enrollments of 2,501 to 10,000 and 37% for districts with
enrollments under 300).

5.3 Use of Research

Districts used the results of research on their own prevention efforts
in many general and specific ways. They tended to use program-related
research results to expand or modify existing programs more often than
to eliminate programs. Potential information quality problems; however,
raise questions about the decisions that were based on the results.

Information from district evaluations of prevention programs contributed
to several different types of program actions. The most frequent actions
were the addition of new programs to address problem areas (75%),
activation of discussion among stakeholders (73%), and measurement of
progress towards goals and objectives (72%). Less frequent actions were
the reduction of activities that have been relatively ineffective (60%),
elimination of activities that have been ineffective (59%), and
modification of program targeting (59%). See Table 5.3.1 in Volume 2 for
additional information on district use of evaluation.

Districts tended to use information from a given source for multiple
purposes. Of the districts that collected information from students on
the scope of drug and violence problems during the 1997-98 school year,
the majority used the information to assess the need to add new
strategies (89%) or to assess the need to modify existing strategies
(87%); 74 percent of these districts used the information to assess the
need to drop existing strategies. Districts that collected information
from school staff and police and security staff used the information to
assess the need to add new strategies (83%), assess the need to modify
existing strategies (80%), and to assess the need to drop existing
strategies (73%). Districts that collected information from community
members also used the information to assess the need to add new
strategies (85%), assess the need to modify existing strategies (80%),
and assess the need to drop existing strategies (71%). See Tables 5.3.2
through 5.3.7 in Volume 2 for additional information on district use of
information sources.

The results on district use of information indicate that districts were
more likely to modify existing programs than to eliminate those
programs. One possible explanation is that the evidence standard is
higher for dropping programs than it is for modifying them or adopting
new programs. Efforts to drop programs can face active opposition, for
example, from constituencies that may have developed for the programs
and from staff whose positions may depend on the programs. Dropping
programs can also be interpreted by district staff as admitting failure.
Only the strongest findings indicating null program results may be able
by themselves to overcome these types of forces. See Tables 5.3.8 and
5.3.9 in Volume 2 for additional information on district modification of
prevention programs.

5.4 District Assessment of State Policies and

Overall Program Impact

Besides more funding, districts would most like from their state
education agencies (SEAs) more or improved information on
prevention-related topics. Seventy-nine percent of districts would like
more or improved information on research-based prevention programs. An
equal proportion of districts would like more or improved information on
evaluating prevention programs. A somewhat smaller proportion of
districts would like more or improved information on program planning
(62%) and program implementation (61%). Nineteen percent of districts
would recommend that SEAs adopt stricter targeting of funds. See Table
5.4.1 in Volume 2 for additional information on d istrict
recommendations on SEA policies.

Districts tended to view the SDFSCA Program more as a source of program
support than in terms of the outcomes that it has achieved. More than
three-fourths of districts (76%) reported that SDFSCA funding has helped
them to continue useful programs. But less than half of districts
reported that the funding has reduced school violence (40%) or has
reduced student drug abuse (45%). Additionally, 29 percent of districts
reported that SDFSCA funding had improved student academic performance.

These findings on how SDFSCA funds have helped districts varied
considerably by district size. The very large districts (districts
enrolling 90,000 or more students) were more likely than the smaller
districts to report that funding led to reductions in school violence
and student drug abuse, and to improvements in student academic
performance. This pattern may well reflect the variation in the amount
of SDFSCA funding that districts receive, which is directly related to
district size. See Table 5.4.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on
district perceptions of the SDFSCA program.

6\. Implementing the Principles of Effectiveness

To provide a baseline for measuring district progress in complying with
the Principles of Effectiveness, we assessed their current performance
against these standards. The majority of districts seem to meet the
first principle, which is to assess school and community needs and use
that information in program planning. The quality of some of the
information that districts use is suspect; we are unable to judge the
extent to which they use this information effectively. However, many
districts are unable to meet the second principle, which is to develop
measurable goals and objectives and design programs to meet them. The
third principle, which is to use research-based prevention activities,
also is out of reach for many districts. On the fourth principle, which
is to evaluate prevention efforts, many districts appear to be on track;
again, the quality of some of the information used by districts is
questionable and the extent to which they use information effectively is
unclear. To comply with all of the principles, districts may require
additional resources, in the form of technical assistance or funding.

