SUCCESSFUL, SAFE, AND HEALTHY STUDENTS

upporting student success requires deploying every tool at our disposal. The students 

most at risk for academic failure too often attend schools and live in communities with 

insufficient capacity to address the full range of their needs. The result is that students 

cannot always focus on learning and teachers cannot always focus on teaching.

Preparing students for success requires taking innovative, comprehensive approaches to 

meeting students' needs, such as rethinking the length and structure of the school day and 

year, so that students have the time they need to succeed and teachers have the time they 

need to collaborate and improve their practice. It means supporting innovative models that 

provide the services that students need; time for teachers to collaborate to meet academic 

challenges; environments that help all students be safe, healthy, and supported in their 

classrooms, schools, and communities; and greater opportunities to engage families in their 

children's education and strengthen the role of schools as centers of communities.

S

OUR APPROACH

►Providing a cradle through college and career continuum in high-poverty 

communities that provides effective schools, comprehensive services, and family 

supports.

►Supporting programs that redesign and expand the school schedule, provide highquality afterschool programs, and provide comprehensive supports to students.

►Using data to improve students’ safety, health, and well-being, and increasing the 

capacity of states, districts, and schools to create safe, healthy, and drug-free 

environments.
This page intentionally left blank.
PROMISE NEIGHBORHOODS

OUR APPROACH

► Comprehensive approach. Supports comprehensive programs to combat the effects of poverty 

and improve children and youth’s education and life outcomes from birth through college and into 

careers.

► School-community-organization partnerships. Through grants to community-based 

organizations, engages schools, the community, and partner organizations to secure sustainability 

and long-term success.

► Community-based. Focuses resources on targeted, distressed neighborhoods to promote 

intensive, well-coordinated action.

In communities of concentrated poverty, 

children are more likely to face barriers to 

educational success, such as health and 

safety challenges. A concentration of poverty 

increases the likelihood that children face mental 

health and physical challenges (Sampson et al., 

2002), such as obesity (Boardman et al., 2005), 

poor nutrition (Morland et al., 2002), and lack of 

exercise (GAO, 2006; Yen and Kaplan, 1998), 

and are afraid to attend school (Rumberger and 

Palardy, 2005). Children’s health and safety are 

extremely important in their own right, but each 

also is linked to improved academic outcomes. 

For example, asthma (Taras and Potts-Datema, 

2005) and access to school breakfast (Taras, 

2005) have negative and positive associations, 

respectively, to student attendance. Similarly, 

unsafe school environments, including 

environments where bullying and harassment 

occur, are associated with disengagement from 

school and increased absences (Nansel et al., 

2003; Osher and Weissberg, 2007; Paludi et al., 

2007; Smokowski and Kopasz, 2005). 

Children living in communities of 

concentrated poverty also experience 

challenges with mobility, family support in 

school, and access to 21st-century learning 

tools. Living in a high-poverty area increases the 

likelihood that children move homes and change 

schools frequently (Burkam et al., 2009), and 

mobility is negatively associated with academic 

outcomes (Reynolds et al., 2009). Living in a 

disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with 

parental behaviors that result in reduced verbal 

skills of young children (Kohen et al., 2008). 

Additionally, parents’ own education is strongly 

correlated with their expectations for their 

children’s education attainment (Herrold and 

O’Donnell, 2008). Finally, living in a community 

of concentrated poverty decreases the likelihood 

that children have access to necessary 21stcentury learning tools, such as the Internet 

(Horrigan, 2008). 

Comprehensive community-wide models are 

a promising approach to overcoming the 

challenges faced by schools located in 

communities with concentrated poverty. 

Historically, the Department has not funded 

programs that support community 

transformation to improve educational, 

developmental, and health outcomes of children 

in distressed communities. The Promise 

Neighborhoods program addresses this void by 

supporting comprehensive approaches to 

providing access to high-quality educational 

opportunities, effective community services, and 
strong systems of family support. It will build on 

the lessons learned from the Harlem Children’s 

Zone, which addresses these interrelated barriers 

to learning and provides comprehensive supports 

throughout the community. The Harlem 

Harlem Children’s Zone

New York, New York

The Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) is a comprehensive, neighborhood-based, anti-poverty program. It began 

in the 1990s and has achieved impressive results for disadvantaged children and youths who live in the 

