National Study of 

Local Education Agency

Activities under the Safe

and Drug Free Schools 

and Communities Act

Progress in

Prevention

Report on the 

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Planning and Education Service

Doc #2002-003

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

National Study of 

Local Education Agency

Activities under the Safe

and Drug Free Schools 

and Communities Act

Progress in

Prevention

Report on the 

Irene Hantman

Scott Crosse

Westat

1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, Maryland 20850

2000

Prepared for 

U.S. Department of Education

Office of the Under Secretary

Planning and Education Service

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
This report was prepared for the U. S. Department of Education under Contract No. EA94052001. The views expressed herein

are those of the contractor. No official endorsement by the U. S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred. 

U. S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of the Under Secretary 

Judith A. Winston 

Under Secretary (A)

Planning and Evaluation Service

Alan L. Ginsburg

Director

Elementary and Secondary Education Division

Ricky T. Takai

Director 

2000

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this

publication is not necessary, the citation should be: Hantman, I. and Crosse, C. (2000). Progress In Prevention: National

Study of Local Education Activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Washington, D.C.: U. S.

Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service.

To order copies of this report, write:

ED Pubs

Education Publications Center

U. S. Department of Education

P. O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794-1398; 

via fax, dial (301) 470-1244;

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

You may also call toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-

5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN); Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call

1-800-437-0833. 

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

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

On request, this publication is available in alternative formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette.

For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2 Research Questions and Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.4 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2 Planning and Program Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1 Goals and Objectives for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.2 Program Selection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3 Information Gathering on Effective Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.4 External Influences on Planning Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3 Implementation of Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.1 District Organization of Prevention Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2 Types of Prevention Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.3 Implementation of Prevention Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 Resources for Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.1 Funding for Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 Spending on Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

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

5 Evaluation and Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1 Monitoring Incidents of Drug Use and Violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.2 Methods for Assessing Needs for and Evaluating Prevention Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.3 Use of Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.4 District Assessment of State Policies and Overall Program Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6 Implementing the Principles of Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

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

Data about the Drug and Violence Problems in the Schools 

and Communities Served. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6.3 Principle 2: Design Activities to Meet Measurable Goals and 

Objectives for Drug and Violence Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

i
ii

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter Page

6.4 Principle 3: Design and Implement Activities Based on Research or 

Evaluation that Provides Evidence that the Strategies Used Prevent 

or Reduce Drug Use, Violence, or Disruptive Behavior Among Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6.5 Principle 4: Evaluate Programs Periodically to Assess Progress 

Toward Achieving the Goals and Objectives; and Use the Evaluation 

Results to Refine, Improve, and Strengthen the Program, and Refine 

Goals and Objectives, as Appropriate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.6 Technical Assistance and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendixes

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

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

Tables

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

2-2 Percent of districts in subsample with specific characteristics of Safe 

and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

of research-based programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3-1 Percent of districts funding school activities with Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools and Communities Act funds, by objective of activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3-2 Percent of districts using prevention activities that are supported by 

research, by type of activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

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

type of drug prevention activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3-4 Percentage of districts naming specific activities as their most effective 

type of violence prevention activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3-5 Percentage of districts naming specific activities as their most expensive 

type of prevention activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

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

of Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
iii

Table of Contents (continued)

Table Page

4-1 Percent of districts receiving Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act 

prevention funding, by per pupil funding and district characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

4-2 Percent of districts receiving non-Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act

prevention funding, by per pupil funding and district characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

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

and non-Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act prevention funding, 

by type of activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

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

4-5 Percent of districts allocating Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities Act funding to their most effective drug prevention activity, 

by percent of allocation and district characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

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

Act funding to their most effective violence prevention activity, by percent 

of allocation and district characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4-7 Percent of districts allocating Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act 

funding to their most expensive prevention activity, by percent of allocation and 

district characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4-8 Percent of districts reporting changes to prevention efforts if they no longer 

received Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funds, by type 

and extent of change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figures

1-1 Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Exhibits

1-1 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1

Executive Summary

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) Program receives more funding and

reaches more schools than any other school-based drug and violence prevention program nationally.

Although local education agencies (school districts) are critical to the operation of this program, relatively

little is known about how they plan, implement, and evaluate their SDFSCA-funded prevention activities.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) initiated this study to provide a more complete description of the

ways in which districts nationally accomplish such tasks; the study also is intended to provide a baseline

for gauging progress on district implementation of new guidelines for the SDFSCA program, referred to

as the “Principles of Effectiveness,” which became effective in July 1998.

The report is based on a telephone survey of a national probability sample of school districts. The sample

consisted of 600 districts that we selected after stratifying the pool of districts by district characteristics

such as student enrollment and urbanicity. We collected information in a computer-assisted telephone

interview with the staff person in each district who was most knowledgeable about the local SDFSCA

program. Although the interviews occurred between December 1998 and April 1999, the reference period

for the study was the 1997-98 school year. The survey collected information from 520 districts; with 23

districts ineligible for the survey, it achieved an overall response rate of 90 percent.

Many districts experienced problems developing measurable goals and objectives. In selecting

prevention activities to meet their goals and objectives, the majority of districts considered information 

on the effectiveness of specific activities. However, the extent to which their understanding of program

effectiveness corresponds with ED’s nonregulatory guidance for implementing the Principles of

Effectiveness, is questionable.

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

adopted a measurable process objective.

• In selecting prevention activities, 58 percent of districts considered research on the

effectiveness of those activities. Only 35 percent of districts defined research-based

prevention in a way that is as rigorous as the definition provided in ED’s nonregulatory

guidance.

• Forty-nine percent of districts reported that they needed more technical assistance on

identifying program effectiveness research.

The district staff who coordinate prevention activities often have many responsibilities. Those prevention

activities typically target students directly rather than classroom or school environments. Only a small

proportion of the prevention activities implemented are research-based.

• Approximately 70 percent of district SDFSCA coordinators spend no more than 20 percent

of their time on prevention activities.

• Eighty-nine percent of districts implement prevention instruction. This type of activity and

other activities that are geared to individual students are much more frequently used by

districts than activities focusing on the classroom and school environment, such as

reviewing and revising discipline practices.
• Although more than half of districts considered research on the effectiveness of activities

when activities are selected, only 9 percent of districts are implementing research-based

drug prevention activities. A larger proportion of districts use activities that include researchbased elements. The findings are similar for violence prevention activities.