6.1 Background

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) developed the Principles of
Effectiveness to guide state and local implementation of the SDFSCA
Program. In developing this framework, ED was responding to criticism
that the SDFSCA Program lacked sufficient effectiveness and
accountability. The Principles direct state education agencies (SEAs)
and districts to plan and implement their SDFSCA programs in ways that
are consistent with current understanding of how best to prevent and
reduce student drug abuse and to promote school safety.

To provide a baseline for gauging district progress in implementing the
Principles, we assessed their performance against those standards. (The
Principles became effective after the reference period for this study.)
The assessment also can provide information on the areas in which
districts most need assistance to comply with the Principles in the
future.

6.2 Principle 1: Base Programs on a Thorough Assessment of Objective
Data about the Drug and Violence Problems in the Schools and Communities
Served

The majority of districts are meeting this principle or are well along
the path to doing so. See Chapter 5. Most districts are collecting
information from a number of sources including students, teachers,
school administrators, parents, and community representatives. Moreover,
most districts are using this information to plan prevention
programming. (We were unable to evaluate the adequacy of district
efforts to use needs assessment data for planning.) For example, 89
percent of districts used student data information to assess the need to
add new strategies.

An area for improvement is the methods that many districts use to
conduct prevalence surveys of students. Many districts are using flawed
methods for such surveys, which are important sources of information for
needs assessments and evaluations.

6.3 Principle 2: Design Activities to Meet Measurable Goals

and Objectives for Drug and Violence Prevention

A large proportion of districts lack measurable goals and objectives
(i.e., goals and objectives that are sufficiently well-specified to
permit assessment of the extent to which they are achieved). See Chapter
2. Based on the main sample of districts, only half have any measurable
goals or objectives in place. For example, 52 percent have an outcome
goal or objective that specifies the extent to which abuse of alcohol,
tobacco, and other drugs by students would be reduced. Only 25 percent
of districts have process goals and objectives that specify a minimum
number of hours of drug prevention. Based on the subsample of districts,
an even smaller proportion of districts may have measurable goals and
objectives than the proportion based on the main sample.

6.4 Principle 3: Design and Implement Activities Based on Research or
Evaluation that Provides Evidence that the Strategies Used to Prevent or
Reduce Drug Use, Violence, or Disruptive Behavior Among Youth

Few districts are using research-based prevention activities. See
Chapter 2. Although the majority of districts reviewed research on the
effectiveness of potential programs, less than 10 percent of districts
were implementing drug prevention activities that have been demonstrated
to be effective. The findings were similar for violence prevention
activities.

6.5 Principle 4: Evaluate Programs Periodically to Assess Progress
Toward Achieving the Goals and Objectives;

and Use the Evaluation Results to Refine, Improve, and Strengthen the
Program, and Refine Goals and Objectives, as Appropriate

Many districts appear to be on the right path to meeting the fourth
principle. See Chapter 5. For example, 72 percent of districts used
results from their evaluation of prevention efforts to measure progress
towards goals and objectives, and many districts used these results to
modify programs. However, district evaluations will be most useful if
they are based on measurable goals and objectives and on high-quality
information. As mentioned, these areas need improvement.

6.6 Technical Assistance and Resources

We should avoid being critical of district progress in implementing the
Principles of Effectiveness as they took effect after the 1997-98 school
year, which is the reference period for the study. However, since 1994,
the SDFSCA Program, as reauthorized by the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), has required some of the same processes that are
now mandated by the Principles. A primary aim of the ESEA was to provide
recipients of funds with increased flexibility to design and implement
programs that meet local needs and support education reform strategies.
The greater flexibility was to be matched by greater accountability for
achieving measurable results. The revised statutory provisions of the
SDFSCA State and Local Grants Program reflect this policy. Specifically,
the reauthorization sought to increase accountability for program funds
by requiring:

• Local needs assessments using objective data;

• Establishment of measurable goals and objectives for SDFSCA programs
at the state and local levels; and

• Implementation of procedures to assess progress toward meeting these
goals and objectives.

