Reducing Disputes in Spartanburg, SC
An Evaluation of a Problem Solving Partnership
Edward R. Maguire
George Mason University
Shellie E. Solomon
21st Century Solutions, Inc.
Craig D. Uchida
21st Century Solutions, Inc.
Prepared for the Spartanburg Department of Public Safety and the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
March 2003
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A thorough evaluation depends heavily on the time, commitment, energy, and passion of many stakeholders.  The
evaluation team benefited from contributions by a number of such people.
First, we would like to thank Tony Fisher, Spartanburgs Director of Public Safety, for granting us full access to his
agency and for sharing his perspective with us on several occasions.
We would also like to thank Joyce Lipscomb, Operations Analyst for the Spartanburg Public Safety Department, for
helping to arrange access to people, places, and data.
Other Spartanburg police officers also provided information and assistance to the evaluation team, granting
interviews, taking us on ride-alongs, and providing other information on request.  We would especially like to thank
Vincent Johnson, School Resource Officer for Carver Junior High School, for granting us interviews and allowing
our research assistant to shadow him in the normal course of his duties.
Both the target and comparison schools fall within Spartanburg County School District 7.  We received far more
assistance than we could have reasonably expected from Dr. Arthur Brewton, Director of Alternative Programs, and
Ms. Brenda Story, Student Services Coordinator.  We are grateful to both of them, as well as their colleagues, for
their assistance in this project.
We would also like to thank the former Principal of Carver Junior High School, Dr. Robin Johnson, for granting
interviews and providing access, assistance, and guidance in collecting data from different sources.
We selected Whitlock Junior High School as a comparison school for this project.  Former Principal Rusty Wright
and School Resource Officer Roosevelt Young cooperated mightily in allowing us to administer surveys and
conduct interviews and observations.
We would like to thank George Appenzeller and Sara Meadows, proprietors of Social Work Solutions, the firm
selected by the Public Safety Department to do the local evaluation of the School Based Partnerships program in
Spartanburg.  Through a memorandum of understanding that divided up the research tasks, Social Work Solutions
conducted much of the qualitative analysis on this project.  Andrea M. Philbrick and Mindy Davis of Social Work
Solutions also helped us conduct student surveys in two schools.
We would like to thank Kimberly Hassell, a doctoral student at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, for her
research assistance.  Kimberly conducted interviews and administered student surveys.  In addition, her observations
of the School Resource Officers helped us understand the daily lives and activities of these officers.  We also thank
Belinda Beale, a teacher in Prince William County, VA, for contributing various forms of research assistance during
the preparation of the final report.
Finally, we would like to thank the students at Carver and Whitlock for completing our surveys and sharing their
thoughts with us about school safety.  It was their world we sought to understand, and we are grateful to them for
providing us a glimpse of it.
								-Edward R. Maguire
								-Shellie E. Solomon
								-Craig D. Uchida
This report and project were supported by Grant No. 1999-CK-WX-K005 awarded by the Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice to 21st Century Solutions,
Inc.  Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the law enforcement agency
involved in the study.
Copyright  by Craig D. Uchida and 21st Century Solutions, Inc.  The U.S. Department of
Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or
otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, this document for Federal Government purposes.
No part of this document may be reproduced in any forms, by any means (including electronic,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the U.S.
Department of Justice and the authors.
Published by:
21st Century Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 12279
Silver Spring, MD 20908
(301) 438-3132
www.e-21stCenturySolutions.com
CDUchida@aol.co
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibits								1
Executive Summary							2
I. Introduction								6
II. The Evaluation Process						14
III. Implementation Process						26
IV. Impact								35
V. Conclusion								40
References								41
Exhibits								43
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1:	Selected Demographic, Social and Economic Characteristics
Exhibit 2:	Official Crime Statistics, 2000
Exhibit 3:	Characteristics of the Spartanburg Public Safety Department
Exhibit 4:	Mission, Vision, and Values Statement, Spartanburg Public Safety Department
Exhibit 5:	Spartanburgs Three Junior High Schools
Exhibit 6:	Student Survey Sample Sizes
Exhibit 7:	Nature of Disciplinary Infractions at Carver and Whitlock
Exhibit 8:	Total Disciplinary Infractions at Carver, and Whitlock, 2000-2001
Exhibit 9:	Monthly Dispute Totals for Carver and Whitlock, 2000-2001
Exhibit 10: 	School Responses to Disciplinary Infractions at Carver and Whitlock
Exhibit 11:	In-School Suspensions, 1998-2002
Exhibit 12:	Out-of-School Suspensions, 1994-2002
Exhibit 13:	Expulsions, 1994-2002
Exhibit 14:	Arrests by the SRO at Carver, August 2000 - May 2001
Exhibit 15:	What Happens to Cases Resulting from an Arrest at Carver?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1999, the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina received a School-Based Partnerships grant for
$137,989 from the COPS Office.  The grant enabled the Spartanburg Public Safety Department
to implement problem-solving strategies in George Washington Carver Junior High School.
Although Spartanburg as a whole suffers from poverty-related problems, the area served by
Carver represents an even more concentrated level of economic disadvantage.  The school
represents an ideal area in which to focus community energies such as the problem-solving
approach used in the School Based Partnership project.  The focus of the problem solving efforts
was disputes, including those between students, between ethnic groups, and between students
and teachers.  This report highlights the findings from a process and impact evaluation of the
School Based Partnership project.  A variety of qualitative and quantitative methods were used to
conduct an intensive case study detailing the implementation of school-based problem-solving
efforts, together with a multi-part quasi-experiment designed to determine whether the project
resulted in a reduction in the number or severity of disputes.
Spartanburg County has seven school districts; two of these districts are located within the City
of Spartanburg.  Carver Junior High School, the focal school for this project, is located in
Spartanburg County School District 7.  Two other junior high schools are also located within
District 7.  The first, McCracken, serves a primarily middle class area; the other, Whitlock,
serves an economically disadvantaged population similar to Carvers.  For this reason, we
selected Whitlock as a comparison school for this project.
Evaluation Design
The evaluation team relied on a variety of data sources for examining the School Based
Partnership project in Spartanburg.  We conducted two student surveys: one at Carver and one at
Whitlock.  We also analyzed disciplinary data from both schools from 1994 to 2002.  Together
with Social Work Solutions, the local evaluator selected by the Public Safety Department and
our research partner on this project, we conducted dozens of interviews and focus groups in the
two schools, in the school district headquarters, and in the police department.  We shadowed
the school resource officers in both schools, attended Neighborhood Watch meetings, and
accompanied patrol officers on ride-alongs throughout the City of Spartanburg.  We analyzed
official disciplinary data from the schools, official arrest data from the police, and follow-up data
from the courts.  One of the basic principles of the evaluation was that a true understanding of
program implementation and impact could only be achieved by triangulating from a variety of
quantitative and qualitative data sources.
We also considered a number of evaluation design options.  Unfortunately, many of the more
rigorous designs for evaluating programs, such as randomized experiments, were not available to
us for a number of reasons.  Principal among these reasons was the timing of the evaluation.  The
project team  had already begun its work in Spartanburg in August 2000, five months before we
arrived on site for the first time in late January 2001.  Therefore it was difficult to collect true
baseline data.  Second, the School-Based Partnerships program was intended to be what
evaluation researchers call a full coverage program; it was designed to benefit all students in
the school.  It is much easier to evaluate the success of partial coverage programs that are
implemented among a subset of students, since other subsets can serve as an effective
comparison or control group.  Although we were unable to select a control group within Carver
Junior High, we had the benefit of a similar school (Whitlock) located within the same school
district.  Because both schools are in the same school district, they keep similar disciplinary
records that serve as useful data sources for this evaluation.  On the other hand, different police
departments serve the two schools and arrest data are only available for one of them (Carver).
Using these various data sources, we studied both the implementation and the impact of the
project.
Program Implementation
Evaluation research has long noted the inability of reformers to successfully implement
promising programs.  Researchers often use a medical metaphor to explain the need for
evaluating program implementation.  Suppose, for example, that cancer patients are assigned by
a researcher to ingest two tablets of an experimental medication every morning and every night.
The researchers conduct the study and learn that patient health did not improve; therefore they
conclude that the medication did not work.  If the patients complied with the experimental
protocol, the researchers findings would be valid, but suppose the patients didnt actually take
the medication. Or more commonly, suppose they took the medication sometimes, but did not
follow the researchers instructions and missed numerous doses.  Can the researcher truly
conclude that the medication does not work?  In program evaluation, this is known as a dosage
question.  If a program is not completely implemented, or it is implemented in a weak fashion,
how should the evaluator determine whether or not the program is effective?  Because this
question is crucial in determining whether a program is ineffective, as opposed to whether it was
just implemented ineffectively, evaluating program implementation is vital.
The implementation of the School-Based Partnerships project in Spartanburg involved four
primary components:
- External training and consultation in Crime Prevention through Environmental Design.
- Peer surveys of children assigned to in-school suspension.
- An after-school program designed to reduce the number of students being given repeat
in-school suspensions.
- Anti-violence and conflict resolution training taught by officers to students assigned to in-
school or out-of-school suspension.
In addition to these primary components, the school also experienced a number of other relevant
changes, the most important of which was a new School Resource Officer (SRO) funded through
a Cops in Schools grant.
Program Impact
Our ability to do a comprehensive impact evaluation was hampered by a number of factors,
including the timing of the evaluation, the large number of programs being implemented, the
move to a new school immediately after the project ended, questions about the comparability of
the comparison school, and the lack of data.  Nonetheless, we were able to draw some
conclusions about impact.  Although Whitlock has a much lower level of reported disciplinary
infractions than Carver, the overall trajectories for each school during the 2000-2001 school year
were strikingly similar.  Focusing more specifically on disputes, we found that while both
schools started off with monthly increases in disputes from August through November, Carvers
increase was much more pronounced than Whitlocks.  By November, Carver was experiencing
nearly 12 disputes per day, compared with just over 6 for Whitlock.  Yet, after November,
Carver experienced a precipitous drop in disputes through January.  Whitlocks disputes also
declined, though much less dramatically.  Whitlocks rate of disputes exceeded Carvers rate
slightly from December through May.  However, absent Carvers massive spike in disputes from
August to November, and then its precipitous decline, the patterns for the two schools would be
quite similar.  Therefore, it is difficult to credit any program at Carver with having produced a
decrease in disputes.  Absent a longer data series, it is difficult to make any inferences from these
trajectories.
We were unable to gain access to monthly counts of in-school suspensions, out-of-school
suspension, and expulsions over a long time period.  Our only alternative was to examine yearly
totals for each official response.  The in-school suspension data show that Carver experienced
about a 17% decrease in in-school suspensions, compared with a 52% increase in Whitlock.  In
the report, we downplay this finding due to a number of data problems. With regard to out-of-
school suspensions, Carver experienced about a 10% increase in out-of-school suspensions,
compared with about an 11% decrease in Whitlock.  Since expulsions are frowned upon in the
District, we were not able to discern any meaningful patterns from expulsion data.  Police and
court data were not useful for assessing impact because we could only obtain them from one
school.  Unlike the quantitative evidence presented above, there was nearly universal agreement
among those interviewed that this project had shown beneficial effects at Carver Junior High in
several ways (Social Work Solutions, 2001).
Overall, the project team was successful in implementing all of the projects elements.  Not all of
these elements appear to have played as central a role in the project as others.  The School
Resource Officer received virtually unanimous acclaim from students, teachers, school
administrators, and peers in the Public Safety Department and we see a lot of benefits to
continuing his role in the school.  The anti-violence presentations by officers in the schools also
appear to be targeting the appropriate audience and we see no reason why they should not
continue.  The peer surveys might have produced some information for the Guidance Counselor
and the SRO, but we were unable to discern any specific benefits that would be likely to have a
wholesale effect on disputes.  If the peer surveys continue, we recommend investing energy in
collecting and analyzing their findings more systematically, consistent with the precepts of
problem-oriented policing.  The after-school program attracted fewer students than it originally
targeted.  Furthermore, the students it did attract do not appear to have been responsible for
participating in large numbers of disputes.  Should it continue, we recommend increasing the
number of students and making a careful effort to enroll those students participating in the most
disputes.  At the same time, we take to heart one comment from a student in the program who
suggested that there are benefits to having a mixed group of participants, some of whom are
more serious offenders than others.
In addition to these substantive recommendations, we also have some recommendations for
conducting periodic self-assessments.  The key to becoming a learning organization capable of
measuring, diagnosing, and transforming itself is to periodically examine evidence about the
organizations effectiveness.  The School Districts disciplinary data have the potential to serve
as a wonderful tracking device for detecting patterns in school-based disciplinary infractions and
offending.  Exhibits 8 and 9 illustrate some of the simple trend analyses that can be conducted
regularly, with little expense, to determine whether offending patterns are changing.  This kind
of ongoing analysis will serve to enhance an already fruitful partnership between Spartanburgs
School District 7 and the Department of Public Safety.
I.  INTRODUCTION
In 1999, the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina received a School-Based Partnership grant for
$137,989 from the COPS Office.  The grant enabled the Spartanburg Public Safety Department
to implement problem-solving strategies in George Washington Carver Junior High School.