The majority of districts receive funding for prevention activities from other sources in addition to the

SDFSCA program. For many districts, the amount of funding per pupil from either SDFSCA or other sources

is modest. Nonetheless, district prevention programming relies heavily on SDFSCA funding.

• Two-thirds of districts receive funding for prevention from sources other than SDFSCA. The

most common sources are states, and school districts or local governments.

• Sixty percent of the districts without supplemental SDFSCA “greatest needs” funding

(received by 9% of districts) receive under $6 per pupil in SDFSCA funding. 

• Districts were most likely to allocate SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA prevention funds to the

purchase of program materials and implementation.

• Forty-six percent of districts would likely lose their prevention programs without SDFSCA

funding. More than three-fourths of districts would need to reduce their prevention activities

to a great extent if they lost this funding.

Districts typically collected information on problem behavior in schools and use the information in many

ways. However, the quality of that information may limit its usefulness.

• Practically all districts require schools to report to them on serious incidents of problem

behavior, such as student possession of weapons. Many districts place little emphasis on

ensuring the quality of the incident information.

• Many districts also conducted surveys of students on drug use or victimization in schools; for

example, 61 percent surveyed high school students. However, a sizeable proportion of these

districts used unscientific methods to select students for the surveys, limiting the extent to

which districts should generalize their survey results.

• Although we have concerns about how districts conduct student surveys and we do not

know how systematically information is collected from other sources (e.g., school

administrators, teachers, police, and community representatives), we are encouraged to

see that districts realize the importance of using information on problem behavior in

program planning. Eighty-nine percent of districts use evaluation information to adopt new

prevention activities and 87 percent use the information to modify existing activities.

2
3

1. Introduction 

The federally funded Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) Program is the Nation’s

largest school-based program for promoting school safety and preventing substance abuse by youth.

Although local education agencies (LEAs) (school districts) play a pivotal role in the program, many

questions surround how they plan and implement program activities. This report will answer some of

those questions.

1.1 Background

The SDFSCA Program provides funding to states to support drug and violence prevention programs. Each

state has both a State and Local Grants Program and a Governors’ Program. The state education

agencies (SEAs) allocate 70 percent of funds to school districts by formula (based on relative student

enrollment); the remaining 30 percent of funds are awarded to districts that have the “greatest needs” for

additional funds to implement prevention programs. The Governors’ Programs award grants to

community agencies and public

and private nonprofit entities. The

districts and other grantees

support prevention activities at the

school and community levels.

Providing $531 million in state

grants for the 1997-98 school year and reaching 97 percent of school districts, this program is the largest

and broadest school-based drug and violence prevention program nationally.

Because the SDFSCA Program operates at the state, school district, and school levels, understanding of

this program requires study at each level. Researchers have recently completed or have underway

studies at the state and local levels. For example, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has sponsored

studies at the school level about different aspects of the programs funded under the SDFSCA, including

the Study on School Violence and Prevention. However, very few studies have examined the SDFSCA

Program at the district level; none of these other studies has collected information on a national

probability sample of districts.

The National Study of Local Education Agency Activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and

Communities Act was intended to fill the information gap at the district level, by describing how districts

nationwide plan, implement, and evaluate their SDFSCA programs and prevention programs funded by

other sources. This study also can yield a valuable baseline for assessing the progress of districts in

complying with recently developed program standards. The standards, which are called the “Principles of

Effectiveness,” specify the processes that all SDFSCA-funded programs have been expected to follow

since July 1998. In addition, this study can provide information for focusing technical assistance efforts, for

example, to increase district compliance with the Principles.

This study provides a valuable baseline for assessing 

the progress of districts in complying with the 

Principles of Effectiveness.
1.2 Research Questions and Conceptual Framework

The National Study of Local Education Activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and

Communities Act Program sought to answer a variety of research questions. See Exhibit 1-1. These

research questions cover four main items (a) planning and program development, including needs

assessment and activities to gather and use information about effective practices; (b) program

implementation, including types of activities underway in school districts and the extent to which these

efforts are implemented in adequate and effective ways; (c) resources, including sources of funding and

cost of efforts; and (d) evaluation and reporting methods.

To guide us in answering these questions, we developed a conceptual framework that illustrates how

community characteristics and other factors influence district SDFSCA-related activities, and how these

district activities influence student behavior and prevention activities. See Figure 1-1. The framework

consists of three main sets of components: inputs to districts, district activities, and school activities and

outcomes. In addition, the framework identifies “feedback loops” or flows of information on

implementation and outcomes. 

In addition to the research questions and conceptual framework, the study design was driven by the

Principles of Effectiveness. Responding to concerns about the effectiveness and accountability of the

programs being implemented with SDFSCA funds, ED developed the Principles of Effectiveness. These

principles mandate that state education agencies and school districts do the following for their SDFSCAfunded prevention efforts (a) conduct needs assessments, (b) develop measurable goals and objectives,

(c) use prevention efforts that have been demonstrated to be effective, and (d) evaluate program activities.

Although the Principles became effective after the reference period for the study (the 1997-98 school year),

we collected information on activities prescribed by the Principles to provide a baseline against which ED

can gauge how well districts are implementing the Principles.

4
Exhibit 1-1. Research questions

Planning and program development

1. What types of planning processes do districts use in designing their drug and violence

prevention programs? How do they gather information about effective practices, and to what

extent do they use this information in planning programs?

2. What types of needs assessments do districts conduct, and how do they use them for

planning their drug and violence prevention programs?

3. To what extent do districts use research-based prevention approaches? What are the

barriers that prevent districts from using more research-based approaches?

4. What kinds of technical assistance do districts receive in planning and evaluating their

programs, and what are their needs for technical assistance?

5. How do districts involve parents and community groups, including law enforcement

agencies, in prevention programming?

Implementation

6. What specific types of activities are underway in districts nationally to prevent student drug

use and violence, and to ensure school safety?

7. To what extent do districts establish prevention programming centrally as opposed to

allowing schools to design their own programs? What efforts do districts make to ensure that

centrally-planned programming is carried out consistently? To what extent does

programming vary within districts?

8. How intense are district programs, in terms of contact hours and duration? To what extent

does program intensity vary across schools?