The data indicate that school districts are greatly in need of
assistance to implement the Principles. Areas of need include (a)
crafting measurable goals and objectives, (b) linking goals and
objectives to efforts, (c) gathering objective data about drug and
violence problems, (d) choosing research-based strategies, and e)
evaluating progress towards meeting their goals and objectives. Given
that so few districts reported receiving guidance in these areas and so
many would like guidance, we strongly suggest that SEAs and ED improve
and expand technical assistance to school districts. This should take
the form of effectively disseminating information and conducting
training on the areas that are most problematic.

Clearly, another important issue is the availability of resources for
implementing the Principles. For many smaller districts, the SDFSCA
allocation alone is inadequate for them to meet the standards
established by the Principles. These districts already are having
trouble stretching their prevention budgets. Unless they dramatically
shift resources away from direct prevention activities for students or
receive additional funding, such districts will be unable to afford
activities that include evaluating progress towards goals and
objectives. SEAs, ED, and Congress may wish to consider whether or not
all districts should be expected to make further progress in
implementing the Principles of Effectiveness without providing
additional SDFSCA resources.

References

Drug Strategies, (1995). Making the grade: A guide to school drug
prevention programs. Washington, D.C.

Gottfredson, D.C. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In Sherman, L.
W., Gottfredson, D.C., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway,
S. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising: A
report to the United States Congress.

Appendix A

Questionnaire for the National Study of Local Education Agency
Activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act

(Webmaster: the Tables follow in tabbed text format. Please refer to the
.pdf for tabstop/cell breaks)

Table 2-1. Percent of districts reporting specific objectives for
prevention activities

Objective Percent

Minimum number of hours of drug prevention education for students 25

Minimum number of hours of violence prevention education for students 19

Amount of reduction in student abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other
drugs 52

Amount of reduction in acts of violence in schools 48

Amount of reduction in weapons in schools 27

Number of hours that parents and community members involved in
prevention

activities at schools 16

Other1 20

NOTE. Results are based on responses to multiple survey questions.
Between 410 and 411 districts provided responses to a given question.

1 Other objectives include increasing attendance, promoting smoking
cessation, and providing specific activities (e.g., peer mediation).

Table 2-2. Percent of districts in subsample with specific
characteristics

of SDFSCA objectives

Type and characteristic of objective Percent

Implementation

Drug prevention

Students will receive drug prevention education 83

Amount of drug prevention education 7

Amount of drug prevention education by instructional level 7

Drug prevention education curriculum that will be used 57

Violence prevention

Students will receive violence prevention education 67

Amount of violence prevention education 3

Amount of violence prevention education by instructional level 3

Violence prevention education curriculum that will be used 37

Staffing training

Teachers and/or other staff will receive delinquency prevention training
43

Amount of delinquency prevention training 3

Delinquency prevention curriculum/type of training that will be received
17

Parent/community involvement in prevention at school

Parents/community members will be involved in prevention activities 47

Amount of time that parents/community members will devote to prevention
activities 3

Number of parents/community members involved in prevention activities 0

Types of prevention activities that parents/community members will be
involved in 27