97-block Zone. The HCZ aims to help children by working with families as early in children’s lives as 

possible and continuing to support children through their college graduation. HCZ provides a continuum of 

coordinated, best-practice programs for every developmental stage of children’s lives (“HCZ Pipeline”) and 

surrounds them with caring adults who support them as they grow. The HCZ Pipeline focuses on academic 

achievement, cultural enrichment, and social services programs. It offers free services for children and 

youths living in the Children’s Zone, including those who attend traditional public schools and the Zone’s 

own two public charter schools. Examples of programs for children and youths include Baby College (a 

program of parenting workshops for parents of children ages 0–3), early childhood, afterschool and 

summer programs for all age groups, college preparation and support through college graduation, and 

health screenings and health care. In addition, families can access services, such as financial, legal and 

benefits counseling; and family strengthening and foster care prevention. Evaluations and data are used to 

improve programs and identify needed enhancements and have been crucial elements of HCZ’s success. It 

also operates Promise Academy Charter Schools I & II. Combined, the charters serve students in grades K–

6 and 9–10; both will eventually grow into full K–12 systems. Examples of positive program results include:

► In 2008–09, 100 percent of third-graders at the two Promise Academy schools tested at or above 

grade level on the state mathematics exam (Harlem Children’s Zone, 2010).

► A rigorous study found that HCZ charter schools increased achievement in mathematics and 

reading in elementary school and mathematics in middle school (Dobbie and Fryer, 2009).

► The Harlem Children’s Zone Asthma Initiative participants are doing significantly better in asthma 

management and symptom reduction since joining the program and the percentage of participants 

that missed school during a two-week period due to asthma decreased from 23 percent to 8 

percent after 15 months (Nicholas et al., 2005).

Children’s Zone has demonstrated extraordinary 

outcomes (Dobbie and Fryer, 2009) and provides 

a model for community-wide support that can be 

replicated, tested, and evaluated.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boardman, Jason, Jarron Saint Onge, Richard Rogers, and Justin Denney (2005). Differentials in obesity: 

The impact of place. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(3):229–243. 

Burkham, David, Valerie Lee, and Julie Dwyer (2009). School mobility in the early elementary grades: 

Frequency and impact from nationally-representative data. Paper prepared for the Workshop on the 

Impact of Mobility and Change on the Lives of Young Children, Schools, and Neighborhoods, June 

29–30, 2009. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://www.fcdus.org/usr_doc/BurkamSchoolMobilityInThe_EarlyElementaryGrades.pdf.

Dobbie, Will, and Roland G. Fryer (2009). Are High Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap? 

Evidence From a Social Experiment in Harlem. NBER Working Paper 15473. Retrieved April 9, 2010, 

from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15473.

Government Accountability Office (2006). Childhood Obesity: Factors Affecting Physical Activity

(Congressional briefing). Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07260r.pdf.

Harlem Children’s Zone (2010). Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.hcz.org.

Herrold, Kathleen, and Kevin O’Donnell (2008). Parent and Family Involvement in Education, 2006–07 School 

Year, From the National Household Education Surveys Program of 2007 (NCES 2008–050). Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for 

Education Statistics. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008050.pdf

Horrigan, John (2008). Home Broadband Adoption 2008. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet and American 

Life Project. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from 

http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Broadband_2008.pdf.

Kohen, Dafna, Tama Leventhal, V. Susan Dahinten, and Cameron McIntosh (2008). Neighborhood 

disadvantage: Pathways of effects for young children. Child Development, 79(1):156–169.

Morland, Kimberly, Steve Wing, Ana Diez Roux, and Charles Poole (2002). Neighborhood 

characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places. American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine, 1:23–29.

Nansel, Tonja, Mary Overpeck, Denise Haynie, W. June Ruan, and Peter Scheidt (2003). Relationships 

between bullying and violence among U.S. youth. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 

157(4):348–353.

Nicholas, S., Hutchinson, V., Ortiz, B., Klihr-Beall, S., Jean-Louis, B., Shoemaker, K., Singleton, C., 

Credell, J., Swaner, R., Vaughan, R., Northridge, M., Cushman, L., Polley, E., and Golembeski, C. 

(2005). Improving childhood asthma through community-based service delivery: The Harlem 

Children's Zone Asthma Initiative. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54(1):11–13. Atlanta: 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Osher, David, and Roger Weissberg. (2007). Conceptualizing the social and emotional conditions for 

learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 
New York.