9. To what extent do districts implement their prevention programs in adequate and effective

ways (e.g., provide sufficient training to teachers and staff)? If districts are using particular

prevention models (e.g., based on research), to what extent do they implement programs

that are faithful to the models?

Resources

10. What sources of funding (including SDFSCA, other federal sources, state and local

government funds, and private funds) do districts use to support their drug and violence

prevention efforts? What are typical funding levels, including non-SDFSCA sources?

11. How much do particular prevention activities or types of activities cost? How much does

program administration at the district level cost?

12. What factors influence district decisions about how to allocate their SDFSCA funds to schools

and projects? What types of allocations do they make? Do districts target their funds?

Evaluation and reporting

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

violence?

14. What methods do districts use to evaluate the success of their drug and violence prevention

efforts? How do they use evaluation results to modify, improve, or plan their prevention

programming?

5
6

Figure 1-1. Conceptual Framework

Planning

Evaluation

Community 

Characteristics

Policy and 

Resource 

Inputs

Policy 

and Program 

Implementation

1.

4.

6.

3. Characteristics

LEA

Schools Inputs

5.

2.

Policy and

Program

Activities

Student 

Outcomes

7.
1.3 Methods

The National Study of Local Education Agency Activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and

Communities Act collected information from a cross-section of school districts in the 50 states. From the

pool of the more than 13,000 school districts that enroll students (as opposed to districts that are

“supervisory” or solely administrative), we sampled 600 districts. We based the sample on district

characteristics that are relevant to addressing the research questions. The data collection entailed

computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI) of district officials. In addition, for a small subset of the

districts, we collected and analyzed district goals and objectives for their SDFSCA program. 

Sample Selection. We drew the sample of 600 school districts from the Common Core of Data (CCD),

which is prepared by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). We used the 1995-96 version of

the file, the most recent information at the time of sample selection. The CCD includes information on

more than 16,000 public school districts, of which only 13,304 enroll students. The sampling process

involved stratifying, or sorting, the CCD by six variables that are correlated with how data is presented in

this report. These variables are as follows (a) urbanicity, (b) type of district, (c) district size, (d) poverty, (e)

percent of minority students enrolled district, and (f) census region.

In conjunction with sampling based on the stratification variables, we “oversampled” the largest school

districts, and districts receiving greatest needs funding from the SDFSCA Program. We selected all of the

Nation’s school districts with enrollment of 90,000 or more. These 26 districts account for only 0.2 percent

of the Nation’s school districts but enroll almost 12 percent of the Nation’s children. We categorize district

size as follows: very small districts enroll fewer than 300 students, small districts enroll 300 to 1,000

students, moderate-sized school districts enroll 1,001 to 2,500 students, medium-sized school districts

enroll from 2,501 to 10,000 students, large school districts enroll from 10,001 to 89,999 students, and very

large school districts enroll 90,000 or more students. Using probability sampling methods, we also drew

a subsample of 43 districts from among the districts selected for the main sample; we included

respondents from this subsample in an in-depth analysis of SDFSCA goals and objectives. 

Data Collection. Before telephoning district SDFSCA coordinators to conduct interviews, we mailed a

paper copy of the questionnaire to the sampled respondents. See Appendix. At the same time as the

mailing to district SDFSCA coordinators, we notified district superintendents about the selection of their

district for the study.

Experienced telephone interviewers collected the information, after participating in 3 days of training on the

study’s objectives, questionnaire, and procedures. To maximize data quality, we used a CATI approach to

collect the data presented in this report. Data collection extended from December 1998 through April

1999. (The reference period for the study was the 1997-98 school year.) The survey collected information

from 520 districts, achieving an overall response rate of 90 percent. We collected copies of SDFSCA goals

and objectives from 30 of the 36 districts that were in the subsample and responded in the main survey.

A number of very small districts were initially unwilling to participate, because they felt that their small

program allocations prohibited them from implementing all the aspects of the program covered by the

survey. In order to collect at least some information, we asked them to report on 15 of the critical survey

questions.

7
The reader should note that the information presented is based on valid responses only. These responses

include responses from respondents for whom given questions applied; they exclude “don’t know”

responses and nonresponses to applicable questions.

1.4 Report Organization

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

as follows.

• Chapter 2 addresses planning and program development, including the process of

assessing needs and gathering and weighing of information on prospective programs, and

role of stakeholders in planning.

• Chapter 3 covers program implementation including types of prevention activities,

centralization of program planning, targeting of activities to specific types of students,

program intensity, duration, and effectiveness.

• Chapter 4 describes program resources including funding sources and levels, costs of

specific program activities, and allocation of resources to program activities and schools.

• Chapter 5 discusses evaluation and reporting including methods for monitoring and

reporting drug use and violence, methods for evaluating prevention activities, and how

evaluation results are used.

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

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

Although the focus of this report is on activities under the SDFSCA, we also present findings on prevention

activities funded by other sources. 

8
9

2. Planning and Program Development

Well-planned prevention programs unite district needs for prevention with goals and objectives for

preventing and reducing problem behavior (i.e., alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; and other problem

behavior) and effective prevention efforts. Many districts fall short on one or more of these ingredients.

Developing adequate goals and objectives is an issue for a large proportion of districts. In selecting

prevention efforts aimed at meeting goals and objectives, many districts also tended to exclude needs

assessments and research on effective practices from the decision-making process. These districts

typically relied more on internal factors and sources than on external ones. Districts often did consider the

effectiveness of particular prevention efforts, but the ways in which the districts viewed evidence on

program effectiveness raise questions about how they define program effectiveness. (For this analysis, we

use the definition of program effectiveness provided in the U.S. Department of Education’s [ED’s]

nonregulatory guidance for implementing the Principles of Effectiveness. Evaluation researchers and

others may use even more rigorous definitions than the one provided in the nonregulatory guidance.

However, at a minimum, the definition in the guidance is the one districts should apply when assessing

program effectiveness.)

2.1 Goals and Objectives for Prevention

A large proportion of districts lacked measurable goals and objectives. Overall, districts included key

stakeholders in the development of prevention goals and objectives.

Measurable goals and objectives—main sample. Program objectives are important for

achieving consensus and organizing program activities. Program evaluation literature stresses that the

most useful goals and objectives are ones that are measurable. Ideally, outcome objectives should specify

the amount and direction of change expected and the timeframe in which it would occur. Process or

operational objectives should state the amount and type of service units delivered or the number of

persons served, within a specified time frame.