School safety/security

Implementation of safety measures (e.g., hall monitoring) 0

Safety measures will be implemented 0

Describe how safety measures will be staffed 0

Implementation of security devices 0

Improvements to school buildings and grounds to promote a safe
environment 0

Drug Prevention

Student drug abuse will be reduced 53

Extent to which student drug abuse will be reduced 27

Timeframe in which reduction in student drug abuse will take place 23

Define student drug violations 3

Violence prevention

Acts of violence in schools will be reduced 47

Extent to which acts of violence in schools will be reduced 17

Timeframe in which reduction in acts of violence in schools will take
place 20

School safety/security

Define student safety violations 3

Acts of bringing weapons to schools will be reduced 3

Extent to which bringing weapons will be reduced 3

Timeframe in which reduction in bringing weapon to schools will take
place 3

Define weapons violations 0

Increase in school safety 13

Define increase in school safety 10

Evaluation

Student problem behavior will be assessed to gauge need for specific
prevention activities 30

How problem behavior will be assessed 33

Program implementation will be evaluated 30

Efforts to reduce student problem behavior will be evaluated 47

How efforts to reduce student problem behavior will be evaluated 43

NOTE. The subsample consisted of a probability sample of 43 districts
from among the districts selected for the main sample. Results are based
on responses from 30 of the districts in the subsample. The term "drug"
refers to alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.

Table 2-3. Percent of districts reporting factors that influenced their
evaluation

of research-based programs

Factor Percent

Lack of experience in identifying research-based programs 35

Lack of resources to investigate research-based programs 59

Lack of knowledge on how to learn about research-based programs 29

Satisfaction with programs already in place in schools 76

District's inability to match research conditions 27

Lack of consistent research findings on potential programs 29

Lack of research addressing local priorities 30

Other1 13

NOTE. Results are based on responses to multiple survey questions.
Between 405 and 411 districts provided responses to a given question.

1 Other factors include district politics, problems with conducting
needs assessments, and lack of direction from the state.

Table 3-1. Percent of districts funding school activities with SDFSCA
funds,

by objective of activity

If used SDFSCA funds for activity,

objective of activity1

Activity Used Both drug

SDFSCA funds Drug Violence and violence

for activity prevention prevention prevention

\% % % %

Prevention curriculum, instruction or training for

students, such as social skills training 89 10 2 88

Behavioral programming or behavior modification

for students 52 9 9 83

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic

activity for students 57 9 2 89

Other activities involving individual attention for students,

such as tutoring or mentoring 38 5 2 93

Recreational, enrichment, or leisure activities for students 33 13 1 86

Student involvement in resolving student conduct

problems, for example, dispute or conflict resolution,

mediation, or student court 62 3 22 75

Training, supervision, or technical assistance in

classroom management for teachers 36 3 15 82

Review, revision, or monitoring of discipline

practices and procedures 30 6 7 86

Involvement of parents or community experts in

efforts to prevent school drug use and violence 57 14 1 85

Reorganization of school, grades, or schedules,

for example, school within a school, "houses"

or "teams" of students to prevent or reduce

violence or drug use 11 15 3 82

Information-only programs 54 20 0 80

Programs that warned of the dangers of drugs2 88 42 1 57

Programs that focused on self-esteem enhancement 80 8 2 90

Other 11 11 8 81

NOTE. The first column of numbers reports the percentages of districts
funding school activities with SDFSCA funds. The remaining columns of
numbers report the objectives of those school activities (i.e.,
activities funded with SDFSCA funds).

1 Percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding.

2 For logistical reasons, violence prevention was a response option for
this question.

Table 3-2. Percent of districts using prevention activities that are
supported by research, by type of activity

Extent of support by research

Activities supported Activities with elements

by research supported by research

Type of activity % %

Drug prevention 9 25

Violence prevention 9 37

Most costly prevention activity1 9 28

NOTE. Results are based on responses to multiple survey questions.
Between 359 and 407 districts provided responses to a given question.

1 In addition to asking respondents to name their most effective drug
prevention or violence prevention activities or programs, we asked them
to name their most costly prevention activity. The most costly activity
could be a drug prevention or violence prevention activity. Also, it
could overlap with the most effective drug prevention or violence
prevention activity that respondents named.

Table 3-3. Percentage of districts naming specific activities as their
most effective

type of drug prevention activity

Type of activity Percent

General prevention education1 21

Specific prevention education2 21

DARE3 18

Mental health services4 16

Peer mediation/counseling 5

Extracurricular activities 5

Assemblies 4

Other5 10

Total 100

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 407 districts.