Paludi, Michele, Jennifer Martin, and Carmen Paludi (2007). Sexual harassment: Hidden gender equity 

problem. In S. Klein (ed.), Handbook for Achieving Gender Equity Through Education. Mahwah, N.J.: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reynolds, Arthur, Chin-Chih Chen, and Janette Herbers (2009). School mobility and educational 

success: A research synthesis and evidence on prevention. Paper presented at the Workshop on the 

Impact of Mobility and Change on the Lives of Youth Children, Schools, and Neighborhoods, 

Board on Children, Youth, and Families, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Retrieved 

April 9, 2010, from http://www.fcdus.org/usr_doc/ReynoldsSchoolMobilityAndEducationalSuccess.pdf. 

Rumberger, Russell, and Gregory Palardy (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student 

composition on academic achievement in high school. Teacher College Record, 107(9):1999–2045.

Sampson, Robert, Jeffrey Morenoff, and Thomas Gannon-Rowley (2002). Assessing “neighborhood 

effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28:443–478. 

Smokowski, Paul, and Kelly Kopasz (2005). Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects, family 

characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children and Schools, 27(2):101–110.

Taras, Howard (2005). Nutrition and student performance at school. Journal of School Health, 75(6):199–

213.

Taras, Howard, and William Potts-Datema (2005). Childhood asthma and student performance at 

school. Journal of School Health, 75(8):296–312.

Yen, Irene, and George Kaplan (1998). Poverty area residence and changes in physical activity level: 

Evidence from the Alameda County Study. American Journal of Public Health, 88(11):1709–1712.
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

OUR APPROACH

► More time for students and teachers to succeed. Gives priority to programs that 

comprehensively redesign and expand the school day or year to increase time for academics or 

enrichment activities and provide time for teachers to collaborate and improve their practice. 

► Comprehensive services and community partnerships. To ensure that students get needed 

supports, gives priority to full-service community schools and district-nonprofit (including CBOs) 

partnerships.

► Local flexibility. Allows communities to determine the best strategies for their students and 

teachers to get the time and support they need including through afterschool, summer school, and 

expanded learning time.

Students, particularly those who are furthest 

behind, benefit from more time for learning.

Research has found that summer learning loss is 

a key factor in the achievement gap between 

socioeconomically disadvantaged students and 

their classmates (Cooper, Nye, and Charlton, 

1996). For example, a study of students in 

Baltimore public schools found that the 

achievement gap at the beginning of ninth grade 

between students from high and low 

socioeconomic status families was primarily due 

to differences in summer learning over the 

elementary years (Alexander, Entwisle, and 

Olson, 2007). A recent review of 35 evaluations 

of afterschool and summer programs found that 

at-risk youths who enrolled in the programs, on 

average, showed improved performance in 

reading and mathematics (Lauer et al., 2006). 

Despite these positive findings for afterschool 

and summer programs, students most at risk of 

failure are the least likely to participate in 

afterschool activities, such as tutoring, sports, 

music lessons, and clubs (National Academy of 

Education, 2008). 

Increased learning time is consistent with 

practices in other nations. An analysis of data 

from the 2003 Trends in International 

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) found 

that the United States offered an average of 13 

fewer days of school per year than the 

international average of 193 days, and the United 

States offered far fewer days than its economic 

competitors, including Korea (225 days), Japan 

(223 days), and China (221 days) (National 

Center on Time and Learning, 2010). 

The models and strategies most likely to 

improve student outcomes share a few 

common features, such as encouraging 

regular student participation and aligning 

academic activities with instruction during 

the regular school day. A recent Institute of 

Education Sciences Practice Guide suggests that 

afterschool programs are most likely to improve 

student outcomes when they (1) provide 

engaging learning experiences; (2) align 

afterschool academic activities with instruction 

students receive during the regular school day; 

(3) maximize student participation and 

attendance; (4) adapt instruction to individual 

and small group needs; and (5) assess program 

performance and use results to improve the 

quality of the program (Beckett et al., 2009). 

While only the first of these recommendations is 

required under current law, our proposal would 

incorporate all these recommendations. Regular 

student attendance is particularly important to 
improving outcomes since students cannot 

benefit from the program if they do not attend 

(Beckett et al., 2009).

Programs that lengthen the school day and 

year are a promising approach to improving 

Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time 

Initiative

The Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time 

(ELT) Initiative is a state-sponsored, multidistrict effort to improve student achievement 

through additional learning time. Launched in 

2005, the initiative grew to 26 schools in 12 

LEAs serving over 13,000 students by the 

2008–09 school year. Schools generally add 

between two and three hours to their school 

days, at a cost of about $1,300 per student. 