Approximately half of districts adopted at least one outcome objective

that indicated the amount of change expected. Fifty-two percent

specified the extent to which the abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other

drugs would be reduced; 48 percent indicated the extent to which acts of

violence in school would be reduced. See Table 2-1. Some 27 percent of

districts also included an objective that specified the extent to which the

bringing of weapons to schools would be reduced.

Types of outcome objectives varied considerably by district enrollment.

Districts with larger enrollments were more likely to adopt outcome

objectives that specified the types of changes expected. For example, 75

percent of districts with enrollments greater than or equal to 90,000 adopted an objective that specified

the extent to which the abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs would be reduced, as compared with

only 44 percent of districts with enrollments of less than 300. We found similar, though smaller, variation

on the other types of outcome objectives among districts with different enrollments.

Approximately half 

of districts adopted 

at least one outcome

objective that indicated

the extent to which drug

abuse and/or violence

would be reduced.
Smaller proportions of districts adopted measurable process objectives than adopted measurable

outcome objectives. Twenty-five percent of districts specified a minimum number of hours of drug

prevention education that students

would receive. Relatively few districts

adopted objectives that specified the

minimum number of hours of violence

prevention education that students

would receive (19%) or the minimum number of hours that parents and community members would be

involved in prevention activities (16%).

Again, districts with larger enrollments generally were more likely to adopt measurable process objectives

than districts with smaller enrollments. Compared to the outcome objectives, however, we observed less

variation on these types of objectives among districts. See Table 2.1.1 in Volume 2 for additional information

on district goals and objectives.

Measurable goals and objectives—subsample. In addition to the survey information that we

gathered, we collected and analyzed written copies of SDFSCA goals and objectives for a subsample of 30

districts. The purposes of this analysis were twofold: to examine and describe in greater detail district goals

and objectives and to reduce the bias and error that may be present in district self-reports on goals and

objectives. Using probability sampling methods, we drew a subsample of 43 districts from among the

districts selected for the main sample. Of these 43 districts, 36 responded in the main survey; of the 36

districts that responded, 30 complied with our request to provide written copies of their SDFSCA goals and

objectives. We content analyzed the SDFSCA goals and objectives from these 30 districts. The number of

subsample respondents limits the extent to which we can accurately generalize to districts nationally.

Hence, the analysis of this subsample yields results that are more preliminary than conclusive.

The in-depth analysis of goals and objectives for the subsample of districts suggests that an even smaller

proportion of districts may be developing measurable goals and objectives than that found for the main

sample of districts. Although 53 percent of the subsample districts set reduced student drug abuse as an

objective, 23 percent of the subsample districts have an objective that specified both the extent to which

student drug abuse will be reduced and the time frame in which the reduction would occur. See Table 2-2.

10

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

Objective Percent 

Minimum number of hours of drug prevention education for students 25 

Minimum number of hours of violence prevention education for students 19 

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

Amount of reduction in acts of violence in schools 48 

Amount of reduction in weapons in schools 27 

Number of hours that parents and community members involved in prevention 

activities at schools 16 

Other1 20

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

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

Fewer districts adopted measurable process objectives

than adopted measurable outcome objectives.
11

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

of SDFSCA objectives 

Type and characteristic of objective Percent 

Implementation

Drug prevention 

Students will receive drug prevention education 83

Amount of drug prevention education 7

Amount of drug prevention education by instructional level 7

Drug prevention education curriculum that will be used 57

Violence prevention 

Students will receive violence prevention education 67

Amount of violence prevention education 3

Amount of violence prevention education by instructional level 3

Violence prevention education curriculum that will be used 37

Staffing training 

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

Amount of delinquency prevention training 3

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

Parent/community involvement in prevention at school 

Parents/community members will be involved in prevention activities 47

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

Number of parents/community members involved in prevention activities 0

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

School safety/security 

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

Safety measures will be implemented 0

Describe how safety measures will be staffed 0

Implementation of security devices 0

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

Drug Prevention

Student drug abuse will be reduced 53

Extent to which student drug abuse will be reduced 27

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

Define student drug violations 3

Violence prevention 

Acts of violence in schools will be reduced 47

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

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

School safety/security 

Define student safety violations 3

Acts of bringing weapons to schools will be reduced 3

Extent to which bringing weapons will be reduced 3

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

Define weapons violations 0

Increase in school safety 13

Define increase in school safety 10 

Evaluation 

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

How problem behavior will be assessed 33

Program implementation will be evaluated 30

Efforts to reduce student problem behavior will be evaluated 47

How efforts to reduce student problem behavior will be evaluated 43

NOTE.The subsample consisted of a probability sample of 43 districts from among the districts selected for the main sample. Results

are based on responses from 30 of the districts in the subsample.The term “drug” refers to alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs.
Seventeen percent of the subsample districts have an objective that specified both the extent to which the

frequency of violent incidents will be reduced and the time frame in which the reduction would occur,

though 47 percent of the subsample districts included such reductions in a general objective. Only 3

percent of subsample districts have an objective that specified both the extent to which the frequency of

bringing weapons to school will be reduced and the time frame in which the reduction would occur.

With regard to process objectives, 14 percent of the subsample districts have goals or objectives specifying

the amount of drug prevention education that students will receive, though 57 percent of the districts have

an objective that specifies the drug prevention curriculum that will be used. Only 3 percent have an

objective specifying the amount of violence prevention education that students will receive; again, a much

higher percent of the districts (37%) have an objective that specifies the violence prevention curriculum that

will be used. Virtually none of the subsample districts has objectives that cover safety or security measures.

A substantial minority of the subsample districts (47%) has an objective specifying that parents and other

community members will be involved in school prevention activities. More than a quarter of the subsample

districts (27%) also specified the types of prevention activities in which they will participate. However, only

3 percent of the subsample districts have an objective that specifies the amount of time that parents and

other community members will participate, and none of the subsample districts set as an objective the

number of such participants.

At least 47 percent of the subsample districts included an objective regarding evaluation. The most

common objective on evaluation specified that efforts to reduce student problem behavior will be

evaluated. A substantial minority of the subsample districts (43%) indicated how the efforts would be

evaluated. Up to a third of the subsample districts have an objective that specified that a needs

assessment focusing on student problem behavior will be conducted.