Although Spartanburg as a whole suffers from poverty-related problems, the area served by
Carver represents an even more concentrated level of economic disadvantage.  The school
represents an ideal area in which to focus community energies such as the problem-solving
approach used in the School Based Partnership project.  The focus of the problem solving efforts
was disputes, including those between students, between ethnic groups, and between students
and teachers.  This report highlights the findings from a process and impact evaluation of the
School Based Partnership project.  A variety of qualitative and quantitative methods were used to
conduct an intensive case study detailing the implementation of school-based problem-solving
efforts, together with a multi-part quasi-experiment designed to determine whether the project
resulted in a reduction in the number or severity of disputes.  The report concludes with a series
of practical recommendations for researchers, police departments, schools, and federal agencies
providing grant programs for school safety.
The City of Spartanburg
Spartanburg, located in the northwestern corner of South Carolina, is the seventh largest city in
the state with just under 40,000 residents.   It is located in Spartanburg County, with
approximately 250,000 residents,  and within the larger Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which is home to nearly a million residents.   Exhibit 1,
containing data from the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, illustrates some of the demographic, social
and economic characteristics of the City of Spartanburg in comparison with South Carolina and
the United States.
SEE EXHIBIT 1
As Exhibit 1 demonstrates, compared with South Carolina and the United States as a whole, the
City of Spartanburg has a substantially larger African-American population, a smaller white
population, lower household and family income, a larger number of individuals and families
living below poverty, fewer home owners and more home renters.  Compared with the other four
sites included in the national evaluation, the differences are even more pronounced.  The
proportion of African-Americans is at least five times greater in Spartanburg than in the other
sites.  The proportion of single mother households is much higher, median household and family
income is substantially lower, the poverty and unemployment rates are much higher, and the
proportion of people with high school diplomas or bachelors degrees is much lower.
From 1990 to 2000, the City experienced a decrease in percent white and an increase in poverty
and unemployment.  Median household and family income rose, but at rates well below the
increases for South Carolina and the United States as a whole.  The proportion of owner
occupied housing units increased, as did the proportion of people who graduated from high
school or earned a bachelors degree.  Although the population of Spartanburg County has been
increasing steadily throughout the twentieth century, the population of the City of Spartanburg is
decreasing.  It has dropped steadily from more than 44,500 in 1970, to less than 40,000 in 2000.
Exhibit 2 lists official crime rates in the year 2000 for the City of Spartanburg, the four other
national evaluation sites, South Carolina, and the United States as a whole.  Spartanburg has
higher property, violent, and total crime rates than all of these other comparison groups.  Its
homicide rate is about eight times the average for South Carolina, and more than twelve times
the average for the United States as a whole.  Despite the sheer volume of crime that the Public
Safety Department faces, its clearance rate is higher than the average rates for South Carolina
and the United States.
SEE EXHIBIT 2
The Spartanburg Department of Public Safety
The Spartanburg Public Safety Department employs 257 sworn and civilian employees.  It has
three primary divisions: a Fire Services Division with 69 firefighters, a Police Services Division
with 146 Public Safety Officers, and a Technical and Support Services Division.  As a public
safety department, all police officers are cross-trained in firefighting; patrol officers carry
firefighting equipment in the trunks of their vehicles.  The Fire Services Division has primary
responsibility for responding to fires, while the Public Safety Officers provide additional
resources to the firefighters as needed.  Exhibit 4 lists some basic characteristics of the
Spartanburg Public Safety Department.
SEE EXHIBIT 3
Within the Police Services Division are three secondary divisions: A Field Operations division
headed by a Patrol Captain, a Criminal Investigations division headed by a Captain of
Investigations, and a Traffic and Special Events division headed by a Lieutenant.  All three of
these subdivision heads report to the Colonel in charge of the Police Services division, who in
turn reports to the Director of Public Safety.  Within the Field Operations division is the patrol
team, a housing complex team, and a downtown unit.  Among the sworn personnel assigned to
patrol are 19 community-oriented policing officers, each one responsible for community policing
activities within a geographic area in the city.  The Departments two school resource officers, as
well as the Crime Prevention Unit, are housed within the Criminal Investigation division.
The Public Safety Department has embraced an ongoing comprehensive effort to adopt
community policing and problem solving throughout the department.  Their community policing
plans are included as an explicit component of their strategic plan, which is aptly named:
Policing in Partnership...Preservation Through Prevention.    Community policing is also
woven into the very structure of the police department, with the community divided into 19
geographic areas based on census tracts, each one assigned to a community-oriented policing
officer.  There is also a formal Community Organization/Problem Solving Award that is
designed to be awarded to an officer who distinguishes himself or herself in one or more of the
following areas: solving problems, reducing crime, organizing neighborhoods, or resolving
neighborhood issues.   Furthermore, the Department has embraced the concepts of Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design.   The Department routinely reviews new building
plans prior to approval by the City to provide input on crime prevention before construction
begins.   These are just a handful of the community policing activities in which the Department
engages; space does not permit a more thorough review of the Departments community policing
activities.
The Department has also taken the lead on the racial profiling issue by becoming one of the first
agencies in the nation to develop a bias-based policing policy.    The policy encourages officers
to use the following strategies during pedestrian and vehicle stops:
- Be courteous, polite, and professional.
- Introduce yourself and explain to the citizen the reason for the contact as soon as
practical, unless providing this information compromises safety.  (During vehicle
contacts, provide this information before asking for license and registrations).
- Ensure that the length of the detention is no longer than necessary to take appropriate
action for the known or suspected offense.
- Answer any questions the citizen may have.
- Provide citizens with court dates, including explaining options for criminal or traffic summons.
- If your name and badge number is requested, provide it in writing or by furnishing them
a business card.
- Apologize and/or explain if it is determined that the reasonable suspicions were
unfounded (e.g., after a BOLO contact).
As of October, 2000, the department employed 25% blacks and 73% whites.   Nationally,
blacks constitute only 11.7% of sworn officers in local police departments, thus the department is
racially diverse in comparison with the national average.   At the same time, approximately half
the population of the City of Spartanburg is black, so the proportion of blacks in the department
is substantially lower than in the community.  Females constitute 28% of sworn employees and
50.8% of total employees.  Nationally, females constitute only 10.6% of sworn officers in local
police departments, therefore the department is diverse in this respect as well.
The Department is led by an overall director, A. Tony Fisher.  Chief Fisher is well-read and well-
spoken.  He is able to articulate very clearly his mission, vision, and values for the organization,
and he is well connected with the larger police policy community.  Chief Fisher began his police
career in 1970 as an officer in the Montgomery County (MD) Police Department.  While there,
he served as chairman of the 20,000 member National Black Police Association.   He was
appointed at 33 years of age as Chief of Police in Takoma Park, Maryland, the first African-
American to be appointed to that post.  He served there from 1983 to 1993.  While in Takoma
Park, his work with community-oriented and problem-oriented policing was featured in a front
page article in the Wall Street Journal.   He left Takoma Park to serve as associate director of
the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, where he worked for 18
months.   He then became the first African-American Director of Public Safety of Spartanburg
in August, 1995, an office he has now held for more than seven years.  Exhibit 4 lists the
mission, vision, and values for the Spartanburg Public Safety Department as outlined five years
ago by Chief Fisher.
SEE EXHIBIT 4
 Joyce Lipscomb, Operations Analyst for the Department of Public Safety, and our primary
point-of-contact within the agency, appears to serve as the Departments jack-of-all-trades in all
matters related to grant funding, innovation, research, and evaluation.  In 1999, she received the
Directors Award of Excellence for her work in helping the Department achieve national
accreditation.  The Public Safety Department received national accreditation from the
Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies in March of 1999.  The South
Carolina Police Accreditation Coalition then accredited it at the state level in April of 2000.  The
Department is active in seeking out sources of external funding from a variety of federal, state,
and private organizations.
The Spartanburg School System
Altogether, there are 88 school districts in South Carolina, all mandated by state law (the 1990
School Crime Report Act) to report data on school crime quarterly to the State Department of
Education.   Spartanburg County is home to seven school districts.  Two of the Countys seven
school districts are located in the City of Spartanburg: District 6 and District 7.  The focal school
for this project (Carver Junior High) is located in District 7.  According to data from the 1999-
2000 school year, 38.4% of applicable school districts in South Carolina had higher school crime
rates than Spartanburg District 7.  The District averaged 2.04 school crime incidents per 100
students, compared with a statewide average of 1.70.  The percentage of school districts with
higher crime rates decreased to 33.7% in 2001, and then increased to 40% in 2002.   In both
2001 and 2002, there were 2.14 school crime incidents per 100 students, compared with a state
average of 1.92 (in 2001) and 1.86 (in 2002).
During interviews conducted early in the evaluation process, various members of the Public
Safety Department described their relationship with District 6 schools as troubled.  They reported
having good relationships with District 7 schools.  While both districts were described as having
been in denial about crime, gang, and drug issues, District 7 began to change before the School
Based Partnership project period.  It is in that district that the police department focused its
efforts with the School-Based Partnerships grant.  Within District 7 are three junior high schools:
two are located in areas with low socioeconomic status, while the other is in a middle to upper
middle class area.  The Department chose one of the schools serving a disadvantaged area,
Carver Junior High, as the place to focus its efforts in the School-Based Partnerships grant.
Carver Junior High School was Spartanburgs black high school before integration.  In the 2000-
2001 school year, when the grant was implemented, it had 625 students and 46 teachers in 7th,
8th, and 9th grades.  It is located in an impoverished and predominantly African-American
neighborhood.  More than 60% of students are on free or reduced price lunches.  During the
evaluation period, the Principal was Dr. Robin Johnson.  Dr. Johnson described the mission of
the school as follows: Carver Junior High School is committed to the intellectual, emotional,
and physical development of each student to the fullest extent possible in preparation for pursuit
of a productive, fulfilling life by providing a challenging and diverse education in a safe learning
environment.   Charles Redmond replaced Dr. Johnson as Principal prior to the 2002-2003
school year.  During the school years ending in 2001 and 2002, the school received an absolute
grade of Below Average and an improvement grade of Unsatisfactory on the State
Department of Educations Annual School Report Card.  A rating of unsatisfactory means that
school performance fails to meet the standards for progress toward the 2010 South Carolina
Performance goal.  A rating of below average means that the school is in jeopardy of not
meeting the 2010 performance goal.
Carver Junior High moved into a new building during the evaluation period, in August of 2001.
The old building was in poor condition; the new building was designed with the concepts of
crime prevention through environmental design in mind.  This move had an important influence
on our evaluation strategy because we were unable to rely on a data series that extended beyond
the program implementation period.  Examining a longitudinal data series that extended from the
old school building to the new, both before and after the implementation of strategies to reduce
the number of disputes, would mean possibly confounding the effects of the dispute reduction
strategies and the new building.  Quite simply, with the study period truncated in this way, it
became even more important to rely on a control or comparison group.  In this case, there is
another school in the District, Whitlock Junior High, which serves students from similar
socioeconomic backgrounds.  It has a school resource officer from the Spartanburg County
Sheriffs Office.  Because it is located in District 7, and because it is similar in many ways to
Carver, we chose to use Whitlock as a comparison school.  We will provide more detail about
this decision, and about Whitlock, later in this report.
The School-Based Partnerships Grant
In 1999, the City of Spartanburg received a School Based Partnerships grant for $137,989 to
implement problem-solving strategies in collaboration with Carver Junior High School.  The
focus of the problem solving efforts was disputes, including those between students, between
ethnic groups, and between students and teachers.  According to the grant application, Carver
Junior High School has:
a large number of youth being referred to in-school and out-of-school suspension
due to disputes that are occurring between students, and disputes that are
occurring between students and teachers.  The disputes are both verbal and
physical.  The result is that a number of youth are not in the regular classroom,
which puts them behind in their school work.  This effects [sic] the grades of
those youth, but also effects [sic] the fear level at the school, and effects [sic] the
parents when the youth are out of school.
Based on these concerns, the Public Safety Department, in concert with Spartanburg County
School District 7 and Carver Junior High School, proposed a series of efforts to curb the problem
with disputes.
As we will describe in more detail later, the School-Based Partnerships grant was only one of
many programs being implemented in Carver Junior High School at the time.  According to the
local evaluators, the grant was used as a catalyst to integrate existing activities and fill-in
where necessary (Social Work Solutions, 2001, p. 1).  Because so much programming was
occurring simultaneously, it was often difficult to isolate which activities were covered by the
grant and which werent.  To the best of our knowledge, the grant funded the following programs
and activities:
-	Obtain external training and consultation in Crime Prevention through Environmental
Design (CPTED) and Problem-Oriented Policing.
-	Conduct peer surveys of children assigned to in-school suspension.  The surveys were
conducted by other students and were designed to elicit information about why students
were misbehaving and what could possibly be done about it.
-	Implement a Program Improvement Plan - this was an effort to reduce the number of
students being given repeat in-school suspensions.  It involved the development of an
after-school program for students with two or more in-school suspensions, a point system
with rewards for good behavior, and presentations by officers.  We will describe in more
detail later the exact elements of this program.