The longer day or year provides additional time 

for engaging academic instruction; enrichment 

activities such as arts, physical education, 

service learning and internships; and 

opportunities to strengthen staff-student 

relationships. The longer school day also 

provides the time that the faculty needs to 

collaborate, plan, and engage in professional 

development. Individual schools are 

encouraged to partner with nonprofit 

organizations to implement ELT. The program 

is primarily funded through the Massachusetts 

Department of Elementary and Secondary 

Education. Preliminary program results include:

► As measured by the state’s Composite 

Performance Index, six of the seven 

schools with middle grades in the first 

cohort narrowed the gap with the state’s 

overall performance in math, and five of 

the seven schools narrowed the gap in 

ELA (Mass 2020, 2009a).

► ELT teachers were more likely than all 

Massachusetts teachers to agree that 

there is adequate time to complete the 

curriculum (50 percent vs. 34 percent), 

meet the needs of all students (51 percent 

vs. 36 percent), and collaborate with 

colleagues (57 percent vs. 39 percent) 

(Massachusetts 2020, 2009b).

student outcomes. In order to reach beyond

the students who are inclined to sign up and 

regularly attend afterschool programs, some 

expanded learning time programs lengthen the 

school day or year for all students. Such programs 

comprehensively redesign the school day, week, 

or year to include additional time for student 

learning and teacher collaboration, and they 

implement a richer, more complete curriculum 

(Massachusetts 2020, 2009a). Community 

organizations that partner with expanded learning 

time schools play various roles, including 

providing academic and enrichment content to 

students, providing professional development for 

teachers, providing mental and physical health 

services to students, and engaging in family

outreach and engagement (Traphagen and 

Johnson-Staub, 2010).

Preliminary research indicates that expanded 

learning time can increase student 

achievement. It is estimated that more than 650 

schools serving approximately 300,000 students 

have an expanded day or year. These schools are

located in 36 states and the District of Columbia. 

While most of these schools have implemented 

expanded learning time only recently, initial 

evidence suggests a positive relationship between 

extended time and academic performance 

(Farbman, 2009). Farbman also found that 

school staff believed that expanded time was 

important for meeting their schools’ educational 

goals. A recent evaluation of New York City’s 

charter schools found that an extended school 

year and a greater number of minutes devoted to 

English during each school day were associated 

with increased student achievement (Hoxby, 

Murarka, and Kang, 2009). 

Schools that move toward a full-service 

community school model also show positive 

results. A full-service community school is open 

before and after school, and often in the summer, 

and works in partnership with community 
organizations and other local government entities 

to coordinate and provide access to 

comprehensive services to meet the educational, 

developmental, and health needs of students, 

parents, and members of the community during 

school and non-school hours. For example, 

during the 2005–06 school year, all Chicago 

Community School Initiative schools that 

provided program information to an independent 

program evaluator (93 of 110 schools) offered 

programming for students beyond the traditional 

school day. All 93 of these schools stayed open 

between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m.; 73 offered programs 

for community members after 5:00 p.m., and 45 

Children’s Aid Society Community Schools

The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) began operating full-service community schools in 1992 and now 

operates 22 community schools in Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. Each school includes a 

core instructional program; expanded learning time, such as afterschool programs aligned with the 

school-day curriculum and Saturday and summer programs; and a parent resource center and a 

parent coordinator to encourage family engagement. Almost all of the 22 schools offer social services 

and many also offer medical, dental, and mental health services, adult education, and community 

events. CAS employees at the organizational and local level ensure alignment between in-school and 

out-of-school learning. CAS is partially funded by the 21st CCLC program. Positive results include:

► During the 2008–09 school year every CAS elementary school scored at least 70 percent “on 

progress” in New York City’s accountability system in English/language arts assessments. That’s 

compared with a citywide average of 50 percent (Bireda, 2009).

► A 2005 study found that student and teacher attendance was better at CAS community schools 

than at regular schools with similar demographics (Quinn and Dryfoos, 2009).