Individuals participating in developing goals and objectives. The nonregulatory guidance for

implementing the Principles of Effectiveness directs districts to use goals and objectives to shape

prevention programming with the assistance of a local or regional advisory council. Broad participation

can help to ensure that goals and objectives reflect community, as well as school, needs for prevention.

A large proportion of districts included key stakeholders in the process of developing prevention goals and

objectives. The stakeholders that districts most frequently involved in this process include school

administrators (93%), district staff (89%), parents or other community members (84%), other school staff

(80%), and members of local district SDFSCA advisory councils (78%).

In developing goals and objectives, districts were least likely to involve staff

from a regional technical assistance center (20%) and evaluators or

researchers (21%). See Tables 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 in Volume 2 for additional

information on the participation of specific groups.

12

A large proportion of

districts included key

stakeholders in the

process of developing

prevention goals and

objectives. 
2.2 Program Selection

Districts relied on internal sources and factors for selecting prevention efforts more often than on external

sources and factors. A large proportion of districts failed to consider needs assessments or research on

effective practices in making selection decisions.

Factors considered in selecting and developing programming. In selecting prevention efforts,

districts tended to rely much more on sources or factors from within the district than from external sources

and factors. More districts

(97%) based their decisions

on their past experience

than on any other single

factor. In addition, large

proportions of districts

indicated that they considered the amount of available funds (88%), maintenance and expansion of

successful programs already in place (86%), input from district schools (85%), evaluation of ongoing

efforts (85%), and input from an advisory council (81%). The Principles of

Effectiveness direct districts to use needs assessments in selecting

programs; nearly three-fourths (73%) of districts reported doing so.

In making decisions on which prevention efforts to support, many

districts appear to have taken little advantage of resources from outside

their districts. Districts were least likely to mention external sources and

factors, such as guidance from local

comprehensive regional technical

assistance centers (27%) and input

from evaluators or researchers at

colleges, universities, or private

research firms (21%).

More than half of the districts (58%) considered research on the

effectiveness of potential programs. See Table 2.2.1 in Volume 2 for

additional information on district decisions.

Characteristics of programming considered in selecting and developing programming.

The characteristics of the programming itself that were considered by districts in selecting or developing

programming include age appropriateness (99%); relevance of proposed program to specific student

alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use problems in the district (95%); evidence of program effectiveness

(93%); cost (92%); and ease of implementation (88%). Districts were less likely to mention, as factors in

their programming selection or development, cultural appropriateness (78%), whether or not a program

needs to be implemented over multiple years to be effective (75%), ease of evaluation (75%), whether or

not target schools have the capacity to implement programs effectively (74%), experiences of staff with

other activities (73%), and number of sessions (65%). At least some of these factors (e.g., whether target

schools have the capacity to implement programs effectively) suggest that a sizable proportion of districts

13

In selecting prevention efforts, districts tended to rely much

more on sources or factors from within the district than from

external sources and factors. 

More than half 

of the districts 

(58%) considered

research on the

effectiveness of

potential programs. 

The Principles of

Effectiveness direct

districts to use needs

assessments in selecting

programs; nearly threefourths (73%) of districts

reported doing so.
may adopt programming without considering features that could bear on the successful implementation

of the program. See Table 2.2.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on district selection and

development of programming.

The finding (reported on page 13) that 93 percent of districts reported considering evidence of program

effectiveness in selecting or developing prevention programming seems to clash with the finding (reported

on page 13) that only 58 percent of districts consider research on the effectiveness of potential programs

in their planning. The apparent inconsistency may be due, in part, to differences between considering

research as part of overall decisionmaking on programs and considering research for selecting or

developing specific programs. We would expect the latter situation to be more frequent (which it is),

because it is more focused and tied more closely to district conditions and circumstances (e.g., availability

of funds). Events also may occur during this focused selection process that improve access to research—

for example, if a publisher provides information on the “effectiveness” (e.g., testimonials) of a given

program as part of a solicitation to purchase the program. See Table 2.2.3 in Volume 2 for additional

information on district use of information for selecting programs.

Barriers to the use of information on effective practices. More than any other factor, districts

(76%) reported that satisfaction with the programs already in place in the district may have deterred them

from reviewing evaluation research on prevention programs. See Table 2.3. Resource limitations also

greatly affected district reviews of evaluation research on prevention programs being considered for future

implementation. See Table 2.2.4 in Volume 2 for additional information on barriers to using researchbased approaches.

14

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

of research-based programs

Factor Percent 

Lack of experience in identifying research-based programs 35

Lack of resources to investigate research-based programs 59

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

Satisfaction with programs already in place in schools 76

District’s inability to match research conditions 27

Lack of consistent research findings on potential programs 29

Lack of research addressing local priorities 30

Other1 13

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

question.

1 Other factors include district politics, problems with conducting needs assessments, and lack of direction from the state.
15

2.3 Information Gathering on Effective Practices

A sizable proportion of districts relied on research information to learn about potential programs.

However, only a minority of districts define research-based programs in a way that is consistent with the

Principles of Effectiveness.

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

information on prevention options.

A large proportion of districts consulted the research literature themselves or relied on experts outside

their districts who are presumably familiar with the literature. Seventy percent of districts directly reviewed

research literature on potential programs, 71 percent of the districts reviewed an evaluation of a proposed

program, and 63 percent read

professional journals about the

effectiveness of potential

programs. A smaller proportion

of districts discussed potential

programs with state SDFSCA

staff (45%) or with staff from a

local comprehensive regional technical assistance center (30%), or accessed information on proposed

programs on the Internet (28%). These latter three sources of information potentially could have provided

information on research-based programs. Additionally, a sizable proportion of districts gained

information about potential programs through discussions with other district staff, school staff, or

members of the local district SDFSCA advisory council (81%); or through talking with individuals identified

as satisfied customers of the proposed program (65%). See Table 2.3.1 in Volume 2 for additional

information on district use of various sources of information.

One clear difference among districts is that large and very large districts and urban districts are far more

likely than other districts to review an evaluation of a proposed program or to read professional journals.

District definition of “research-based.” Districts use different

definitions of “research-based programs” than the one provided in the ED

nonregulatory guidance on the implementation of the Principles of

Effectiveness. That guidance refers to a research-based program as one

that, based on evidence from research or evaluation, prevents or reduces

drug use, violence, or disruptive behavior among youth or demonstrates

changes in attitudes that are predictors of or precursors to drug use or

violent behavior. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, we believe

that districts should define researched-based at least this rigorously.