-	Assign an officer for 3-4 hours per day to work with students assigned to in-school or
out-of-school suspension.  Five officers appeared to play a central role in the grant
funded activities, teaching violence prevention in classes and in the in-school suspension
program.
In addition to these programs, a number of others were also implemented in the school during the
project period.  Among the most important of these were:
-	A new School Resource Officer (SRO), funded through a Cops In Schools grant started
in September 2000, replacing a Deputy from the Spartanburg County Sheriffs Office
who held the position earlier.  Although the SRO was not formally part of the School
Based Partnerships project, it is difficult to separate his influence from that of the grant.
He came into the school at the same time the grant was being implemented, and he was
personally responsible for carrying out much of its programming.  As we will describe
later, he received virtually unanimous acclaim from people we interviewed, including
students, school staff and administration, school district authorities, fellow officers, and
police administrators.
-	The Back in Control Program, which was originally included in the School Based
Partnerships proposal but cut out by the COPS Office, was implemented using an
alternative funding source.  This program provides parent training to students with two or
more in-school suspensions.  Although COPS eliminated this program from the grant, the
Public Safety Department clearly viewed it as an integral part of their response to the
disputes problem.  Once again, although this program was not formally part of the grant,
it is difficult to isolate it from the grant activities for purpose of the evaluation.
In addition to these programs, numerous others were either being experimented with or were
ongoing during the project period.  To outsiders like us, Spartanburg appeared to be a cauldron
of creative energy, with a number of caring and compassionate people throughout the community
trying to find solutions to the social ills affecting children, including poverty, despair, illiteracy,
teen pregnancy, drug use, and delinquency.  At the same time, as evaluators, we found the
overwhelming number of programs being carried out simultaneously to be a challenging research
problem which made it difficult to isolate the effect of the grant funded activities alone.
According to the grant application, grant funds were used to pay for:
-	a Crime Analyst / Project Coordinator at the Public Safety Department;
-	overtime for officers to work in the school;
-	conference travel;
-	a GIS workstation with software, three laptop computers, and an LCD projector;
-	a color laser plotter and a color Laser Jet printer;
-	training and consultation in CPTED and problem-solving;
-	a local evaluation of the project;
-	Web site development and maintenance;
-	a variety of other miscellaneous supplies.
Clearly, some of these line items were more integrally related to the core substance of the grant
than others.
The grant was accepted in September 1999 and originally scheduled to expire in July 2000.  The
Department received an extension until October 2001.  The project was implemented at Carver
from August 2000 to May 2001.  The local evaluation was completed upon the grants expiration
in October 2001.
II. THE EVALUATION PROCESS
This report describes a social scientific evaluation of the School-Based Partnerships program in
Carver Junior High School.  The evaluation has two major components.  The first is a process or
implementation evaluation designed to evaluate the extent to which the program was actually
implemented.  Research has shown that the process of implementing a program is least as
important as the outcomes it produces (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984; Winn, 1999).  Therefore,
we use a variety of methods, both quantitative and qualitative, to assess the extent to which the
Public Safety Department and the school were able to implement successfully the program they
described in their grant application to the COPS Office.  The second component is an impact
evaluation designed to assess the extent to which the program successfully reduced disputes in
Carver Junior High School.  From a technical perspective, this question is very difficult to
answer for several reasons.  We will describe these constraints shortly, together with the
evaluation design we chose to determine whether the School Based Partnership project in
Spartanburg produced any tangible or measurable benefits.
This section of the report is divided into four subsections.  We begin by examining the research
questions of interest in the process or implementation evaluation.  Next we discuss the principal
research questions in the impact evaluation.  We then describe the various data sources and
research methods used to answer these questions.  We conclude by discussing a variety of
analytical and logistical issues inherent in the evaluation of school-based problem-solving
initiatives.
A. Research Questions: Implementation Process	According to reformers, problem-oriented
policing is a philosophy that must be tailored to the special needs and unique circumstances of
the agency and the community (Goldstein, 1990).  It is not a program that can be carelessly
tacked onto the police agency as an appendage.  Because the focus of POP is on designing
customized solutions to unique local problems, there is some reluctance among reformers to
endorse a cookbook approach to solving problems.  On the other hand, for inexperienced
agencies struggling to understand and implement POP, the availability of a concrete strategy can
sometimes be useful for getting started.  According to Goldstein (1990:66):
The principal danger in providing a detailed procedure is that it will be used to
oversimplify the concept: that more effort will be invested in moving
mechanically through the recommended steps than in the explorations and
thinking that the steps are encouraged to stimulate.
The most well-known method for implementing POP is known as the SARA model, which
stands for Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment.  The SARA model was first
developed in Newport News, Virginia, by John Eck and William Spelman in 1987.  A decade
later, when the U.S. Department of Justice developed a new grant program to diffuse problem-
oriented policing throughout the nation, all applicants were required to use the SARA model.
Police officers throughout the United States can now be heard discussing the SARA approach to
problem-solving.  While it is a useful tool for many agencies, it is important to remember that it
is only one method for implementing problem-oriented policing.  We now introduce the four
elements of the SARA process.
Scanning involves a variety of methods for identifying the problems to be solved.  Police and
schools can do surveys, check calls-for-service records, or request information about problems
from other agencies.
Analysis means collecting and analyzing data about the problems selected during the scanning
stage.  During this stage, officers and others must open their minds to the various kinds of data
that might be useful in solving a problem.  Armed with useful data and insightful analysis,
officers, students, teachers, and others involved in the project are often able to uncover
information that is useful for developing creative response strategies.
In the Response stage, officers and other problem-solvers use the information collected during
the analysis stage in an attempt to solve (or reduce the scope of) the problem.  In some instances,
the response can constitute a single action (such as an arrest) by a single agency.  In other cases,
the response may be a complicated, multifaceted strategy that relies on the cooperation of police,
school officials, parents, and students.
In the Assessment stage, the agencies systematically examine the efficacy of their response
strategy.  In some cases, the assessment may be very simple.  For instance, if the source of the
problem is a single offender, and the offender has moved a far distance away or has been
transferred to another school (or has been incarcerated), then the problem may have been
effectively solved.  In most POP cases, the assessment should be more involved and more
systematic.  The basic question to be answered during this stage is whether the response was
effective.  Good assessments move beyond this simplistic approach, examining the duration of
effectiveness.  For instance, if police attempt to alleviate a problem with speeding motorists by
issuing citations over a short period, they should follow this up by determining how long it takes
before the effects of the increased enforcement begin to diminish.  Another important issue
during assessment is displacement.  A response cannot be judged completely effective for
reducing crime in one area if it increases crime in another area.  This stage of the SARA process
is systematically ignored by many agencies professing to practice POP.  Taking this stage
seriously is one of the major challenges to implementing POP.
Since implementing the SARA process is a fundamental component of all School-Based
Partnerships grants, one important aspect of the evaluation is determining the extent to which it
was successfully implemented in Carver Junior High School.  Thus, the process or
implementation evaluation will examine in detail each of these steps.  The evidence used in this
portion of the evaluation is entirely qualitative.  It is drawn from field notes collected by
members of the evaluation team during interviews and observations conducted within the school
and the public safety department.  Some of the research questions asked during this portion of
the evaluation include the following:
Scanning Phase
-	How were the problems identified?
-	What process was followed, and by whom?
-	What problems were decided upon?
Analysis Phase
-	What kinds of analysis were done to examine the extent of the problem?
-	Who was involved? What types of data were used?
-	What were the sources of the information?
-	Did the analysis phase examine offenders, victims, and locations?
-	How long was this phase (months, days)?
-	What problems and obstacles did the project team encounter during this phase and how
were they solved?
Response Phase
-	What were the primary responses that were implemented?
-	What was the dosage or coverage of these responses?
-	How was the response implemented?
-	What resources did the implementation team draw upon to conduct the response phase?
-	How long was this phase (months, days)?
-	What problems and obstacles were encountered by the team during this phase and what
solutions were decided on to deal with these problems?
Assessment Phase
-	How was the assessment of the response conducted?
-	Who was involved?
-	What types of data were used in this phase?
-	What is the working relationship of the partners?
B. Research Questions: Impact
While it is important to know if programs or policies have been successfully implemented, all
programs and policies are a means to one or more ends.  Therefore, another fundamental element
of a thorough evaluation is determining the impact of a program or policy on a set of outcomes.
Impact evaluations are always normative in the sense that they require the evaluator to state a set
of measurable outcomes and then determine whether the program or policy had any impact on
these measures.  It is important to recognize that the selection of outcome measures is an
important step in this process.  It would be simple to set the bar low so as to ensure a successful
impact.  Evaluators often do the opposite, setting the threshold for success too high, or
defining it too narrowly, leading to the now-clichd conclusion that nothing works.  The
solution is to adopt a middle-level stance, selecting a variety of potential outcome measures,
neither guaranteeing that the evaluation will find a successful impact, nor setting the program or
policy up for failure by setting the threshold for success too high.
In this project, the primary yardstick for determining success is the incidence, prevalence, and
perception of disputes.  At the same time however, the project team also set at least two other
ancillary goals.  First was improving the relationship between police and the school.  Second was
improving overall feelings of safety within the school.  Therefore, in our efforts to determine
whether the School Based Partnerships program had an effect, we will consider these three
dimensions:
1. 	The incidence and prevalence of disputes;
2. 	The relationships between the public safety department and the school, including
students, teachers, staff, and administration;
3. 	The overall perceptions of safety within the school.
Conducting an impact evaluation on these questions will require the use of numerous data
sources.  These are described in detail below.
C. Data and Methods
A good program evaluation chooses a set of appropriate research designs and then, within this
framework, collects and analyzes quality data to learn more about the implementation and impact
of the program.  In this section, we outline the specific steps we followed to design the
evaluation of the School Based Partnerships program in Spartanburg, and collect and gather the
appropriate data.
The evaluation team considered a number of evaluation design options.  Unfortunately, many of
the more rigorous designs for evaluating programs, such as randomized experiments, were not
available to us for a number of reasons.  Principal among these reasons was the timing of the
evaluation.  The project team had already begun its work in Spartanburg in September 2000, four
months before we arrived on site for the first time in late January 2001.  Therefore it was
difficult to collect true baseline data.  Second, the School-Based Partnerships program was
intended to be what evaluation researchers call a full coverage program; it was designed to
provide benefits to all students in the school.  It is much easier to evaluate the success of partial
coverage programs that are only designed to affect a subset of students, since other subsets can
serve as an effective comparison or control group.
Although we were unable to select a control group within Carver Junior High, Spartanburg
County School District 7 has two other junior high schools that could serve as potential
comparison schools.  Whitlock Junior High School, which is located outside of the city, but
serves students from several Section 8 housing developments within the city, is the most
comparable to Carver.  McCracken Junior High, also located within the city, serves a student
body with a much higher proportion of whites and a higher socioeconomic status in an area that
is largely middle-class.  Exhibit 5 lists some characteristics of the three junior high schools.  As a
quick perusal of Exhibit 5 suggests, Carver and Whitlock are comparable in a number of ways,
while McCracken appears to vary significantly from the others.  For that reason, we chose
Whitlock as the comparison school for purposes of this evaluation.
SEE EXHIBIT 5
While Carver and Whitlock are similar, they are also different in some important ways. First,
different police departments serve the two schools.  Carver is located within city limits, and is
therefore policed by the Spartanburg Department of Public Safety.  Whitlock is located in
Spartanburg County, outside of city limits, and is therefore served by the County Sheriffs office.
Second, many students can walk to Carver from their neighborhoods; all students are driven or
bused to Whitlock.  As we have found in several other sites during the national evaluation, the
commuting patterns by which students make their way to and from school have a significant
impact on problems with crime and fear.  Finally, though we were told early in the evaluation by
the Sheriffs Department that we would be able to obtain school arrest data from the County (for
Whitlock), in the end we were only able to obtain such data for Carver.  Thus, although we were
able to compare the schools on a number of dimensions, having arrest data for only one school
was difficult to overcome.
The national evaluation of School Based Partnerships examined a number of local grant
recipients, like the Spartanburg Department of Public Safety, that had already hired a local
evaluator to examine their grant implementation efforts.  In this case, the local evaluators were
George Appenzeller and Sara Meadows, proprietors of Social Work Solutions, a Columbia, SC
based firm focusing on research, training, and evaluation related mostly to social work, alcohol
and drug abuse, and juvenile issues.  Mr. Appenzeller spent some time as an intelligence officer
for both the Army and the Atlanta Police Department, and both have had various experiences in
working with justice agencies.  Neither, however, claimed this as their specialty area.  They
described their evaluation experience as relying mostly on qualitative methods, and they recently
completed an evaluation of the Departments problem-solving efforts related to burglary.
As of our arrival in January, 2001, there was $8,000 budgeted for the local evaluation.  One
important component of conducting a national evaluation in a site that already has a local
evaluation underway is ensuring that the two sets of evaluators do not duplicate each others
efforts.  We were fortunate to work with Social Work Solutions for a number of reasons.  First,
they timed the local evaluation to begin at the same time as the national evaluation.  To make
things easier on our research subjects, we agreed to conduct all of our initial interviews in the
Public Safety Department and the school district together.  Second, since their evaluation
experience focused mostly on qualitative research methods, we agreed to divide up the research
tasks with Social Work Solutions conducting a number of interviews and focus groups, and 21st
Century Solutions focusing on collecting various kinds of quantitative data.  Since both firms
needed to prepare and submit a comprehensive final report, the division of labor was not
surgical: both firms collected and examined at least some qualitative and quantitative data.