1 This category includes activities reported as classroom education,
information about consequences of crime, drug prevention,

gang violence prevention, and violence prevention programs.

2 This category includes the programs All Stars, BABES, Here's Looking
at You 2000, Life Skills, Second Step, and Smart Choice.

3 We report on DARE separately because, in response to open-ended
questions, districts identified it much more frequently than

any other specific prevention education activity.

4 This category includes counseling, student assistance programs, and
behavior modification.

5 This category includes alternative education, parent education,
mentoring, tutoring, conflict resolution, community involvement,

drug testing of students, and staff training.

Table 3-4. Percentage of districts naming specific activities as their
most effective type of violence prevention activity

Type of activity Percent

Specific prevention education1 22

Conflict resolution 16

General prevention education2 12

Peer mediation/counseling 12

Mental health services3 11

DARE4 9

Assemblies 6

Police involvement 3

Other5 8

Total 99

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 359 districts.

1 This category includes the programs All Stars, BABES, Here's Looking
at You 2000, Life Skills, Second Step, and Smart Choice.

2 This category includes activities reported as classroom education,
information about consequences of crime, drug prevention,

gang violence prevention, and violence prevention programs.

3 This category includes counseling, student assistance programs, and
behavior modification.

4 We report on DARE separately because, in response to open-ended
questions, districts identified it much more frequently than

any other specific prevention education activity.

5 This category includes alternative education, parent education, extra
curricular activities, Red Ribbon Week, community involvement,

and staff training.

Table 3-5. Percentage of districts naming specific activities as their
most expensive type of prevention activity

Type of activity Percent

Specific prevention education1 20

General prevention education2 17

Mental health services3 16

DARE4 13

Assemblies 5

Extracurricular activities 5

Peer mediation/counseling 4

Red Ribbon Week 4

Conflict resolution 3

Staff 3

Other5 9

Total 100

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 393 districts.

1 This category includes the programs All Stars, BABES, Here's Looking
at You 2000, Life Skills, Second Step, and Smart Choice.

2 This category includes activities reported as classroom education,
information about consequences of crime, drug prevention,

gang violence prevention, and violence prevention programs.

3 This category includes counseling, student assistance programs, and
behavior modification.

4 We report on DARE separately because, in response to open-ended
questions, districts identified it much more frequently than

any other specific prevention education activity.

5 This category includes alternative education, parent education, police
involvement, staff training, community involvement, mentoring,

tutoring, safety, and security measures.

Table 3-6. Percent of districts requiring activities for schools related
to their

use of SDFSCA funds

Extent to which activity required

Encouraged but

Required not required

Activity % %

Prepare plans specifying how resources will be used 49 40

Select programs or activities from an approved list 25 57

Conduct a needs assessment 44 42

Evaluate program activities 51 39

Report progress in meeting goals to the district 50 39

NOTE. Results are based on responses to multiple survey questions.
Between 405 and 410 districts provided responses to a given question.

Table 4-1. Percent of districts receiving SDFSCA prevention funding, by
per pupil

funding and district characteristics

Per pupil SDFSCA funding

Less than \$4 to \$6 to \$8 to \$10 or

\$4 5.99 7.99 9.99 More

Characteristic % % % % %

Enrollment

Less than 300 8 36 11 0 45

300 to 1,000 14 49 14 7 16

1,001 to 2,500 8 57 18 4 13

2,501 to 10,000 3 51 18 5 23

10,001 to 89,999 7 42 23 2 26

Greater than or equal to 90,000 8 17 17 8 50

Urbanicity

Urban 9 38 16 5 32

Suburban 5 59 16 2 18

Rural 10 43 16 6 26

Percent minority enrollment

Less than or equal to 5% 8 46 19 5 23

5.1 to 20% 10 55 7 4 25

20.1 to 50% 2 51 20 3 23

Greater than 50% 13 44 14 5 24

Poverty1

High poverty quartile 4 46 13 7 28

High/medium poverty quartile 13 45 12 3 27

Low/medium poverty quartile 11 43 21 4 21

Low poverty quartile 3 60 16 3 18

Receiving SDFSCA greatest needs funding

Yes 3 16 8 9 64

No2 9 51 17 4 19

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 403 districts.