However, only 35 percent of districts provided the definition that is most

consistent with the Principles of Effectiveness: programs that prevention researchers have demonstrated

to be effective in controlled evaluations. Twenty-four percent of districts defined research-based programs

as programs that have been recommended as effective by colleagues; 23 percent defined researchA large proportion of districts consulted the research

literature themselves or relied on experts outside their

districts to gather information on effective practices.

Only 35 percent 

of districts defined

“research-based” 

in a manner that is

consistent with the

Principles of

Effectiveness.
based programs as those that have been evaluated by prevention researchers. Given the emphasis

placed on research on effective practices by the Principles of Effectiveness, this finding suggests that many

districts need better information on the definition of research-based practices and on whether or not

prospective efforts are indeed research-based. See Table 2.3.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on

district definitions of research-based.

2.4 External Influences on Planning Prevention Programs

As indicated in the conceptual framework (Section 1.2), the planning of district prevention programs can be

affected by a variety of factors, including technical assistance and state education agencies (SEAs).

Planning activities also may be influenced by district awareness of Federal program guidelines.

Technical assistance. The finding that only 58 percent of districts consider research on the effectiveness

of potential programs suggests that districts need help in selecting research-based efforts. (This finding

also may indicate that some districts place relatively low value on research-based information—either

because they recognize that much of the “research” is weak or inconclusive, or they operate under a

different value system. Such districts might receive little or no benefit from technical assistance in selecting

research-based efforts.) Only 41 percent of districts received technical assistance on identifying program

effectiveness research. In response to a separate question, 49 percent reported that they needed technical

assistance in this area. Similar

proportions of districts received

technical assistance in

evaluating potential programs

(39%) and reported needing

technical assistance in this area (45%). See Table 2.4.1 in Volume 2 for additional information on the

amount of technical assistance received and needed.

SEA influence on district drug and violence prevention programs. More than half of districts

indicated that their SEA influenced one or more aspects of their SDFSCA program. The most frequently

reported aspects were reporting (62%), record keeping (59%), program evaluation (58%), and planning

(54%). One-third of the districts reported that SEAs influenced their choice of programs or purchases of

materials. See Table 2.4.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on SEA influence.

The SDFSCA grant applications that SEAs require from districts are potentially an important tool for shaping

district prevention activities.

While a sizable proportion of

districts reported that SEAs

influenced their SDFSCA

programs, SEAs seemed

generally satisfied with the SDFSCA applications they received from most districts. For example, SEAs

disapproved one or more parts of applications from only 4 percent of districts. Only 23 percent of districts

received comments from SEAs on their applications. For 15 percent of the districts, SEAs required additional

information on student drug use and violence. See Table 2.4.3 in Volume 2 for additional information on

SEA reviews of district applications.

16

Only 41 percent of districts received technical assistance 

on identifying program effectiveness research. 

One-third of the districts reported that SEAs influenced

their choice of programs or purchases of materials. 
17

These findings could be interpreted in at least two different ways. One interpretation is that SEAs use a

vehicle other than the application process to influence district programs. Technical assistance is a possible

approach. Another interpretation is that SEAs are satisfied with the prevention activities planned by

districts and with the justification provided by the districts for the activities. This might be cause for concern

given that, for example, only a small proportion of districts regularly conduct needs assessments. (See 

Chapter 5.)

Awareness of Federal initiatives. Approximately two-thirds of

districts were aware of at least one major Federal initiative

pertaining to the SDFSCA Program. For example, 75 percent were

familiar with the Federal emphasis on assessing the effectiveness

of programs. In spite of ED’s efforts to disseminate information on

the Principles of Effectiveness—including distributing guidance on

the Principles to all SEAs and organizing a conference in June 1998

on implementing the Principles—only 65 percent of districts were

aware of the Principles at the time of the survey. See Table 2.4.4 in

Volume 2 for additional information on district awareness of

Federal initiatives.

In spite of ED’s efforts to

disseminate information

on the Principles of

Effectiveness, only 65

percent of districts were

aware of the Principles

at the time of the survey. 

19

3. Implementation of Prevention Programs

Once they select prevention efforts, districts coordinate with schools to implement the efforts. The Safe

and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) coordinators, who presumably lead

implementation, often had limited time for prevention activities. Districts tended to implement activities

that target students rather than school environments. More than half of the districts require schools to

provide prevention activities and to meet other program requirements. Districts typically monitor the

implementation of their prevention activities.

3.1 District Organization of Prevention Activities

Districts tend to administer prevention activities funded by SDFSCA and by other sources from the same

organizational unit. SDFSCA coordinators, who typically have multiple work roles, have limited time

available for prevention activities. Relatively few districts assign full-time prevention coordinators to

individual schools.

Districts tend to administer the vast majority of prevention activities from the

same organizational unit in which the SDFSCA coordinator is located.

Approximately one-third of districts administer prevention activities from an

office other than the SDFSCA office. This pattern varies substantially by district

enrollment. Although only 18 percent of the very smallest districts operate any

prevention activities out of offices other than the SDFSCA office, 63 percent of

the very largest districts do so. See Table 3.1.1 in Volume 2 for additional

information on operation of programs funded by SDFSCA and other sources. 

SDFSCA coordinators in districts tend to play multiple other work roles. Only 15 percent of them are

officially known as SDFSCA coordinators. Other common job titles are superintendent or assistant

superintendent (15%), counselor or social worker (14%), principal (11%), director of special projects (9%),

director of health services (8%), and director of curriculum and instruction (7%).

SDFSCA coordinators also typically devote limited time to prevention

activities. More than half of SDFSCA coordinators spend no more than 5

percent of their time on the SDFSCA Program; another 20 percent of

coordinators spend no more than 10 percent of their time on program

activities. Only 2 percent of SDFSCA program

coordinators are fully dedicated or almost fully

dedicated to program activities. Some of these

individuals may also work on prevention efforts

funded by sources other than SDFSCA. 

Relatively few districts (21%) have full-time prevention coordinators assigned to

schools. Even in districts with these staffing arrangements, generally fewer than

20 percent of schools are staffed by such an individual. Fifty-seven percent of the

very large school districts and 52 percent of the large school districts are

Only 15 percent of 

the individuals who

administer the SDFCA

program are officially

known as SDFSCA 

coordinators. 