Social Work Solutions agreed to take on some additional evaluation duties that emerged as a
result of adding a control school to the project.  The national evaluation team provided some
additional funds to pay for these extra duties.  Together, the two firms signed a memorandum of
understanding outlining the research tasks to be conducted by each.  Social Work Solutions
completed and submitted its final report in October, 2001, which was consistent with the
schedule set by the COPS Office for completing local evaluations.  21st Century Solutions, as the
national evaluators, needed to allow another school year to elapse before completing its
evaluation.  Therefore our final report contains one extra year of follow-up data.
During the course of our research, the evaluation team relied on a variety of data sources, both
quantitative and qualitative, for examining the School Based Partnership project in Spartanburg.
We conducted two student surveys: one at Carver and one at Whitlock.  We analyzed aggregate
disciplinary data from both schools, including in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions,
and expulsions, from 1994 to 2002.  We also examined and coded detailed data on all
disciplinary incidents at Carver and Whitlock during the 2000-2001 school year.  We analyzed
official arrest data and examined follow up data from the courts.  Together with Social Work
Solutions, the local evaluator selected by the Public Safety Department and our research partner
on this project, we conducted dozens of interviews and focus groups in the two schools, in the
school district headquarters, and in the police department.  We shadowed the school resource
officers in both schools, attended Neighborhood Watch meetings, and accompanied a number of
patrol officers on ride-alongs throughout the City of Spartanburg.  One of the founding principles
of the evaluation was that a true understanding of program implementation and impact can only
be achieved by triangulating from a variety of quantitative and qualitative data sources.  In the
following section, we describe each of those data sources in more detail.
1. Surveys
As part of our effort to learn more about life within Carver Junior High School, we conducted
student surveys in Carver and Whitlock on May 8th and 9th, 2001.  The surveys were voluntary,
with potential respondents instructed that no harm would come to them for failing or refusing to
participate.  Nonetheless, response rates were high.  Given research demonstrating that seeking
active consent from parents can lower response rates and contribute to sample selection bias, we
chose to use a passive consent procedure in which parents could refuse to allow their childs
participation, but absent such a refusal from either parents or their children, the survey would be
administered without actively securing parental approval (Andeman, et al., 1995; Esbensen, et
al., 1996).   The survey was 7 pages long and contained 35 questions, nearly all of which were
closed-ended questions requiring the student to select from a set of responses.  Many of the
questions were drawn from the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, a standardized
instrument used in high schools and middle schools across the nation (Fetro, et al., 2001; Kann,
et al., 1998).  The survey instrument is contained in Appendix 1.  In both schools, students were
instructed that their answers would be anonymous and confidential.  Each student placed his or
her completed survey into an envelope, sealed it, handed it to a member of the evaluation team,
and returned to their regularly scheduled class.
Surveys were administered to a random sample of students at Carver Junior High School on May
8, 2001.  The research team selected survey participants using a systematic random sampling
method in which every third name was chosen from a list of enrolled students at each grade
level.  The resulting samples ranged from 64 - 68 students per grade level.  Due to absences,
assignments to in-school or out-of-school suspension, participation in external programs, or a
number of other factors, the number of survey respondents is smaller than the samples selected
for each grade level.  Exhibit 6 lists the enrollment, sample size, and number of respondents for
each grade level at Carver and Whitlock.  The survey was administered in the cafeteria before
and after lunch.  Using the overhead speaker system, the principal called students by name and
grade level from their respective classes at the beginning of the class period to participate in the
survey.  Each grade was surveyed separately during a different class period.  Only one student
actively chose not to participate.  Others might have passively refused by not showing up; we
were unable to check whether this occurred.
SEE EXHIBIT 6
On May 9, 2001 the student surveys were administered at James Whitlock Junior High School.
The students selected to take the survey were again chosen using the same systematic random
sampling technique in which every third name on the list of enrolled students was chosen to
participate.  The resulting samples ranged from 57 - 71 students per grade level. Again, due to a
variety of attendance issues, the number of students participating in the survey was smaller than
the selected sample sizes.  As shown in Exhibit 6, the number of survey respondents at each
grade level ranged from 44 - 54.  Two classrooms were chosen for students to use during the
administration of the survey.  The Principal called the students by grade level at the beginning of
the class period to report to the classrooms and participate in the survey.  Two members of the
survey team supervised one group of students and another member supervised the second group.
Several problems occurred at Carver while the survey was being administered.  While the eighth
graders were taking the survey, another student wandered into the cafeteria.  Some of the
students taking the survey began to whisper about fighting with or attacking this student after the
survey was completed.  A member of the survey team had to retrieve the Principal to ensure that
the fight did not happen.  Some students told members of the research team that they increased
their age level on the survey by one year if their birthday was coming up within the next few
months.  Several students tried to answer by committee, discussing their answers together before
writing them down.  The research team had to warn or separate several such students.  At
Whitlock, as in Carver, several of the eighth graders needed to be separated while the surveys
were being administered to avoid behavior problems and prevent students from collaborating
about their responses.  Several of the students refused to place their surveys in the envelopes
provided by the research team to assure anonymity of responses.  In addition, several students
failed to return to their classroom after leaving the survey room and chose to wander the halls.
An announcement was made by the Principal and the Vice Principal directing them to their
classes.
During the survey, students asked a number of questions.  Some of the common questions
included:
-	Why are we asking about carrying a weapon?
-	What do we mean by weapon?
-	What is an SRO?
Students wondered whether various kinds of implements should be considered as a weapon.  One
student, for instance, asked whether a razor is considered a weapon.  We chose a liberal
definition of the term, to include anything that the survey respondent viewed as a weapon.  The
survey also asked a question about the School Resource Officer (SRO).  Subsequent questions
then used only the abbreviation SRO.  Students found this confusing and wondered what an
SRO was.
When the surveys were administered, students at both Carver and Whitlock had just finished
taking the PACT test the previous week.  The schools were scheduled to close for the summer in
about two weeks.  For those at Carver, it was the last year in the old school building, and many
of the teachers, staff, and administrators were packing their belongings into boxes to prepare for
the move.  We note these issues to acknowledge that it was a stressful period for the students and
employees of both schools.  We are grateful for the overwhelming level of assistance, access,
and support that both schools provided during the survey process.
2. Aggregate Disciplinary Data
We obtained aggregate yearly disciplinary data from Spartanburg County School District 7.
These included the total number of in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, and
expulsions in all three junior high schools for the years 1994-2002.
3. Incident-Level Disciplinary Data
We obtained a data file containing incident level data on every recorded disciplinary incident that
occurred in Carver and Whitlock during the 2000-2001 school year.  This file included 5,218
incidents at Carver and 3,301 incidents at Whitlock.  For each incident, a variety of information
was available, including the date, a description of the offense, and a description of the schools
response.  We used a variety of coding procedures to perform a systematic analysis of these
incident level data.
4. Official Arrest / Court Data
We originally hoped to obtain data on arrests at Carver and Whitlock for the 2000-2001 school
year.  These data would have been used to compare arrest patterns in both schools.  We obtained
arrest data on Carver from the Public Safety Department, but we were unable to obtain arrest
data on Whitlock from the County Sheriff.  In addition to the arrest data, we also obtained data
from the Department of Juvenile Justice tracking the outcomes of arrests and summonses issued
at Carver.  We obtained these additional court data in July 2001.  Some of the cases were still
pending at that point, so we were not able to track the outcome of every case.  Nonetheless, the
police and court data together are useful for illustrating patterns in the processing of criminal
cases initiated by an arrest or summons at Carver.
5. Interview and Observation Data
In addition to the quantitative findings, much of the report is informed by our analysis of
transcribed field notes assembled by the research team during interviews, focus groups, and
observations.  Together with Social Work Solutions, we conducted dozens of interviews in the
two schools, in the school district headquarters, in the public safety department, and in the
County Sheriffs office.  Our research assistant spent two-and-a-half days shadowing the
School Resource Officers in both schools, observing their interactions with students, parents,
teachers, administrators, and other officers.  Her field notes from those 2.5 days alone filled 31
typed, single-spaced pages.  We attended Neighborhood Watch meetings, accompanied a number
of officers on ride-alongs throughout the City of Spartanburg, and toured nearly the entire city,
including most of the housing projects.  In addition, Social Work solutions conducted group
interviews with Carver students in the peer counseling program and after school programs; focus
groups with Carver students who took part in the after-school Program Improvement Plan and
students who did not take part in the program; focus groups of Whitlock students who have and
have not received in-school or out-of-school suspension; and focus groups with parents from
both Carver and Whitlock.  Together, data and findings from all of these sources of qualitative
data will be used in concert with the quantitative data described above to evaluate the
implementation and impact of the School Based Partnerships program.
D. Evaluation Issues
Our efforts to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the implementation and impact of the School
Based Partnerships program in Spartanburg were hampered by a number of factors beyond our
control.  First, the timing of the evaluation relative to the implementation of the program limited
the kinds of data we could collect and research designs from which we could choose.  Any
evaluation that begins several months after a program has already been in place is starting off on
the wrong foot.  Second, it was difficult to separate out the effects of the multiple interventions
taking place in Carver Junior High School, only some of which were paid for through the School
Based Partnerships grant.  Thus, even if we found evidence that disputes or fear decreased, it
would be nearly impossible to determine with any specificity which programs or policies were
responsible for producing the decrease.  Third, even though were fortunate to have a good
comparison school in this case, data from both schools were not always available or strictly
comparable.  These three challenges timing, multiple interventions, and the selection of an
appropriate comparison group represented significant hurdles in carrying out the evaluation and
set limits on the strength of our findings.  We now consider each one in greater detail.
Timing
Due to the timing of the national evaluation grant relative to the School Based Partnerships grant,
Spartanburg was well underway in its program implementation efforts before the evaluation team
began its work. One step that the COPS Office and other funding providers can implement to
strengthen the scientific body of evidence on the impact of crime prevention programs, both in
schools and in other venues, is to pay more careful attention to the timing of evaluation research.
It is common for substantive programs (such as School-Based Partnerships) to be funded before
evaluations of those programs are funded.  At a minimum, evaluation grants should be funded
concurrently with program grants.  An even better solution, although perhaps logistically
difficult, would be to fund evaluation grants before program grants.  This will ensure that
baseline data can be collected before students or citizens are contaminated by having been
exposed to part of the treatment (such as the presence of a school resource officer).  Furthermore,
if evaluators arrive early enough, they can often make suggestions that assist program designers
in formulating an implementation plan that is more amenable to a rigorous impact evaluation.
The timing of an evaluation relative to the implementation of a program is always crucial.  If the
program has already been implemented, then the evaluator is limited to a relatively weak body of
ex post evaluation designs.  If the program has not yet been implemented, then the evaluator has
more powerful ex ante design options available, including the most rigorous: the classic
experimental design (Rossi and Freeman, 1993).  This is a simple and powerful recommendation
that funding agencies can implement with relative ease to enhance the scientific knowledge base
about what works in school-based crime prevention.
Multiple Interventions
The grant funded the following programs and activities: training and consultation in Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Problem-Oriented Policing (POP), peer
surveys of children assigned to in-school suspension, an after-school program entitled the
Program Improvement Plan designed for selected students with two or more in-school
suspensions, and assigning an officer for 3-4 hours per day to work with all students assigned to
in-school or out-of-school suspension.  In addition to these activities funded under the School
Based Partnerships grant, several other programs were implemented as well.  These included a
new School Resource Officer (SRO) funded through a Cops In Schools grant, and the Back in
Control Program, which provides parent training to students with two or more in-school
suspensions.  In addition to these programs, numerous others were either being experimented
with or were ongoing during the project period (Social Work Solutions, 2001).  Although the
proliferation of programs intended to help Carvers students illustrates the commitment of the
police and schools in Spartanburg, it makes it difficult from an evaluation perspective to isolate
the effects of the grant-funded activities alone.
Selecting a Comparison Group
Several interventions were implemented in Spartanburg simultaneously.  Some of these, like the
after school program, could be considered partial coverage programs because they only
focused on a small number of students.  However, even those programs that focused on a sample
or subgroup of students were meant to have school-wide effects.  As noted in the grant
application, the School Based Partnerships program was intended to reduce fear among faculty
and students throughout the school, not just among individual program participants.  Other
programs, like the School Resource Officer, were clearly full coverage programs meant to
influence every student in the school.  Taken together, the various programs implemented under
the School-Based Partnerships programs could really only be considered as full coverage
programs meant to produce benefits for all students, not just a select group.
Having a full coverage program within the school has important implications for selecting an
appropriate evaluation design.  For example, it is not possible to select an experimental and
control group within the school.  Such a design is only possible for partial coverage programs in
which only a subset of the population (such as students or classes) is expected to receive access
to the treatment or the program.  This eliminates a number of possibilities for conducting a
rigorous experiment or quasi-experiment, and leaves only a handful of other good options for
potential evaluation designs.