1 Based on 1995 national estimates from the Bureau of the Census, we
defined the poverty quartiles in terms of the percent of children in
districts living in poverty: high poverty quartile, greater than 27.4
percent of children; high/medium poverty quartile, 16.5 to 27.4

percent of children; low/medium poverty quartile, 8.8 to 16.5 percent of
children; and low poverty quartile, less than 8.8 percent of

children.

2 Although it may seem unusual that districts not receiving needs
funding received a SDFSCA allocation of more than \$10, these findings
are based on survey responses. These findings may reflect the difficulty
for some districts to report budget information on this progress
accurately.

Table 4-2. Percent of districts receiving non-SDFSCA prevention funding,
by

per pupil funding and district characteristics

Per pupil non-SDFSCA funding

No additional Less

prevention than \$4 to \$6 to \$8 to \$10 or

funds \$4 5.99 7.99 9.99 More

Characteristic % % % % % %

Enrollment

Less than 300 40 14 8 2 6 31

300 to 1,000 51 21 10 6 0 12

1,001 to 2,500 35 36 7 3 4 15

2,501 to 10,000 27 33 5 6 3 25

10,001 to 89,999 20 32 2 3 23 20

Greater than or equal to 90,000 15 35 10 10 20 10

Urbanicity

Urban 10 20 15 3 5 48

Suburban 32 27 5 4 7 26

Rural 42 28 8 4 3 14

Percent minority enrollment

Less than or equal to 5% 40 30 8 3 2 18

5.1 to 20% 31 24 8 6 5 25

\` 20.1 to 50% 40 18 4 4 12 20

Greater than 50% 28 53 5 6 6 22

Poverty1

High poverty quartile 45 24 1 10 4 16

High/medium poverty quartile 34 27 9 4 5 21

Low/medium poverty quartile 36 29 8 3 5 20

Low poverty quartile 35 28 9 1 3 23

Receiving SDFSCA greatest need funding

Yes 38 27 7 4 4 19

No 24 25 8 5 4 33

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 377 districts.

1 Based on 1995 national estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
we defined the poverty quartiles in terms of the percent of

children in districts living in poverty: high poverty quartile, greater
than 27.4 percent of children; high/medium poverty quartile, 16.5

to 27.4 percent of children; low/medium poverty quartile, 8.8 to 16.5
percent of children; and low poverty quartile, less than 8.8

percent of children.

Table 4-3. Percent of districts allocating SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA
prevention

funding, by type of activity

Type of funding

SDFSCA1 Non-SDFSCA2

Activity and percent of funding allocated % %

Materials

No funds allocated 15 50

Less than 20% 33 24

20 to 39% 30 11

40 to 59% 10 7

60 to 79% 5 3

More than 79% 8 6

Program selection

No funds allocated 74 86

Less than 20% 22 13

20 to 39% 3 1

40 to 59% 0 0

60 to 79% 0 0

More than 79% 0 0

Training

No funds allocated 33 63

Less than 20% 35 18

20 to 39% 19 12

40 to 59% 9 3

60 to 79% 3 1

More than 79% 0 2

Program implementation

No funds allocated 27 54

Less than 20% 13 4

20 to 39% 17 9

40 to 59% 17 9

60 to 79% 12 5

More than 79% 15 18

Evaluation

No funds allocated 63 80

Less than 20% 34 18

20 to 39% 2 1

40 to 59% 1 0

60 to 79% 0 0

More than 79% 0 0

Other administrative activities

No funds allocated 65 79

Less than 20% 26 15

20 to 39% 5 4

40 to 59% 2 1

60 to 79% 1 0

More than 79% 1 1

Other activities3

No funds allocated 71 82

Less than 20% 8 4

20 to 39% 8 2

40 to 59% 4 2

60 to 79% 4 1

More than 79% 6 9

1 Results are based on responses to multiple survey questions Between
392 and 419 districts provided responses to a given question