► A three-year evaluation of two CAS schools found that parents were more involved and felt more 

welcome at the community schools than parents at demographically similar comparison schools 

(Blank et al., 2003).

offered Saturday programming for students and 

community members (Whalen, 2007). In 

combination with a stable leadership and a strong 

instructional program, full-service community 

schools have been associated with improved 

attendance and student achievement (Krenichyn, 

Clark, and Benitez, 2008; Quinn and Dryfoos, 

2009; Whalen, 2007); increased family and 

community engagement (Blank, Jacobson, and 

Pearson, 2009; Quinn and Dryfoos, 2009); 

decreased dropout rates (ICF International, 

2008); and improved student behavior and youth 

development (Krenichyn, Clark, and Benitez, 

2008; Whalen, 2007).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Karl, Doris Entwisle, and Linda Steffel Olson (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer 

learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72(2):167–180.

Beckett, Megan, Geoffrey Borman, Jeffrey Capizzano, Danette Parsley, Steven Ross, Allen Schirm, and 

Jessica Taylor (2009). Structuring Out-of-School Time to Improve Academic Achievement: A Practice Guide 

(NCEE 2009–012). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. 

Bireda, Saba (2009). A Look at Community Schools. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. 

Retrieved April 9, 2010, from 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/10/pdf/community_schools.pdf. 

Blank, Marty, Reuben Jacobson, and Sarah Pearson (2009). A coordinated effort: Well-conducted 

partnerships meet students’ academic, health, and social service needs. American Educator, Summer

2009:30–36.

Blank, Martin, Atelia Melaville, and Bela Shah (2003). Making the Difference: Research and Practice in 

Community Schools. Washington, D.C.: Coalition for Community Schools. 

Cooper, Harris, Barbara Nye, Kelly Charlton, James Lindsay, and Scott Greathouse (1996). The effects 

of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of 

Educational Research, 66(3):227–268.

Farbman, David (2009). Tracking an Emerging Movement: A Report on Expanded-Time Schools in America. 

Boston: National Center on Time and Learning. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from

http://www.timeandlearning.org/databasefullreport2009.html. 

Hoxby, Caroline, Sonali Murarka, and Jenny Kang (2009). How New York City's Charter Schools Affect 

Achievement. Cambridge, Mass.: New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project.

Krenichyn, Kira, Helene Clark, and Lymari Benitez (2008). Children’s Aid Society 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers After-School Programs at Six Middle Schools: Final Report of a Three-Year Evaluation, 2004–

2007. New York: ActKnowledge.

Lauer, Patricia, Motoko Akiba, Stephanie Wilkerson, Helen Apthorp, David Snow, and Mya MartinGlenn (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of 

Educational Research, 76(2):275–313.

Learning Point Associates (2010). Number of Total Students and Regular Attendees Served by Centers. Retrieved 

March 2, 2010, from http://ppics.learningpt.org/ppics/reports/aprStudents.asp.

Massachusetts 2020 (2009a). Redesigning Today’s Schools to Build a Stronger Tomorrow: The Massachusetts 

Expanded Learning Time Initiative 2007-2008 Annual Report. Boston: Massachusetts 2020. Retrieved 

April 9, 2010, from http://www.mass2020.org/files/file/2008_Annual_Report.pdf.

Massachusetts 2020 (2009b). Listening to Experts: What Massachusetts Teachers Are Saying About Time and 

Learning and the Expanded Learning Time Initiative. Boston: Massachusetts 2020. Retrieved April 9, 

2010, from http://timeandlearning.edit.neptuneweb.com/images/Listening.to.Experts.pdf.
National Academy of Education (2008). Time for Learning. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from 

http://www.naeducation.org/Time_for_Learning_White_Paper.pdf. 

National Center on Time and Learning (2010). International Comparisons. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from 

http://www.timeandlearning.org/resources/.

Quinn, Jane, and Joy Dryfoos (2009). Freeing teachers to teach: Students in full-service community 

schools are ready to learn. American Educator, Summer 2009:16–21.

Traphagen, Kathleen, and Christine Johnson-Staub (2010). Expanding Time, Enriching Experiences: 

Expanding Learning Time Schools and Community Organization Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: Center for 

American Progress. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/pdf/elt_partnerships.pdf.

Whalen, Samuel (2007). Three Years Into Chicago’s Community Schools Initiative (CSI): Progress, Challenges, and 

Emerging Lessons. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from 

Hhttp://www.aypf.org/documents/CSI_ThreeYearStudy.pdfH. 
This page intentionally left blank.
SUCCESSFUL, SAFE, AND HEALTHY STUDENTS

OUR APPROACH

► Comprehensive approach. Supports efforts to improve school climate by improving school 

safety and promoting students' physical and mental health and well-being.

► Data to drive effective decision-making. State and district-wide school climate needs assessment 

data would help administrators and districts allocate resources and implement and expand effective 

programs.