Given the impossibility of selecting an internal comparison group from within the target
school, we chose the next best option  an external comparison group located outside the target
school.  As we explained earlier, we selected Whitlock Junior High School as the comparison
school.  While this was the best option available to us, it is not ideal for several reasons.  First,
although Carver and Whitlock are similar, there are still numerous differences between them.  If
we find that Carver has a lower rate of disputes, it will be difficult to attribute those differences
to the School Based Partnerships program when they might just as easily be attributed to other
differences between the schools.  Second, arrest data, which are of vital importance in any
evaluation study that focuses on offending levels, are only available from Carver.  As stated
earlier, we attempted to obtain them from the County Sheriffs office for Whitlock, but we were
unable to do so.  Third, although we were able to obtain detailed data on officially recorded
disciplinary incidents at Carver and Whitlock, we cannot be certain that differences in reported
offending patterns reflect real differences in offending rather than simply differences in
recording patterns.  For instance, in 2000-2001, Carver recorded 5,218 disciplinary incidents,
while Whitlock recorded only 3,301 incidents.  Does this mean that Whitlock has 37% fewer
disciplinary problems than Carver, or does it mean that the two schools use different criteria for
recording such incidents?  It is really difficult to know for sure.  For all of these reasons, even
though using an external comparison group is the best option available to us, it presents
numerous challenges.
For data that are only available from the target school, such as the arrest data, another potential
set of design options are reflexive control designs.  These compare an organization (or other
unit) before and after the implementation of a program or policy.  This can be a weak or strong
design depending on the number of data points, both overall, and before and after program
implementation.  Having a large number of time points enables evaluators to use sophisticated
time-series methods, which can be a good evaluation design.  Having only two data points,
known as a simple before-after or pre-post design, is a relatively weak design.  We approached
the evaluation with the intent of compiling a time series database to examine changes in
offending levels and arrests over a large number of time periods.  Unfortunately, data were not
available over a large number of years, so it was not possible to develop a lengthy time series of
yearly or semester-length data.   Furthermore, even when such data are available, the systematic
temporal fluctuations that occur in the normal rhythm of the school year make it very difficult to
use a time series design with smaller units of time like months, weeks, or days.  Summer
vacations, the beginning of school, thanksgiving break, winter break, spring vacation, and the
end of school are all periods that affect the volume of offending or misbehavior.  It is difficult to
control for these kinds of factors in a time series design.  We could possibly minimize some of
these concerns by creating a time series design using data aggregated at the monthly (rather than
daily or weekly) level, but for some measures, this approach leaves us with only 9 months of
data starting at the time the program was implemented.
After considering the various challenges in selecting a good evaluation design, we were left with
design options that are not very rigorous.  We use some simple before-after analyses without a
control group, some before-after analyses with a control group that is not strictly comparable,
some qualitative impressions, and some minimal time series analyses where the data permit.  We
revisit these decisions, and the issue of program evaluation in schools more generally, in the
conclusion to Part IV.
III. IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation evaluations attempt to capture the essence of what programs do
 the actions that make policy real.
-Winn (1999, p. 1)
Implementing new programmatic innovations in complex organizations has proven to be a
daunting challenge.  This challenge arises in organizations of all types: public and private, profit
and nonprofit, manufacturing and service (Pressman and Wildavsky, 1984).  Implementation
theory focuses on the process of implanting new programs, policies and practices in
organizations.  The fundamental assumption is that no matter how well an innovation works, it is
of little utility if not properly implemented (Winn, 1999).  The landscape of administrative
practice, both public and private, is littered with promising programs whose champions were not
able to implement them successfully.  Research and theory on implementation has therefore
become an important component of the larger study of innovation in organizations (Repenning,
2001).  Understanding how implementation efforts succeed and fail is at least as important as
studying the impact of programs and policies.
This section discusses the implementation of problem-solving strategies in Carver Junior High
School as a result of the School-Based Partnerships grant.  Since the grant application asked all
grantees to follow the SARA process, we initially sought to describe the implementation
according to these four steps: Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment.
However, although the implementation process in Spartanburg contained elements of SARA, it
was not as linear a process as SARA presupposes.  Therefore we chose instead to describe the
implementation process without forcing it into the SARA framework.
As outlined previously in this report, multiple interventions that might affect the level of disputes
were taking place within Carver Junior High School.  Some of these were funded by the School-
Based Partnerships grant, some were funded by other grants, and some were paid for through the
normal budgetary process for Spartanburg County School District 7.  Disentangling these
different programs was sometimes difficult.  For instance, although the SBP grant paid for
officers to provide instruction during in-school suspension and the after school Program
Improvement Plan, the School Resource Officer, who was not funded through this grant,
participated frequently in this programming.  Similarly, the Back in Control parent-training
program, which was cut from the original SBP grant proposal, was implemented with an
alternative funding source.  It focused its efforts on the same population of children as the
Program Improvement Plan: students with two or more in-school suspensions.  We are careful to
emphasize that we do not view these crossover efforts as inappropriate; we mention them only
to highlight the difficulty of performing an evaluation under such circumstances.
We begin this section by highlighting four programs or efforts that were most clearly funded by
the grant: the CPTED training and consultation, the peer surveys of children attending in-school
suspension, the after school Program Improvement Plan, and the assignment of officers to
provide anti-violence training during In-School Suspension.  When that is completed, we
highlight some additional programs or efforts that were also introduced during the 2000-2001
school year.  We chose only those that might affect the level of disputes, but which were not
funded through the SBP grant.
Grant Funded Programs
(1) CPTED
The Spartanburg Public Safety Department began the project by hiring Tim Crowe, a nationally
known expert in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, to do some training and
consultation on CPTED methods (see Crowe, 1990).  This process began with Dr. Crowe
providing training on CPTED methods to about 15 public safety officers.  During training, the
officers used Carver Junior High School as a class project to learn about CPTED and developed
a CPTED diagram for the school.  He also conducted a detailed CPTED analysis of the Tobias
Hartwell housing development located across the street from Carver.  His recommendations
resulted in some changes in the design of housing units.  Finally, four officers conducted a
pseudo-experiment on the physical security environment at Carver.  Four young-looking plain-
clothed officers wearing jeans and t-shirts entered Carver Junior High School without
permission, and without any visible signs that they were police officers.  No one stopped or
questioned these officers for more than an hour.  This exercise demonstrated convincingly that
there was a physical security problem at Carver.  Although the Public Safety Department was not
involved in the design of the new Carver building, the architects used CPTED concepts when
designing the school.  With regard to problem-oriented policing and the SARA model, the
various CPTED processes that Spartanburg engaged in contained elements of scanning and
analysis.
(2) Peer Surveys
Four students without disciplinary problems were selected by Carver to conduct peer interviews
and surveys of students assigned to In-School Suspension.  The purpose of these information-
gathering activities was to learn more about why the latter students were getting into trouble.
The interviewers earned points toward $5 gift certificates that could be redeemed at the mall.
The interviewers also served as informants for the school administrators and the police officers
working in the school.  With regard to problem-oriented policing (POP) and the SARA model,
the peer surveys constituted a form of scanning.  The results of these surveys and interviews do
not appear to have been analyzed in a systematic fashion and therefore do not constitute a form
of analysis, at least from a POP perspective.
(3) Program Improvement Plan (or Points for Partners)
The Program Improvement Plan, or Points for Partners, was an after-school program focused on
students assigned to In-School Suspension (ISS) two or more times.  The focus of the program
was broad-based: for participating students to work toward improving themselves in a number of
important ways.  Students were selected for participation for a number of reasons, not just
serious disciplinary problems.  As we demonstrate shortly, students are assigned to ISS for a
variety of offense types or disciplinary infractions.  The most frequent type of infraction
resulting in being sent to ISS is being tardy.  Therefore, students exhibiting poor effort or
classroom performance were also eligible for the program, not just those engaging in disputes
with teachers or other students.  At the same time, many eligible students were not selected
because the Guidance Counselor and the School Resource Officer felt they were too far gone
and would not take seriously the notion of improving themselves.  Thus, participants were those
who met the following criteria: (1) they had two or more ISS placements, (2) they were selected
by the Guidance Counselor and the School Resource Officer, (3) they agreed to participate, (4)
their parents agreed that they could participate, and (5) they did not continue to get in trouble
once they signed up for the program.
The program was originally designed to host 20 kids.  Initially, only ten met the criteria listed
above.  Three dropped out, leaving only seven participants.  Other students requested permission
to join, but were refused.  According to our interview and focus group findings, some of those
who elected not to participate, as well as those who dropped out, felt that the Guidance
Counselor and SRO were too strict.  The remaining participants represented a heterogeneous
group.  Two of the student in the after school program were selected due to lack of performance
in the classroom.  One of these was a child with a high IQ that was not achieving to her full
potential academically.  She was in the gifted and talented program and has never been a
disciplinary problem.  The others were selected based upon a variety of disciplinary issues.
The group met each week on Monday and Thursday afternoons from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m.  The
program operates on a point system.  Kids in the program have a daily log containing teachers'
comments about their progress.  Turning in the log earns them points.  Behaving well earns them
points.  Each time they earn 50 points, they get a $5 gift certificate from the mall.  One student
earned $125; the average was about $30.  The budget for the grant included $2,300 for these
stipends.  Kids who dropped out of the program got no money.  If a kid was placed on academic
probation, he/she lost all money earned.  The kids also had to earn their way on field trips.
Program participants kept journals, they talked about current events and various other issues, and
they routinely read a magazine entitled Career World.  Frequently the teacher assigned the
students to read an article, write about it and present it to the class.  The students learned about
becoming leaders, about improving themselves, about the importance of having good self-
esteem, and about adopting acceptable study skills.  They took field trips to the zoo and
museums.  Participating students who continued to get assigned to ISS were asked to leave the
program.
The SROs role in the program included teaching lessons and reinforcing the Guidance
Counselors lessons and instructions for the participants.  In addition, he brought videos on crime
prevention and the realities of detention in the criminal justice system.  One particular video was
called Get Smart People.  It showed what prison life is like.  From a problem-oriented policing
perspective, this program constituted a major portion of the Departments response phase.
(4) Violence Prevention Instruction
The grant also paid for officers to come into the school for 3-4 hours per day to work with
students assigned to in-school or out-of-school suspension.  Five officers appeared to play a
central role in the grant funded activities, teaching violence prevention in classes and in the in-
school suspension program.  They made presentations on subjects such as violence, gangs,
decision-making, staying in school, domestic violence, and so on (Social Work Solutions,
2001, p. 4).
Other Programs
In addition to these three programs or efforts, three others were also ongoing during the
implementation of the grant: a new School Resource Officer, the Back in Control Program, and
the GREAT Program.  There were numerous others as well that we do not describe here.
(1) School Resource Officer (SRO)
Whitlock Junior High School has had School Resource Officers from the County Sheriffs Office
since 1993.  The 2000-2001 school year was the first year that the Spartanburg Public Safety
Department assigned one of its officers to serve as an SRO in Carver Junior High School.  In the
years prior to the implementation of the School-Based Partnerships grant, the County Sheriff's
Office gave an SRO to every school in the county in return for them paying the matching funds
required under the Uniform Hiring Program grant from the COPS Office.  According to several
reports, the Deputy Sheriff assigned to Carver stayed in his office frequently and did not spend a
lot of time in the classroom or engaging in conversation with the students.  Most of the people
we interviewed stated that there was a clear philosophical difference between the current and
former SRO on the role of school resource officers.
Our research assistant shadowed the current SRO at Carver for one-and-a-half days in May 2001.
At that time, the SRO was 30 years old and married with an infant child.  Prior to his assignment
as a School Resource Officer, he had worked in various other assignments at the Department of
Public Safety for 5 years.  He had never planned to get into law enforcement, but he was laid
off from an industrial job and applied for a job at the county jail.  By the time he left the jail, he
had learned to shoot a gun and was a Sergeant.  A lot of the people who worked at the jail left to
work at the Department of Public Safety.  After his brother joined the DPS, he applied and was
hired.  Instrumental in his decision were rumors that it is different now that Director Fisher is
here.
Although this was his first year working as a School Resource Officer at Carver, he dealt with a
lot of Carvers students in his last assignment as an officer working in the housing complexes.  In
his current role as SRO, he is assigned to the Crime Prevention unit, which includes DARE,
GREAT, SROs, and the Departments Safety Scene cable television show.  The SROs brother
also works within the unit, teaching DARE and GREAT, and hosting the cable television show.
When the SRO was a student in the ninth grade, there was a shooting at his school.  He knows
firsthand the fear that results from violence in schools.  Furthermore, in 2000, his cousin was
killed in a shooting on a street close to Carver.  He said that some of the kids who live on that
street go to Carver.  The kids knew about the shooting; he came back and talked to them about it.
He said, I am honest and forthright with them and they understand.  He also recalled that when
he lived in Michigan, there were only 4 blacks in his school.  He first heard the word nigger
there.  The first day he was in Michigan, he got into a fight on the bus.  He said he understands
how students feel because he has been there.  He tries to teach kids how to handle these types of
situations without getting violent, relying instead on conflict resolution strategies.