2 Results are based on responses to multiple survey questions Between
363 and 416 districts provided responses to a given question

3 Other includes drug testing of students

Table 4-4. Percent of districts supporting prevention activities, by
source of funding

Source of funding

Both SDFSCA Activity

Non- and not

SDFSCA SDFSCA Non-SDFSCA supported

Activity % % % %

Special, one-time events 29 18 48 4

Drug prevention instruction 23 10 65 1

Requisitioning and distribution of program manuals,

materials, and supplies 22 17 31 31

Conflict resolution or peer mediation 21 20 39 20

Training in program implementation 21 16 25 38

Violence prevention instruction 20 13 57 10

Assistance with conducting needs assessment 17 27 17 39

Training in program planning and development 17 19 22 41

Student support services, for example, student

assistance programs, counseling, mentoring,

identification and referral 14 30 46 10

Parent education/involvement 13 26 37 25

Program evaluation assistance 13 17 21 48

Team building or organization development assistance 12 28 22 38

Technical assistance in selecting programs or

activities to implement 12 17 17 54

Training or assistance in financial management

for prevention programs 9 11 10 71

Communication of standards for student behavior 8 42 34 16

Community service projects 6 35 22 37

After-school or before-school programs 5 32 17 46

Alternative education programs 3 45 15 37

Services for out-of-school youth (school age) 2 17 5 76

NOTE. Results are based on responses to multiple survey questions.
Between 403 and 413 districts provided responses to a given question.

Table 4-5. Percent of districts allocating SDFSCA funding to their most
effective

drug prevention activity, by percent of allocation and district

characteristics

Cost of activity, as percent of SDFSCA allocation

Less More

than 20 to 49 to 60 to 80 to than

Characteristic 20% 39% 59% 79% 99% 100%1

Enrollment

Less than 300 18 18 16 1 18 29

300 to 1,000 46 18 8 5 10 14

1,001 to 2,500 42 20 6 1 16 15

2.501 to 10,000 42 20 10 9 8 11

10,001 to 89,999 69 13 6 10 0 2

Greater than or equal to 90,000 61 33 0 0 0 6

Urbanicity

Urban 41 8 13 23 0 15

Suburban 42 19 10 5 11 13

Rural 39 20 8 3 14 18

Percent minority enrollment

Less than or equal to 5% 38 23 7 2 15 14

5.1 to 20% 36 13 11 7 10 22

20.1 to 50% 44 18 14 6 9 9

Greater than 50% 53 10 9 6 1 20

Poverty2

High poverty quartile 35 17 6 7 16 19

High/medium poverty quartile 46 13 10 3 9 19

Low/medium poverty quartile 36 27 9 4 15 9

Low poverty quartile 42 18 10 4 10 16

Receiving SDFSCA

Yes 40 19 9 4 12 15

No 43 20 12 11 7 7

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 362 districts.

1 More than 100 percent of SDFSCA allocation indicates that districts
also are using non-SDFSCA funds.

2 Based on national estimates for 1995 from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, we defined the poverty quartiles in terms of the percent of
children in districts living in poverty: high poverty quartile, greater
than 27.4 percent of children; high/medium poverty quartile, 16.5 to
27.4 percent of children; low/medium poverty quartile, 8.8 to 16.4
percent of children; and low poverty quartile, less than 8.8 percent of
children.