► Simplification and local flexibility. Rather than apply for five or six grants, each with its own 

application and requirements, states and districts apply for one program and target funds based on 

local needs.

The former Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities program had significant 

shortcomings, including a lack of data-based 

decision making. A Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools and Communities Advisory Committee

found that the State Grant Program did not 

adequately target the schools most in need, and it 

spread funds too thinly at the local level to 

support effective interventions (U.S. Department 

of Education, 2007a). For example, more than 

half of districts received allocations of less than 

$10,000 in fiscal year 2009. Moreover, the 

Committee found that the State Grant Program 

was not sufficiently driven by data to guide 

resource decisions. The new Successful, Safe, and 

Healthy Students program would address these 

weaknesses by using data-driven decision making 

to identify needs, target funds, and support 

evidence-based programs that best meet the 

needs of their students and communities. 

Rates of school violence; student alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drug use; and obesity are 

troubling. About one-third of students reported 

being bullied at school in 2007 (Dinkes et al., 

2009) and 80 percent of eighth- through 

eleventh-grade students in a 2000 national survey 

reported experiencing some form of sexual 

harassment in their school career (American 

Association of University Women Educational 

Foundation, 2001). Additionally, 12 percent of 

students in high school reported being in a 

physical fight on school property in 2007 and 

approximately 5 percent of students ages 12–18 

reported that they were afraid of attack or harm 

at school—higher than the 3 percent of students 

who reported that they were afraid of attack or 

harm away from school (Dinkes et al., 2009).

According to the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior 

Survey (YRBS), the percentage of high school 

students reporting current marijuana use has 

declined between 1999 and 2007, though at 

almost 20 percent, the rate is considerably higher 

than in 1991 (15 percent). The percentage of 

high school students reporting current alcohol or 

tobacco use also has fallen over the past decade, 

but it is still too high, with 45 percent of 

students reporting current alcohol use and 26 

percent of students reporting current tobacco 

use (CDC, 2010). Obesity rates are particularly 

troubling, with the percentage of obese 6- to 11-

year-old children more than quadrupling 

between 1974 and 2004 (from 4 to 17 percent) 

and almost tripling for 12- to 19-year-old 

children (from 6 to 18 percent) (CDC, 2006). 

There are some successful evidence-based 

programs that prevent violence and the use of 

alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (Cuijpers, 

2002; Gansle, 2005; Gottfredson and Wilson, 
2003; Tobler et al., 2000), but more information 

is needed on programs and implementation 

strategies that keep students safe and healthy 

(Astor et al.; Forman et al., 2009; Mihalic and

Irwin, 2003).

Many schools and districts lack accurate 

local data on school climate and safety; 

student drug, alcohol, and tobacco use; or 

school and community connectedness that 

are needed to guide implementation of 

effective programs. Currently, schools collect 

data on suspensions, expulsions, criminal acts, 

drug use, violent activities, and weapons 

possession. However, these data are not collected 

The California Healthy Kids Survey

The California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) is a comprehensive youth self-report data collection system that 

asks students in grades 5–12 questions regarding school climate, health risks, resilience, and behaviors. 

The survey is designed to be part of a comprehensive data-driven decision making process to guide efforts 

to improve schools, promote academic achievement, and foster effective health, prevention, and youth 

development programs. The survey is composed of modules that can be combined and it can be 

customized to include additional questions. The Core Module of the secondary-school CHKS asks students 

30 questions that focus specifically on school climate. The module asks student to report on their feelings 

of safety in school; connectedness and belonging; academic grades and truancy; perceptions of caring and 

supportive adults; high expectations; meaningful participation in school; experiences with bullying and 

harassment, intolerance, and physical and property threat; and substance use on campus. Additional Core 

questions assess substance use off of campus, gang involvement, community developmental supports, and 

physical and mental health. Supplementary CHKS modules ask detailed questions on student resiliency; 

equity and diversity issues; alcohol, other drugs, violence, and suicide; tobacco; physical health; sexual 

behavior; afterschool time, gang involvement, and service learning. A district-level sample is used to survey 

students, whose participation is voluntary. Approximately 85 percent of schools in California conduct the 

survey at least once every two years. The CHKS is part of a larger School Climate, Health, and Learning 

Survey System (SCHLSS) that includes comparable school staff and parent assessments. Since 2004, 

teachers and other staff members who work with grades 5–12 participate in the California School Climate 

Survey (CSCS). The CSCS includes questions on general teacher working conditions, special education, and 

student supports and services (California Health Kids Survey, 2010). 