More than half of

SDFSCA coordinators

spend no more than

5 percent of their

time on the SDFSCA

Program. Relatively few

districts (21%) have

full-time prevention

coordinators

assigned to

schools. 
20

providing this staff resource to at least some of their schools, while only 12 percent of the small

districts provide this resource. See Table 3.1.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on staff

resources allocated to prevention services. 

3.2 Types of Prevention Efforts

Districts more frequently supported prevention efforts directly targeted at individuals than at the

classroom or school environment. Large districts adopted types of prevention activities that are

research-based. However, the prevention activities that districts viewed as their most effective

activities often were not research-based.

General types of activities. School districts are supporting many different types of drug and

violence prevention activities with SDFSCA funds. (In addition to activities initiated at the district level,

schools may initiate their own efforts. We were unable to capture information on those efforts in

this study.) Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training activities are most frequently supported by

school districts using SDFSCA funds—89 percent of school districts have such efforts in place. See

Table 3-1. Programs that warn of the dangers of drugs (88%) and programs that focus on selfesteem (80%) are the activities next most frequently used by school districts to prevent or reduce

both drug use and violence. Counseling, social work, or related activities are used by 57 percent of

school districts.

In comparison to activities

designed to change directly

student knowledge, attitude,

and behaviors, districts less

frequently implement efforts

targeted at environmental

change. Thirty-six percent of

districts provided training, supervision, or technical assistance in classroom management for

teachers; 30 percent of districts engaged in the review, revision, or monitoring of discipline practices

and procedures; and only 11 percent of districts conducted reorganization of school, grades, or

schedules (e.g., school within a school, “houses,” or “teams”). See Tables 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 in Volume

2 for additional information on use of specific prevention activities.

Staff training. A substantial proportion of districts provided SDFSCA-funded training to students

or school staff. Sixty-nine percent of districts offered training to students, presumably for peer

mediation or similar activities. Just more than 70 percent of districts offered SDFSCA-funded training

to teachers, guidance counselors, and school psychologists during the 1997-98 school year.

The very large and large school districts were substantially more likely to offer training to staff than

the very small school districts. For example, slightly more than 90 percent of very large districts and

86 percent of large districts offered training to school administrators. However, only 43 percent of

the very small districts provided training to school administrators. See Table 3.2.3 in Volume 2 for

additional information on staff training. 

In comparison to activities designed to change

directly student knowledge, attitude, and behaviors,

districts less frequently implement efforts targeted

at environmental change. 
Use of research-based prevention approaches. Perhaps in part because districts have a limited

understanding of what constitutes an effective program, very few districts are using research-based

prevention efforts. In a comprehensive review of the prevention literature (including literature on drug and

violence prevention) for a report to Congress, Gottfredson (1997) identified the following types of efforts as

having been demonstrated to be effective in controlled evaluations: (a) building school capacity (e.g.,

organizational development), (b) establishing norms and setting rules, (c) implementing curriculum and

instruction directed at social competencies (e.g., problem solving skills and conflict resolution), and (d)

using behavioral and cognitive-behavioral modification efforts. In addition, one should be mindful that

“Even the best designed program can show uneven results because of obstacles to implementation”

(Drug Strategies, 1995).

21

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

by objective of activity

If used SDFSCA funds for activity, 

objective of activity1

Activity Used Both drug 

SDFSCA funds Drug Violence and violence 

for activity prevention prevention prevention 

% %%%

Prevention curriculum, instruction or training for 

students, such as social skills training 89 10 2 88

Behavioral programming or behavior modification 

for students 52 9 9 83

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic 

activity for students 57 9 2 89

Other activities involving individual attention for students, 

such as tutoring or mentoring 38 5 2 93

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

Student involvement in resolving student conduct 

problems, for example, dispute or conflict resolution, 

mediation, or student court 62 3 22 75

Training, supervision, or technical assistance in 

classroom management for teachers 36 3 15 82

Review, revision, or monitoring of discipline 

practices and procedures 30 6 7 86

Involvement of parents or community experts in 

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

Reorganization of school, grades, or schedules, 

for example, school within a school, “houses” 

or “teams” of students to prevent or reduce 

violence or drug use 11 15 3 82

Information-only programs 54 20 0 80

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

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

Other 11 11 8 81

NOTE.The first column of numbers reports the percentages of districts funding school activities with SDFSCA funds.The remaining

columns of numbers report the objectives of those school activities (i.e., activities funded with SDFSCA funds).

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

2 For logistical reasons, violence prevention was a response option for this question.
22

Using the Gottfredson (1997) assessment, we found that only 9 percent of districts are using drug

prevention efforts that are research-based. An equivalent proportion of districts are using violence

prevention efforts that are research-based. See Table 3-2. A much higher proportion of districts—25 to 37

percent—are using elements of research-based programs; however, we are unable to judge the likely

effectiveness of the resulting whole activities. Because the comparisons of district prevention efforts against

the external criteria are based on district

reports that were often incomplete and

ambiguous, we urge the reader to

interpret these results as more

preliminary than conclusive. Nonetheless,

the findings suggest that the emphasis

placed by the Principles of Effectiveness on using research-based prevention efforts may be well justified.

Perceptions of most effective and costly prevention activities. Although the findings presented

in the previous section raise doubts about the extent to which the vast majority of districts are adopting

research-based prevention efforts, districts readily identified activities—in response to open-ended

questions—that they are implementing and they perceive as effective. In interpreting the results, one

should be mindful that the district perceptions are often based on SDFSCA coordinator observations and

conclusions. As discussed in Chapter 5, this basis is likely to be seriously flawed. 

Table 3-2. Percent of districts using prevention activities that are supported by

research, by type of activity

Extent of support by research 

Activities supported Activities with elements 

by research supported by research

Type of activity % %

Drug prevention 9 25

Violence prevention 9 37

Most costly prevention activity1 9 28

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

1 In addition to asking respondents to name their most effective drug prevention or violence prevention activities or programs, we asked 

them to name their most costly prevention activity.The most costly activity could be a drug prevention or violence prevention activity.

Also, it could overlap with the most effective drug prevention or violence prevention activity that respondents named.