Table 4-6. Percent of districts allocating SDFSCA funding to their most
effective violence prevention activity, by percent of allocation and
district characteristics

Cost of activity, as percent of SDFSCA allocation

Less More

than 20 to 49 to 60 to 80 to than

Characteristic 20% 39% 59% 79% 99% 100%1

Enrollment

Less than 300 25 13 12 5 15 30

300 to 1,000 53 11 12 4 3 18

1,001 to 2,500 51 15 8 5 10 10

2.501 to 10,000 51 23 10 5 4 7

10,001 to 89,999 73 8 8 7 3 1

Greater than or equal to 90,000 71 23 0 0 6 0

Urbanicity

Urban 46 14 12 1 13 14

Suburban 52 15 8 6 6 13

Rural 45 16 12 4 8 15

Percent minority enrollment

Less than or equal to 5% 48 13 9 7 10 13

5.1 to 20% 48 18 9 2 3 20

20.1 to 50% 41 24 15 0 11 9

Greater than 50% 60 12 11 1 0 17

Poverty2

High poverty quartile 49 14 10 5 7 16

High/medium poverty quartile 52 13 13 1 5 17

Low/medium poverty quartile 49 19 12 2 11 7

Low poverty quartile 42 16 7 11 7 18

Receiving SDFSCA

Yes 47 16 10 4 8 15

No 60 14 8 7 5 5

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 317 districts.

1 More than 100 percent of SDFSCA allocation indicates that districts
also are using non-SDFSCA funds.

2 Based on national estimates for 1995 from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, we defined the poverty quartiles in terms of the percent of
children in districts living in poverty: high poverty quartile, greater
than 27.4 percent of children; high/medium poverty quartile, 16.5 to
27.4 percent of children; low/medium poverty quartile, 8.8 to 16.4
percent of children; and low poverty quartile, less than 8.8 percent of
children.

Table 4-7. Percent of districts allocating SDFSCA funding to their most
expensive prevention activity, by percent of allocation and district
characteristics

Cost of activity, as percent of SDFSCA allocation

Less More

than 20 to 49 to 60 to 80 to than

Characteristic 20% 39% 59% 79% 99% 100%1

Enrollment

Less than 300 9 26 16 1 15 33

300 to 1,000 16 26 18 8 13 18

1,001 to 2,500 22 24 8 11 18 16

2.501 to 10,000 30 25 13 6 10 15

10,001 to 89,999 55 15 15 11 2 1

Greater than or equal to 90,000 38 56 0 0 0 6

Urbanicity

Urban 24 20 14 15 13 14

Suburban 24 27 14 6 12 19

Rural 21 24 13 8 15 19

Percent minority enrollment

Less than or equal to 5% 18 28 13 8 15 18

5.1 to 20% 20 22 14 9 14 22

20.1 to 50% 34 19 18 3 13 13

Greater than 50% 38 20 9 6 1 25

Poverty2

High poverty quartile 22 24 6 11 17 20

High/medium poverty quartile 29 20 17 3 10 21

Low/medium poverty quartile 19 27 17 9 16 12

Low poverty quartile 19 28 11 7 12 23

Receiving SDFSCA

Yes 21 25 13 7 14 20

No 31 24 15 13 8 8

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 353 districts.

1 More than 100 percent of SDFSCA allocation indicates that districts
also are using non-SDFSCA funds.

2 Based on national estimates for 1995 from the U.S. Bureau of the
Census, we defined the poverty quartiles in terms of the percent of
children in districts living in poverty: high poverty quartile, greater
than 27.4 percent of children; high/medium poverty quartile, 16.5 to
27.4 percent of children; low/medium poverty quartile, 8.8 to 16.4
percent of children; and low poverty quartile, less than 8.8 percent of
children.

Table 4-8. Percent of districts reporting changes to prevention efforts
if they no longer received SDFSCA funds, by type and extent of change

Extent of change

Very small Small Great Very great

Type of change % % % %

Decrease number of hours of services

received by students 6 11 35 42

Decrease number of students receiving services 6 11 33 37

Decrease number of activities 4 10 36 47

Decrease involvement of community and/or volunteers 12 23 24 23

Decrease training for teachers 8 20 28 34

Eliminate all prevention programming 4 14 25 29

Other1 2 2 7 12

Note. Results are based on responses from between 394 and 418 districts.

1 Other potential changes include elimination of staff.