District reports are posted on the survey websites for public access, along with guidebooks to 

understanding and using the data, and a Workbook for Improving the School Climate and Closing the 

Achievement Gap. Districts and schools use results of the survey to drive their programming decisions. For 

example, Tehama County learned its students drank alcohol at higher rates than the state averages. The 

county applied for and received a grant from the U.S. Department of Education to offer research based 

curriculum, family communication programs, counseling, and community based strategies aimed at 

preventing teen drinking (Hearden, 2008). According to its grantee performance report, after one year of 

program implementation, binge drinking declined from 26 percent of students to 24 percent and the 

percentage of students that believed that alcohol abuse is harmful to health rose from 70 percent to 73 

percent (Tehama County Department of Education, 2009).

in a systematic manner across districts or, 

sometimes, even within districts (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2007b). Moreover, 

these data rarely include student, staff, and parent 

views of school safety and climate. For example, 

most schools do not systematically collect data on 

bullying and harassment despite the fact that 

students commonly experience bullying and 

harassment in school (American Association of 

University Women Educational Foundation, 

2001; Dinkes et al., 2009). 

School climate surveys can be a powerful tool 

to inform and guide decision-making. Surveys 

that are valid and reliable can be used to collect 
data on students’, families’, and school staff’s 

perceptions of school climate—which includes 

school engagement, safety, and environment 

(Brand et al., 2003; Cohen et al., 2009; Osher

et al., 2008). States, districts, and schools that 

administer school climate surveys (in ways that 

safeguard privacy) have found them to be 

powerful tools for developing programs that 

address local needs to reduce and prevent drug, 

alcohol, and tobacco use; reduce and prevent 

bullying, harassment, and violence; and improve 

school climate and family involvement (Cohen, 

2007). States and districts that currently 

administer school climate surveys include Alaska, 

Delaware, California, Georgia, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin, and Chicago, New York City, and 

Montgomery County, Maryland.

Families, including caregivers, play an 

important role in the education of their 

children. Many researchers agree that family 

engagement in their child’s education is positively 

associated with increases in student academic 

achievement (Fan and Chen, 2001; Henderson 

and Berla, 1994; Jeynes, 2005). Parents’ 

aspirations and expectations for achievement are 

strongly correlated with student achievement 

(Fan and Chen, 2001; Jeynes, 2005). 

Additionally, school-sponsored family 

engagement programs may indirectly improve 

student achievement by increasing families’ 

expectations or improving parenting skills related 

to education (D’Agostino, 2001). Experts agree 

that effective school-based family engagement 

programs must be comprehensive, well-planned, 

and reach out to all families (Henderson and 

Berla, 1994).
BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. (2001). Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing and sexual harassment in school. 

Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.

Aster, R., Guerra, N., & Van Acker, R. (2010). How can we improve school safety research? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 69-78.Brand, S., Felner, 

R., Shim, M., Seitsinger, A., & Dumas, T. (2003). Middle school improvement and reform: Development of validation of school-level 

assessment of climate, cultural pluralism and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 570–588.

California Healthy Kids Survey. (2010). Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.wested.org/cs/chks/print/docs/chks_home.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). NHANES Prevalence of Overweight Among Children and Adolescents: United States, 

2003–04. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/prevalence.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). YRBSS: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from 

http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm. 

Cuijpers, P. (2002). Peer-led and adult-led school drug prevention: A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Drug Education, 32(2), 107–119.

Cohen, J. (2007). Evaluating and improving school climate. Independent School, 67(1), 18–26.

Cohen, J., McCabe, E., Michelli, M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College 

Record, 111(1), 180–213. 

D’Agostino, J., Hedges, L., Wong K., & Borman, G. (2001). Title I parent-involvement programs: Effects on parenting practices and student 

achievement. In Borman, G., Stringfield, S., & Slavin, R. (Eds.) Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates), pp. 117–136.

Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., & Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 (NCES 2010–012/NCJ 228478). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs.

Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1–

22.

Gansle, K. (2005). The effectiveness of school-based anger interventions and programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 321–341.

Gottfredson, D. & Wilson, D. (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prevention Science, 4, 27–38.

Hearden, T. (2008, August 17). Grant to cut teen drinking. Redding. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from 

http://www.redding.com/news/2008/aug/17/grant-to/.