The SRO tries to teach kids that they have choices.  Others have told the SRO, who is African
American, that he is working for the white man.  His reply is that he is just giving back to his
community.  He does not want his community to get overrun with drugs and other problems.  At
Carver, he is the assistant football coach and the head basketball coach.  His fianc (now his
wife) attends all the basketball and football games.  Most of the students know her.  He believes
that coaching has helped build his relationship with the kids.
When he first started working at Carver, a group of girls attacked a younger and smaller girl.
The victim had a black eye; one officer said, They almost blinded the girl.  Two staff members
said this was the most violent incident they had witnessed at Carver.  The SRO charged the girls
involved.  He handcuffed them in front of everybody.  In fact, when he arrests students, he
always handcuffs them out in the open.  He believes that Advertising is the best tool in this
school.  He tries to arrest and handcuff the bad kids right in front of their friends.  When other
kids see this, they know that he is serious.  As we will discuss in more detail later, the SRO made
52 juvenile arrests at Carver during the 2000-2001 school year.  Other officers made an
additional 21 juvenile arrests at Carver for a total of 73 in one school year.
When the SRO first came to Carver, he was excited but hesitant about dealing with the kids.  He
appears to believe in an approach that tempers cracking down firmly on misbehavior with
forming enduring relationships with the kids.  He started off with the idea that you have to go in
hard at first.  After that, the kids pass the word around; they know they will get arrested if they
do something bad.  At the same time, as we demonstrate shortly, he works very hard to establish
relationships with them.  His description of the balance he tries to achieve with the kids at Carver
is reminiscent of an old metaphor that likens policing to forging an iron fist within a velvet glove
(Platt and Takagi, 1982).
When asked what his philosophy is, he replied, A School Resource Officer is actually what it is:
a resource for kids, a resource for students, and a resource for teachers.  If a kid has a problem, I
help.  I am a resource for the kids.  He said that he never tries to leave a kid or parent hanging.
I try to find the answer.  I am a resource.  If you develop a relationship with these kids, the kids
will tell you what you want to know. He tries to give the kids encouragement; he tells them
when he is proud of them; he enjoys seeing the kids develop and change.  Many of the kids are
from single parent homes.  He stresses education a lot with these kids; he tells them they need
their education because they can always fall back on it.  He asks some kids what they want to do
when they are out of school and some will say they want to play professional sports.  He asks
them what they will do if they get injured.  He tries to teach them that if they get an education,
they will always have skills to fall back on.  He stresses education so much that the kids even
show him their report cards.  One girl stopped him in the hallway during our observation period
to show him her GPA.  He was proud of her and she was happy.  He said, You have to let kids
develop and grow.  You dont want to stifle them too much.
Some of the following snippets from our field notes illustrate his efforts to achieve a balance
between maintaining a law and order atmosphere while nurturing compassionate relationships
with the students.
- At lunch he plays ball in the gym with the kids.  He walks the halls during class.  He said
that kids never really know where he is.  They know he is around but they never know
where.  He said that after school, he goes out to the bus area.  He stays out there until 4
p.m.
- He said he enjoys interacting with the kids.  He said, First and foremost, you have to
form a relationship with the kids.  He said the kids know everything.  The only way to
find out what is going on is to get it from the kids.
- He frequently refers to his Carver kids as his babies.
- After he arrested a young girl for possession of a knife, the SRO attempted to comfort
her.  He knows her family, knows what grades her sisters are in, and knows their names.
He knew she was concerned and nervous about her mom coming to pick her up at the
police station, and so he kept trying to make her relax and smile.  She laughed with him
while he teased her.  She was frightened at the sight of her mom.  SRO took her mom
aside to speak with her.  When SRO did this, she told me that the whole school likes the
SRO.  She said, Hes nice.  She told me that he helps her and he laughs with the
students.
- While we were talking, a female student came into his office with some baklava.  She
made it in home economics and she brought in two pieces for him.
- He said that most of the kids like him and the bad kids tread lightly around him.
- While we were sitting in his office, he said hi to the kids as they passed by.  He addressed
some of them by name.
- He went out to move his car; I stayed in the office.  He walked back with some kids.  He
was talking and laughing with them.  He seems to really know these kids.  He makes
these kids fell like they are really special.  He seems to have a way of making each kid
feel special.  He knows a lot of the kids by name.  He said he enjoys speaking with the
kids on common ground.  They love to tease him.
- We saw a group of kids assembled in the gym.  SRO asked the first kid what was going
on.  After SRO found out what was going on, and he knew the kids were where they were
supposed to be, he started joking and talking with a lot of the kids.  He arm-wrestled one
of the kids.  Everyone seemed to know the SRO and they seemed to respect him.
- While we were outside, I saw another kid show SRO his report card.  These kids seem to
really love the attention they receive from SRO.
- The SROs brother was outside Carver also.  Both of them teased the students; they both
know the students well.  They addressed a lot of them by name.  You can tell that these
kids just love them.
- While I was waiting outside, I saw one parent wave to SRO from her car.  The kids
appear to feel perfectly comfortable playfully hitting and slapping SRO.  There appear to
be no strong boundaries.
- Upon our arrival, we again go to the principals office.  After leaving the office, we went
to get a kid out of class for hitting another kid.  SRO approached the classroom, opened
the door and called the boy out.  He questioned the boy in the hallway, asking him why
he hit the other kid.  The SRO took both boys into a conference room in the principals
office.  He asked both boys, Whats going on?  He made both boys apologize and
shake hands with each other.  He told them that talking and not hitting could have solved
this misunderstanding.  He said he is not going to charge them.  He instructed them on
how to handle this type of situation in the future.  He also helped them see that assaulting
someone is a criminal offense.  From my observations so far, I can see that this SRO
really tries to teach the kids that some of the things they are doing in school are actually
violations of law and that there are legal consequences.  He wants them to see the
seriousness of the situation.
Although he tries hard to build caring relationships with the students, it is clear that his role as a
police officer is omnipresent.  He keeps a photo album of arrestees.  He keeps his police radio
on at all times.  When our observer noted during a visit to a students home that it was the first
time she saw him wearing his police hat, he remarked that he does not wear it at school, but he
does put it on while conducting his law enforcement duties.  He obtains information from
student informants about offenses committed by other students.  He said that sometimes he
leaves Carver to provide backup and respond to calls.  If a call is close to Carver, then he goes if
nobody else is available.  Im still am officer, he said.  While he works hard to maintain the
velvet glove, the iron fist is always there when it is needed.
During the summer, the SRO said he tries to keep a foundation with the kids. He coaches the
PAL leagues and stays in touch with the kids during the summer.  When school is closed, he
works the street.  In the summer of 2001, just after our observation period, he was planning to
attend a gang school in Mississippi for 3 days; planning to help out with the PAL league until the
end of July; and planning to attend a three-day training session in Atlanta for police in schools.
He said he will also help with DARE camp for a few days.
One final snippet from our field notes serves to illustrate the complexity of the SROs role.
While we were waiting outside, a fight broke out.  A student approached the
SRO to tell him about the fight.  The SRO immediately took control of the
situation and broke up the fight.  The other kids (the spectators) clearly enjoyed
watching this fight.  I kept trying to get in the front so I could watch the SRO
break up the fight but the other kids kept pushing me out of the way.  The
spectators were obviously egging this fight.  The SRO handcuffed both girls
involved in the fight.  This fight was between two black females.  One stopped
fighting when the SRO commanded her to do so.  The other female did not want
to stop; she kept trying to pull away from the SRO.  He was VERY firm with her.
After he had her handcuffed, she continued to battle him and he jerked her arms
behind her body and yelled at her to stop.  The SRO definitely changed his
attitude.  He went from the friendly School Resource Officer to a Spartanburg
Police Officer.  It is kind of like he put on a different hat.  He was now very
serious and firm.  He did not tolerate disobedience from this girl.  He arrested
them and called their parents.  He said he is releasing them to their parents with a
custodial promise; the parents promise to bring the kids to Family Court. Both
girls are being charged.
Although Carvers School Resource Officer was not funded through the School-Based
Partnerships grant, it is impossible to separate his influence from the other anti-drug and anti-
crime efforts happening within the school.  With regard to problem-oriented policing and the
SARA model, he was involved in a variety of scanning and analysis activities, as well as forming
the bulk of the response activities.
(2) Back in Control Program
The Back in Control program provides training for parents (Bodenhamer, 1983).  District 7
authorities targeted approximately 60 parents of students with disciplinary problems, particularly
those with two or more in-school suspensions.  They hope to have 10 parents per workshop
because they want the parents to bring their children.  Students in the Program Improvement
Plan are offered points for attending a session with their parents.  Unlike the after school
program, this program doesn't target a select sample of repeat ISS offenders - it targets all of
them.  The training was scheduled over an eight-week period and occurred every Monday at the
District 7 headquarters.  It started in April 2001.
The COPS Office cut this program out of the grant, but the Department was able to get $3,000 in
private funding to implement it.  The Department still clearly viewed it as a fundamental part of
the response phase.
(3) GREAT
Carver also has a Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) Program, funded by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  GREAT is taught by the SRO's brother, who also
serves as the anchorman on "Safety Scene," the Department's television cable program about the
police.
Conclusion
Multiple interventions were taking place in Carver Junior High School during the 2000-2001
school year.  Many more programs and efforts took place than we have described here.  We have
left out much of the programming that was implemented solely within Carver without
participation from external agencies.  The programs we have described in this section constitute
a multi-faceted approach to problem solving in schools.  However, from an evaluation
perspective, distinguishing between the effects of these many programs is challenging.  In the
next section, we describe our attempts to assess the impact of these many programs.
IV. IMPACT
Introduction
This project was much more useful for evaluating implementation than impact.  Our ability to do
a comprehensive impact evaluation was hampered by a number of factors, including the timing
of the evaluation, the large number of programs being implemented, the move to a new school,
and the lack of data.  Nonetheless, we are able to draw some conclusions about impact, limited as
these inferences may be.  In this section, we trace various pieces of evidence about program
impact, in each case highlighting the problems we encountered in reaching firmer conclusions.
Hopefully, other agencies or evaluators can learn from our experiences.
Reduction in Overall Disciplinary Infractions
If the various programs implemented at Carver were successful, then we might expect to find
evidence of a reduction in the total number of disciplinary infractions.  Spartanburg County
School District 7 maintains a standardized database that records disciplinary infractions in
Carver and Whitlock.  The District made the data for the 2000-2001 school year from this
database available to the evaluation team.  It contained the records for more than 8,500 separate
disciplinary incidents.  Carvers data contained 75 separate infraction types, compared with 66
for Whitlock.  The evaluation team collapsed some of these categories together for the sake of
parsimony.  Exhibit 7 lists the number of infractions by category for Carver and Whitlock.
SEE EXHIBIT 7
Exhibit 7 demonstrates clear differences between the schools.  As with crime reporting in
general, it is unclear whether these differences are real, or whether they are a product of
differences in reporting patterns at each school.  Differences in tardiness levels and bus
violations, for instance, might be attributed to the large number of students bused to Whitlock
compared with Carver.
Even if there are differences in reporting practices between the two schools, these differences are
likely to be temporally stable throughout the school year.  Therefore, it may still be instructive to
examine the monthly trends in the number of infractions, paying more attention to their relative
trajectories than their overall levels.  Exhibit 8 illustrates disciplinary infractions per month for
Carver and Whitlock.
SEE EXHIBIT 8
Although Whitlock has a much lower level of reported infractions than Carver, the overall
trajectories for each school are strikingly similar.  Each appears to be somewhat of a bimodal
distribution with peak infraction periods in October and March, and a lull during the holiday
break in December and January.  Unfortunately, the short time period covered by the data, when
combined with possible differences in reporting or recording patterns in the two schools, make it
difficult to glean much more than that from Exhibit 8.
Reduction in Disputes
The specific goal of the School Based Partnerships grant in Spartanburg was to reduce disputes.
Using the same data set containing all reported disciplinary infractions at Carver and Whitlock,
we coded each infraction type according to whether it constituted a dispute or not.  We coded as
disputes all incidents in which there was a disagreement between two or more people, in which
one or more of the people was behaving disrespectfully, defiantly, disruptively, or violently.  A
number of infraction types were difficult to code and were based on fine shades of meaning.  For
instance, failure to remain in detention hall implies an interpersonal dispute since presumably the
instructor is imploring the student to stay and the student refuses to comply.  Yet, failure to show
up for detention hall does not imply an active interpersonal dispute.  It is a disciplinary infraction
to be sure, but it does not appear to constitute a dispute in most cases.  These kinds of decisions
were necessary as we attempted to determine whether each infraction type constituted a dispute.
Of the 75 unique disciplinary infraction types at Carver, we designated 22 as disputes.  Of the 66
types at Whitlock, we designated 18 as disputes.
Exhibit 9 illustrates the average number of disputes per day for each month during the 2000-
2001 school year.  In computing the daily average for each month, we count only those days in
which school was in session.