Henderson, A., & Berla, N. (Eds.) (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student achievement. Washington, DC: National 

Committee for Citizens in Education.

Jeynes, W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban 

Education, 40(3), 237–269.

Mihalic, S. & Irwin, K. (2003). Blueprint for violence prevention: From research to real-world settings—Factors influencing the successful 

replication of model programs. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(4), 307–329.

Osher, D., Kendziora, K., & Chinen, M. (2008). Student connection research: Final narrative report to the Spencer Foundation. Washington, DC: American 

Institutes for Research.

Tehama County Department of Education. (2009). FY2009 Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse Performance Report. Submitted to U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

Tobler, N., Roona, M., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D., Streke, A., & Stackpole, K. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 

1998 meta-analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(4), 275–336.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007a). Enhancing achievement and proficiency through safe and drug-free schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007b). An OIG perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of the Inspector General.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Association of University Women Educational Foundation (2001). Hostile Hallways: Bullying, 

Teasing and Sexual Harassment in School. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University 

Women Educational Foundation.

Astor, Ron Avi, Nancy Guerra, and Richard Van Acker (2010). How can we improve school safety 

research? Educational Researcher, 39(1):69-78.

Brand, Stephen, Robert Felner, Minsuk Shim, Anne Seitsinger, and Thaddeus Dumas (2003). Middle 

school improvement and reform: Development of validation of school-level assessment of climate, 

cultural pluralism and school safety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3):570–588.

California Healthy Kids Survey (2010). Retrieved March 1, 2010, from 

http://www.wested.org/cs/chks/print/docs/chks_home.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2006). NHANES Prevalence of Overweight Among 

Children and Adolescents: United States, 2003–04. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from 

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/prevalence.html.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2010). YRBSS: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. 

Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm. 

Cuijpers, Pim (2002). Peer-led and adult-led school drug prevention: A meta-analytic comparison. Journal 

of Drug Education, 32(2):107–119.

Cohen, Jonathan (2007). Evaluating and improving school climate. Independent School, 67(1):18–26.

Cohen, Jonathan, Libby McCabe, Nicholas Michelli, and Terry Pickeral (2009). School climate: 

Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1):180–213. 

D’Agostino, Jerome, Larry Hedges, Kenneth Wong, and Geoffrey Borman (2001). Title I parentinvolvement programs: Effects on parenting practices and student achievement. In Geoffrey 

Borman, Sam Stringfield, and Robert Slavin (eds.), Title I: Compensatory Education at the Crossroads. 

Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dinkes, Rachel, Jana Kemp, and Katrina Baum (2009). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009 (NCES 

2010-012/NCJ 228478). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

Fan, Xitao, and Michael Chen (2001). Parental involvement and students’ academic achievement: A 

meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1):1–22.

Gansle, Kristin (2005). The effectiveness of school-based anger interventions and programs: A metaanalysis. Journal of School Psychology, 43:321–341.

Gottfredson, Denise, and David Wilson (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based substance 

abuse prevention. Prevention Science, 4:27–38.

Hearden, Tim (2008). Grant to cut teen drinking: Survey finds alcohol use beats state rate. Redding Record 
Searchlight. August 17, 2008. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from 

http://www.redding.com/news/2008/aug/17/grant-to/.

Henderson, Anne, and Nancy Berla (eds.) (1994). A New Generation of Evidence: The Family Is Critical to 

Student Achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Citizens in Education.

Jeynes, William (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary 

school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40(3):237–269.

Mihalic, Sharon, and Katherine Irwin (2003). Blueprint for violence prevention: From research to realworld settings—Factors influencing the successful replication of model programs. Youth Violence and 

Juvenile Justice, 1(4):307–329. Retrieved April 9, 2010, from

http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/articles/MihalicIrwin_Article.pdf.

Osher, David, Kimberly Trumbull Kendziora, and Marjorie Chinen (2008). Student Connection Research: 

Final Narrative Report to the Spencer Foundation. Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research.

Tehama County Department of Education (2009). FY2009 Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse 

Performance Report. Submitted to U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools.

Tobler, Nancy, Michael Roona, Peter Ochshorn, Diana Marshall, Andrei Streke, and Kimberly 

Stackpole (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. The 

Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(4):275–336.

U.S. Department of Education (2007a). Enhancing Achievement and Proficiency Through Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. 

U.S. Department of Education (2007b). An OIG Perspective on the Unsafe School Choice Option. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Inspector General. 
This page intentionally left blank.