			SEE EXHIBIT 9
The trajectories illustrated in Exhibit 9 are difficult to interpret.  Unlike the previous graph, the
two schools exhibit different offending patterns with regard to disputes.  While both schools
started off with monthly increases in disputes from August through November, Carvers increase
was much more pronounced than Whitlocks.  By November, Carver was experiencing nearly 12
disputes per day, compared with just over 6 for Whitlock.  Yet, after November, Carver
experienced a precipitous drop in disputes through January.  Whitlocks disputes also declined,
though much less dramatically.  Whitlocks rate of disputes exceeded Carvers rate slightly from
December through May.  However, absent Carvers massive spike in disputes from August to
November, and then its precipitous decline, the patterns for the two schools would be quite
similar.  Therefore, it is difficult to credit any program at Carver with having produced a
decrease in disputes.  Once again, absent a longer data series, it is difficult to make any
inferences from these trajectories.
Reduction in Official School Responses
There are many official school responses used at Carver and Whitlock in response to disciplinary
infractions.  Based on the 2000-2001 disciplinary data provided by the school district, Exhibit 10
lists these responses together with the number of times they were used at each school.
			SEE EXHIBIT 10
Once again, the differences between the schools are pronounced.   Carver appears to rely far
more heavily on in-school suspension and detention, while Whitlock seems to rely on out-of-
school suspension and bus suspension.  We do not know whether these differences represent
actual differences in official responses to disciplinary infractions, or merely differences in
recording and reporting practices.  Nonetheless, Exhibit 10 illustrates the range of official
responses used by both schools.
Other than the 2000-2001 disciplinary data provided to us by the school district, we were unable
to gain access to monthly counts of in-school suspensions, out-of-school suspension, and
expulsions over a long time period.  Our only alternative was to examine yearly totals for each
official response.  Exhibit 11 contains yearly totals for in-school suspensions from 1998-2002,
Exhibit 12 contains yearly totals for out-of-school suspensions from 1994-2002, and Exhibit 13
contains yearly totals for expulsions from 1994-2002.
		SEE EXHIBITS 11, 12, and 13
The in-school suspension data presented in Exhibit 11 suggest that Carver experienced a
decrease from the 1999-2000 school year (prior to the project) to the 2000-2001 school year.  At
the same time, Whitlock experienced an increase.  We are cautious in making too much of this
pattern for three reasons:  first, the number of in-school suspensions in Exhibit 11 does not match
the total numbers listed in the detailed disciplinary data used to create Exhibit 10.  Second, the
numbers in Exhibit 11 also do not match the numbers contained in the local evaluation report
(Social Work Solutions, 2001).  Finally, there appear to be fairly large yearly fluctuations
throughout the table, suggesting some temporal instability in suspension patterns.   With these
three concerns in mind, we find it difficult to draw any firm conclusions from Exhibit 11.
Nonetheless, if we accept the data at face value, Carver experienced about a 17% decrease in in-
school suspensions, compared with a 52% increase in Whitlock.
With regard to out-of-school suspensions, Carver experienced an increase and Whitlock
experienced a decrease from the 1999-2000 school year (prior to the project) to the 2000-2001
school year.  Although the out-of-school suspension figures appear to be more temporally stable,
we still have some concerns about their lack of correspondence with Exhibit 10.  We also have
some concerns about making inferences from yearly (rather than monthly) data.  Nonetheless, if
we accept the data at face value, Carver experienced about a 10% increase in out-of-school
suspensions, compared with about an 11% decrease in Whitlock.
Nearly everybody we interviewed told us that expulsions are frowned upon in the District.  The
data listed in Exhibits 10 and 13 are consistent with this interpretation.  According to Exhibit 10,
17 students were recommended for expulsion during the 2000-2001 school year.  Yet,
according to Exhibit 13, none were expelled.  Because there are so few expulsions in the
Districts junior high schools, we are not able to detect any trends about program impact from
expulsion data.
Reduction in Official Police Responses
From August 2000 to May 2001, there were 73 juvenile arrests made at Carver.  The School
Resource Officer made 53 of these arrests, with the remainder being made by a number of other
officers.  We hoped to discern some patterns in offending and official police responses to
offending from arrest data for Carver and Whitlock.  Unfortunately, arrest data were not
available from the County Sheriff for Whitlock.  Exhibit 14 lists the SROs monthly arrest data
for the 2000-2001 school year for Carver.
		SEE EXHIBIT 14
We also obtained family court data from the Department of Juvenile Justice to learn more about
the results of arrests made at Carver.  Once again, without similar data from Whitlock, these
findings cannot address program impact.  Nonetheless, we present them because they are
interesting and informative.  Exhibit 15 lists the outcomes of 80 separate charges filed against
students at Carver.
		SEE EXHIBIT 14
Nearly a third of the cases coming from Carver were dismissed.  Only about 10% resulted in a
sentence of probation.  Consistent with the family courts mission, many cases appear to be
diverted to arbitration, truancy, or other programs.
Qualitative Evidence
In addition to the quantitative indicators of program success that we have just examined, we also
examined qualitative evidence collected through interviews, observations, and focus groups.  The
local evaluators summed up the qualitative findings succinctly: there was nearly universal
agreement among those interviewed that this project had shown beneficial effects at Carver
Junior High in several ways (Social Work Solutions, 2001).  According to the local evaluation
report, the project had the following benefits:
- That Officer Johnson had established a presence of friendly authority at the school.
- That Officer Johnson has become a sought-after resource to students and teachers for
conflict resolution and early intervention.
- That the specialized after-school groups have been helpful to the students who
participated in them.
- That the ISS conflict resolution classes have shown some positive effects.
- That some students who do receive ISS referrals are now more likely to take
responsibility for their actions and less likely to make excuses.
- That the number of reported school incidents may have increased, but the severity of the
incidents has declined.
Of course, not all of these successes can be attributed to the School Based Partnerships grant
since the grant did not pay for the School Resource Officer.  Yet, the qualitative evidence
supports the assertion that other elements of the project that were grant funded also had some
positive effects.  For instance, participants in the Program Improvement Plan (or Partners for
Points) program told the evaluation team that they realized a number of specific benefits:
leadership skills, improved grades, and the opportunity to think about the important issues they
face each day.
Discussion and Conclusion
In some ways, the evidence presented in this section is contradictory.  We do not find stable and
convincing evidence from the quantitative data we examined to suggest that the interventions
implemented at Carver Junior High School produced a wholesale reduction in disputes or other
disciplinary infractions.  Perhaps this conclusion would have been different with more and better
data.  We are not concluding that the program had no effect - we simply are unable to discern
such an effect with the data to which we had access.
Findings from the qualitative portions of the evaluation are largely positive.  The members of the
project team, as well as students who participated in project-related programming gave the
project high ratings.  Some students, parents, and teachers reported that they did not know much
about the project, leading the local evaluators to recommend that it be publicized more widely.
Nonetheless, many people found that the project had achieved its objectives.  The after-school
program ended up having only a handful of participants, some of whom were not responsible for
disputes.  Therefore, although it produced benefits for participants, it is unlikely to have
produced widespread dispute reduction benefits, particularly for students who did not participate
in it.  Some informants also suggested that the major benefit was a reduction in the severity of
disputes rather than a reduction in the quantity of disputes.  Since we did not attempt to measure
severity in our quantitative data, this program benefit would not have showed up in our analyses.
V. CONCLUSION
The majority of Americans view community policing as a solution to problems of crime and
disorder in schools.  In a 1999 telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of more
than 500 registered voters, 81% supported a proposal to establish community policing in schools
as a way of identifying early warning signals and preventing discipline problems or safety
hazards from erupting into greater tragedies (Democratic Leadership Council, 1999).  This
report provided the details of a process and impact evaluation of one such program implemented
in Spartanburg, South Carolina.
The project team invested a lot of energy in designing a multi-faceted project meant to reduce the
incidence and prevalence of disputes in Carver Junior High School.  Some of the project
elements were not funded through the School-Based Partnerships grant, but it is clear that these
unfunded or alternatively-funded elements were still considered a vital component of the overall
project.  Given the simultaneous implementation of these elements, it was not possible to isolate
the effects of each one in conducting the evaluation.
The project team was successful in implementing all of the projects elements.  Not all of them
appear to have played as central a role in the project as others.  The School Resource Officer
received virtually unanimous acclaim from students, teachers, school administrators, and peers in
the Public Safety Department and we see a lot of benefits to continuing his role in the school.
The anti-violence presentations by officers in the schools also appear to be targeting the
appropriate audience and we see no reason why they should not continue.  The peer surveys
might have produced some information for the Guidance Counselor and the SRO, but we were
unable to discern any specific benefits that would be likely to have a wholesale effect on
disputes.  If the peer surveys continue, we recommend investing energy in collecting and
analyzing their findings more systematically, consistent with the precepts of problem-oriented
policing.  The after-school program attracted fewer students than it originally targeted.
Furthermore, the students it did attract do not appear to have been responsible for participating in
large numbers of disputes.  Should it continue, we recommend increasing the number of students
and making a careful effort to enroll those students participating in the most disputes.  At the
same time, we take to heart one comment from a student in the program who suggested that there
are benefits to having a mixed group of participants, some of whom are more serious offenders
than others.
In addition to these substantive recommendations, we also have some recommendations for
conducting periodic self-assessments.  The key to becoming a learning organization capable of
measuring, diagnosing, and transforming itself is to periodically examine evidence about the
organizations effectiveness.  The School Districts disciplinary data have the potential to serve
as a wonderful tracking device for detecting patterns in school-based disciplinary infractions and
offending.  Exhibits 8 and 9 illustrate some of the simple trend analyses that can be conducted
regularly, with little expense, to determine whether offending patterns are changing.  This kind
of ongoing analysis will serve to enhance an already fruitful partnership between Spartanburgs
School District 7 and the Department of Public Safety.
REFERENCES
American Civil Liberties Union (2000).  South Carolina Town Fights Racial Profiling with Data
Collection.  WWW document (March 31).
[http://archive.aclu.org/news/2000/w033100c.html].
Andeman, C., Cheadle, A., Curry, D. S., Diehr, P., Shultz, L., & Wagner, E. (1995). Selection
bias related to parental consent in school-based survey research. Evaluation Review, 19,
66374.
Bodenhamer, Gregory (1983).  Back In Control: How to Get Your Children to Behave.  Simon
and Schuster.
Boyce, J.N. (1992, August 5).  Softer style of policing takes hold in cities like Takoma Park,
MD.  Wall Street Journal, Section A, page 1, column 1.
Platt, T., and P. Takagi (1982).  The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove: An Analysis of the U.S.
Police. San Francisco: Crime and Social Justice Associates.
Crowe, Timothy D. (1990).  Designing Safer Schools.  Los Angeles, CA: National School Safety
Center.
Democratic Leadership Council (1999).  Survey of 502 registered voters conducted by Penn,
Schoen and Berland Associates (June).
Esbensen, F. A., Deschenes, E. P., Vogel, R. E., West, J., Arboit, K., & Harris, L. (1996). Active
parental consent in school-based research: An examination of ethical and methodological
issues. Evaluation Review, 20, 73753.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2001).  Crime in the United States, 2000.  Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Fetro, Joyce V., Karin K. Coyle, and Phong Pham (2001). Health Risk Behaviors Among
Middle School Students in a Large Majority-Minority School District.  The Journal of
School Health, 71(1): 30-37.
Goldstein, Herman (1990).  Problem-Oriented Policing.  New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hickman, Matthew J. and Reaves, Brian A. (2000).  Law Enforcement Management and
Administrative Statistics Local Police Departments, 2000.  Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (January, NCJ 196002).
Jeffrey, C. Ray (1971).  Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.  Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Kann, L., Kinchen, S. A., Williams, B. I., Ross, J. G., Lowry, R., Hill, C. V., Grunbaum, J. A.,
Blumson, P. S., Collins, J. L., Kolbe, L. J., & State and Local YRBSS Coordinators.
(1998). Youth risk behavior surveillance United States, 1997.  Journal of School
Health, 68, 355-369.
Kenney, Dennis J. and T. Steuart Watson (1998).  Crime in Schools: Reducing Fear and Disorder
with Student Problem Solving.  Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Newman, Oscar (1972).  Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design.  New
York: Macmillan.
Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Aaron B. Wildavsky (1984).  Implementation, 3rd Edition.  Berkeley,
CA: University of California.
Repenning, N.P. (2001).  A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of
Innovation Implementation.  Organization Science.
Rossi, P.H., & Freeman, H.E. (1993).  Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 5th Edition.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Social Work Solutions (2001).  Report on an Evaluation of a U.S. Department of Justice School
Parternship Grant to the Public Safety Department of Spartanburg, South Carolina.
Columbia, SC (October 16).
Spartanburg Public Safety Department (1998).  Policing in Partnership...Preservation through
Prevention: Strategic Plan.  Spartanburg, SC: January 1.
Spartanburg Public Safety Department (2001).  Law Enforcement Agency Annual Report.
Submitted to the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (2/7/01).
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (2001).  Crime in South Carolina, 2000.  Columbia,
SC.
Takoma Park Police Chief Quits (1993, September 9).  Washington Post, p. C5.
Whitaker, J.D. (1982).  Candidate Fisher, Sheriff Young Shoot it Out in Bethesda.  Washington
Post.  Metro section, p. B5.
Winn, Ellen (1999).  Understanding How Change Occurs: Implementation Research in the
TANF Era.  The Forum: Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New
Federalism, 2(3): 1-4.
Exhibit 1:
Selected Demographic, Social and Economic Characteristics
% Black
Spartanburg
1990 45.6%
2000 50.1%
South Carolina
1990 29.8%
2000 29.5%
United States
1990 12.1%
2000 12.3%
% White
Spartanburg
1990 53.1%
2000 47.8%
South Carolina
1990 69.0%
2000 67.2%
United States
1990 80.3%
2000 75.1%
% Other Race
Spartanburg
1990 1.3%
2000 2.1%
South Carolina
1990 1.1%
2000 3.3%
United States
1990 7.7%
2000 12.6%
% Owner Occupied Housing Units
Spartanburg
1990 48.2%
2000 49.8%
South Carolina
1990 69.8%
2000 72.2%
United States
1990 64.2%
2000 66.2%
% Renter Occupied Housing Units
Spartanburg
1990 51.8%
2000 50.2%
South Carolina
1990 30.2%
2000 27.8%
United States
1990 35.8%
2000 33.8%
% Living in Same Home as 5 Years Ago
Spartanburg
1990 52.4%
2000 51.5%
South Carolina
1990 55.6%
2000 55.9%
United States
1990 53.3%
2000 54.1%
% Households with Single Mother Families
Spartanburg
1990 14.5%
2000 14.3%
South Carolina
1990 9.5%
2000 8.5%
United States
1990 7.6%
2000 7.2%
Median Household Income
Spartanburg
1990 $22,423
2000 $28,735
South Carolina
1990 $26,256
2000 $37,082
United States
1990 $30,056
2000 $41,994
Median Family Income
Spartanburg
1990 $29,304
2000 $36,108
South Carolina
1990 $30,797
2000 $44,227
United States
1990 $35,225
2000 $50,046
% Persons Below Poverty Level
Spartanburg
1990 21.8%
2000 23.3%
South Carolina
1990 15.4%
2000 14.1%
United States
1990 13.1%
2000 12.4%
% Families Below Poverty Level
Spartanburg
1990 17.1%
2000 19.4%
South Carolina
1990 11.9%
2000 10.7%
United States
1990 10.0%
2000 9.2%
% Unemployed
Spartanburg
1990 4.2%
2000 5.4%
South Carolina
1990 3.5%
2000 3.6%
United States
1990 4.1%
2000 3.7%
% HS Graduate or Above
Spartanburg
1990 65.9%
2000 72.4%
South Carolina
1990 68.3%
2000 76.3%
United States
1990 75.2%
2000 80.4%
% Bachelors Degree or Above
Spartanburg
1990 23.4%
2000 26.0%
South Carolina
1990 16.6%
2000 20.4%
United States
1990 20.3%
2000 24.4%
Exhibit 2:
Official Crime Statistics
5 National Evaluation Sites
Violent Crime per Capitaa
South Carolina  12.0
United States  11.7
Colorado Springs, CO 19.3
Redlands, CA 65.4
Seattle, WA 1.5
Spartanburg, SC 8.2
Westwood, MA 5.1
Property Crime per Capitaa
South Carolina  45.1
United States  30.6
Colorado Springs, CO 72.7
Redlands, CA 102.2
Seattle, WA 8.3
Spartanburg, SC 44.5
Westwood, MA 36.2
Total Index Crimes per Capitaa
South Carolina  57.1
United States  42.3
Colorado Springs, CO 92.0
Redlands, CA 167.6
Seattle, WA 9.8
Spartanburg, SC 52.7
Westwood, MA 41.3
% of Offenses Cleared by Arrest
South Carolina  45.2%
United States  31.9%
Colorado Springs, CO 22.6%
Redlands, CA 31.2%
Seattle, WA 31.2%
Spartanburg, SC 21.2%
Westwood, MA 20.5%
a. Expressed per 1,000 people
Exhibit 3:
Characteristics of the Spartanburg Public Safety Department (Police Services
Division)
# Sworn Officers
146
# Civilian Employees
22
# Total Employees
168
Sworn Officers per Capita a
3.68
Percent Civilian
13%
Percent Black
25%
Percent Female
28%
a. Expressed per 1,000 people
Exhibit 4:
Mission, Vision, and Values Statement
MISSION
We, the Public Safety Department of Spartanburg, are committed to providing high quality Police and Fire Services
in partnership with the community through dedicated efforts and innovative programs. Our success is critical for
improving the quality of life in our city through promoting safety while maintaining respect for human dignity and
the individual rights of our citizens.
VISION
To assure the success of our mission as we move into the 21st century, we will develop partnership that are trusting
and interactive, and we will invest in our employees to enhance their problem solving skills and leadership abilities.
As a result, the City of Spartanburg will become a safer, more desirable and vibrant community.
VALUES
INTEGRITY
We will continue to strive for total honesty and integrity in order to provide a strong foundation for building trust in
our community and organization.
RESPECT
We are committed to maintaining the utmost respect for each other and the individual rights of the citizens we serve.
PRIDE
We are proud to serve in a growing and vibrant community. Our pride and confidence in what we do reflects how
we feel about our department and the community we serve.
LOYALTY
We are committed to upholding the constitutions of our nation and state, the principles and values of the
Spartanburg Public Safety Department, and the trust of the community we serve.
ACCOUNTABILITY
We recognize that in our chosen profession, we are held to a higher level of accountability. Therefore, we accept no
less than the highest order of responsibility for our decisions and actions.
PARTNERSHIPS
We are committed to developing trusting and interactive relationships with the community in order to foster mutual
respect and understanding. These partnerships will enhance the quality of life for all citizens.
We realize that the expression of ideas is meaningless unless actively practiced. Therefore, we are dedicated to all of
the above values in order to promote a professional work place and a safe environment for our employees and the
citizens which we serve.
Exhibit 5:
Spartanburgs Three Junior High Schools
Carver
Whitlock
McCracken
2001 School Report Card Grade
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Below Avg.
Teachers Satisfied with Learning Environment
32.6%
40%
88.2%
Students Satisfied with Learning Environment
30.6%
53.1%
66.9%
Students receiving free/reduced lunch
60%
84%
39%
Students scoring basic or above on the PACT (English)
57.1%
37.3%
64.4%
Students scoring basic or above on the PACT (Math)
52.1%
33.1%
50.1%
Student-teacher ratio
20.8 to 1
20.1 to 1
10.4 to 1
Student retention rate
8.5%
10.3%
.7%
Dropout rate
1.1%
.5%
0%
Students that are older than usual for grade
8.6%
10.8%
1.7%
Students with disabilities other than speech
13.4%
18%
11.7%
Student attendance rate
93.9%
91.1%
95%
Exhibit 6:
Student Survey Sample Sizes
School
Grade
Total
Students
Students in
Sample
# Survey
Respondents
% Survey
Respondents*
Carver
7
206
68
55
27%
8
202
67
49
24%
9
192
64
46
24%
Whitlock
7
214
71
48
22%
8
173
57
44
25%
9
199
66
54
27%
* This column lists the percentage of enrolled students at each grade level that responded to the
survey.
Exhibit 7:
Nature of Disciplinary Infractions at Carver and Whitlock
Nature of Infraction
Carver Incidents
Whitlock Incidents
Excessive Tardies
1,758
337
Misconduct
1,533
752
Disrespect
496
311
Failure to Attend
466
614
Defiance
437
422
Profanity
154
145
Fighting
123
148
Leaving Without Permission
111
158
Bullying, Threats, Intimidation
68
136
Possession of Unauthorized Substance
21
34
Bus Violation
21
134
Destruction
10
4
Theft
9
14
Unauthorized Presence
6
13
Other
4
59
Without Pass or ID
1
20
Exhibit 8:
Total Disciplinary Infractions, August 2000 - May 2001
Exhibit 9:
Monthly Dispute Totals for Carver and Whitlock, 2000-2001
Exhibit 10:
School Responses to Disciplinary Infractions at Carver and Whitlock
Nature of Response
Carver Responses
Whitlock Responses
In-School Suspension
2,369
1,374
Detention
2,102
710
Out-of-School Suspension
395
745
Conference
123
31
Removal from Activity/Class
97
63
Referral
52
27
Warning
29
45
Bus Suspension
18
132
Recommended Expulsion
17
18
Parent Contact
10
17
Community Service
1
4
Other
0
12
Exhibit 11:
In-School Suspensions, 1998-2002
Year
Carver
Whitlock
McCracken
Total
1998-1999
993
*
*
*
1999-2000
2,499
1,419
753
4,671
2000-2001
2,077
2,160
1,080
5,317
2001-2002
2,569
1,061
987
4,617
Exhibit 12:
Out-of-School Suspensions, 1994-2002
Year
Carver
Whitlock
McCracken
Total
1994-1995
489
522
341
1,352
1995-1996
200
226
181
607
1996-1997
218
244
219
681
1997-1998
246
265
159
670
1998-1999
167
190
113
470
1999-2000
187
325
171
683
2000-2001
203
288
196
687
2001-2002
189
358
181
728
Exhibit 13:
Expulsions, 1994-2002
Year
Carver
Whitlock
McCracken
Total
1994-1995
3
7
7
17
1995-1996
8
19
9
36
1996-1997
3
2
1
6
1997-1998
1
6
2
9
1998-1999
1
2
0
3
1999-2000
1
0
0
1
2000-2001
0
1
2
3
2001-2002
3
2
0
5
Exhibit 14:
Arrests by SRO at Carver, August 2000 - May 2001
Month
Total Arrests
8 / 2000
9 / 2000
10 /2000
11 / 2000
12 / 2000
1 / 2001
2 / 2001
3 / 2001
4 / 2001
5 / 2001
Exhibit 15:
What Happens to Cases Resulting from an Arrest at Carver?
Category
Cases
%
Dismissed
25
31.3%
Unknown
14
17.5%
Pending
11
13.8%
Probation
8
10.0%
Nolle Prosequi
6
7.5%
Choices Program
5
6.3%
Arbitration
5
6.3%
Other
3
3.8%
Determinate Sentence
2
2.5%
Pre Trial
1
1.3%
	  We use the term project team throughout this report to refer to the police and school
officials who developed and implemented the School-Based Partnerships project.  We use the
terms research team and evaluation team interchangeably to refer to the individuals who
conducted the local and national evaluations of the program.
	  The population of Spartanburg is 39,673 according to the 2000 Census.
	  The population of Spartanburg County is 253,791 according to the 2000 Census.
	  The population of the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area is 962,441
according to the 2000 Census.
	  Spartanburg Public Safety Department, 1998.
	  Spartanburg Public Safety Department, General Order 450.1.
	  For more information on CPTED, see Jeffrey (1971), Newman (1972), or Crowe (1990).
	  Spartanburg Public Safety Department, General Order 560.1.
	  American Civil Liberties Union, 2000.
	  Spartanburg Public Safety Department, General Order 100.5.
	  Spartanburg Department of Public Safety, 2001.
	  Hickman and Reaves, 2003.
	  Hickman and Reaves, 2003.
	   Whitaker, 1982.
	   Boyce, 1992.
	   Takoma Park Police Chief Quits, 1993.
	  S.C. Code Ann., Sections 59-63-310-390 (2000).
	  South Carolina School Crime Incident Reports, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
	  The State of South Carolina, Annual School Report Card, 2001.  Carver Junior High.
	  The State of South Carolina, Annual School Report Card, 2001.  Carver Junior High.
	  Active consent means requiring participating students to submit written permission from a parent to
participate in the survey.  Passive consent means informing parents that a survey is being planned and instructing
them to notify school officials if they do not want their child to participate.
	  We were provided with only one year of disciplinary data and arrest/summons data for the year during
which the program was implemented (2000-2001).  A longer data series could have been useful for establishing
offending trajectories prior to the programs implementation.  Unfortunately, arrest patterns from previous years
would not have been useful because a different School Resource Officer with a different philosophy about his role
was previously assigned to the school, therefore the previous years arrest data would not have been comparable
with the current years data.  We would also have liked to access data for the year following program
implementation, but the school moved to a brand new building during that year.  The old school was designed
poorly, had graffiti on the walls, and offered numerous opportunities for offending in poorly guarded areas.  Moving
to a new school that was designed better and showed more evidence of being cared for might have independently
affected offending levels.  Therefore, had we collected offending or arrest data from the new school during the
2001-2002 school year, we would not have been able to attribute any changes to the effects of the School Based
Partnership program.  Any such changes might just as easily have resulted, directly or indirectly, from moving to a
new building.  For these reasons, some of our data series were only available for the 2000-2001 school year.
  Furthermore, these numbers do not match yearly totals for in-school and out-of-school suspensions listed in
Exhibits 11 and 12.
  For instance, from 1998/1999 to 1999/2000, Carver experienced nearly a 152% increase in in-school suspensions.
  All of the items in the bulleted list are extracted verbatim from the local evaluation report (Social Work Solutions,
2001, p. 6).
	  South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (2001).
	  Federal Bureau of Investigation (2001).
	  We use the term misconduct to refer to those rule violations that do not involve a victim or that do not
bring pain or hurt to other people.  Some of the behaviors classified within the misconduct category include locker
violations, dress code violations, horseplay, being unprepared for class, disturbing the class, etc...