Less than 10 percent of districts are using drug and

violence prevention efforts that are research-based. 
23

Districts identified a diverse array of activities as their most effective drug prevention activity (which may

or may not be research-based). The activities include mental health services, peer mediation/counseling,

and extracurricular activities. They also include specific, named curricula such as Here’s Looking at You

2000 and Life Skills. See Table 3-3. In addition, 18 percent of districts identified Drug Abuse Resistance

Education (DARE) as their most effective drug prevention activity. (We report on DARE separately because,

in response to open-ended questions, districts much more frequently identified it than any other specific

prevention education activity.) See Table 3.2.6 in Volume 2 for additional information on specific

prevention education activities. Districts considered activities as their most effective drug prevention efforts

based on evaluation results from either internal (33%) or external (5%) sources, as often as they based

their judgements on SDFSCA coordinator observations and conclusions (38%). See Table 3.2.4 in Volume

2 for additional information on district perceptions of their most effective and costly prevention activities. 

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

type of drug prevention activity

Type of activity Percent 

General prevention education1 21

Specific prevention education2 21

DARE3 18

Mental health services4 16

Peer mediation/counseling 5

Extracurricular activities 5

Assemblies 4

Other5 10

Total 100

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 407 districts.

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

gang violence prevention, and violence prevention programs.

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

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

any other specific prevention education activity.

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

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

drug testing of students, and staff training.
As with drug prevention efforts, districts viewed many different types of activities as their most effective

violence prevention effort. See Table 3-4. These activities include general, unnamed prevention activities

(e.g., classroom education) and mental health services. Nine percent of districts considered DARE as their

most effective violence prevention effort. Although considering DARE a violence prevention effort may be

surprising to some, because drug use is associated with violent behaviors, many practitioners and

researchers argue that preventing drug use is an important part of preventing violence. Slightly more

districts based their assessment of violence prevention program effectiveness on evaluation results from

either internal (40%) or external (5%) sources than on SDFSCA coordinator observations and conclusions.

Fourteen percent of school districts viewed the same activity as most effective at preventing drug abuse

and at promoting school safety and preventing violence.

24

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

of violence prevention activity

Type of activity Percent 

Specific prevention education1 22

Conflict resolution 16

General prevention education2 12

Peer mediation/counseling 12

Mental health services3 11

DARE4 9

Assemblies 6

Police involvement 3

Other5 8

Total 99

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 359 districts.

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

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

gang violence prevention, and violence prevention programs.

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

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

any other specific prevention education activity.

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

and staff training.
Districts also identified the prevention activity on which they allocated the most resources. For more than

60 percent of districts, the drug prevention program viewed as most effective is also the one on which 

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

activity for 40 percent of districts was something other than the drug prevention activity that they viewed

as their most effective activity. In contrast, in only 12 percent of districts, the violence prevention program

viewed as most effective received the greatest amount of prevention funding. Districts most frequently

considered as their most expensive efforts specific, named prevention activities (20%) and general,

unnamed prevention activities (17%). See Table 3-5. See Table 3.2.5 in Volume 2 for additional information

on the students served by the activities that districts perceive as their most effective and costly prevention

activities.

25

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

type of prevention activity

Type of activity Percent 

Specific prevention education1 20

General prevention education2 17

Mental health services3 16

DARE4 13

Assemblies 5

Extracurricular activities 5

Peer mediation/counseling 4

Red Ribbon Week 4

Conflict resolution 3

Staff 3

Other5 9

Total 100

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 393 districts.

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

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

gang violence prevention, and violence prevention programs.

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

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

any other specific prevention education activity.

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

tutoring, safety, and security measures.
26

3.3 Implementation of Prevention Efforts

The majority of districts required schools to provide prevention activities for students. A sizeable proportion

targeted prevention activities to types of students or schools. Districts frequently engaged in program

monitoring of one sort or another.

Requirements for prevention. More than half of the districts required schools to provide a specified

minimum number of hours of prevention activities for elementary, middle, or high school students. The

minimum number of hours required ranged from 5 to 250 hours. See Table 3.3.1 in Volume 2 for additional

information on the extent of prevention activities required for students.

A number of districts also required

schools to perform certain activities

in order to receive SDFSCA funding.

A substantial minority of districts

(44%) require schools to assess 

the need for prevention activities;

49 percent require schools to prepare plans on how they will use prevention funds; and 51 percent require

schools to evaluate prevention activities. See Table 3-6. See Table 3.3.2 in Volume 2 for additional

information on district requirements for schools relating to their SDFSCA funds.

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

use of SDFSCA funds

Extent to which activity required 

Encouraged but 

Required not required

Activity % %

Prepare plans specifying how resources will be used 49 40

Select programs or activities from an approved list 25 57

Conduct a needs assessment 44 42

Evaluate program activities 51 39

Report progress in meeting goals to the district 50 39

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

More than half of districts required schools to provide 

a specified minimum number of hours of prevention

activities for elementary, middle, or high school students. 
27

Targeting services. Some districts target services to high risk students and students who are moving

from one educational level to the next. High risk students are especially likely to be targeted for services

in very large school districts and in urban school districts. See Table 3.3.3 in Volume 2 for additional

information on targeting of services to high risk students.

Only 39 percent of districts target schools for specific drug and violence

prevention services. When deciding whether or not to target schools for

prevention services, districts are very likely to consider the extent of student

drug abuse. Many districts also consider the levels of one or more of the

following student suspension, expulsion, or referral to alternative education

programs. They also consider school administration support for prevention

efforts; victimization, bullying, and vandalism; student absenteeism and drop

out rates; and parental concern or political pressure. See Table 3.3.4 in

Volume 2 for additional information on targeting of services by extent of drug

and safety problems.

Program monitoring. A large proportion of districts engaged in some type of program monitoring.

Eighty-six percent of school districts monitored the extent to which program activities were implemented

as intended, and 74 percent of school districts

monitored the number and characteristics of students

served. See Tables 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 in Volume 2 for

additional information on monitoring program

implementation. 

A large proportion of districts engaged

in program monitoring. 

High risk students are

especially likely to be

targeted for services

in very large school

districts and in urban

school districts. 

29

4. Resources for Prevention Programs

Funding for prevention activities is a serious issue at the district level. For the vast majority of districts, the

per student Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) allocations are small. However,

districts do typically receive funding for prevention from additional other sources. Many districts report that

their prevention efforts rely heavily on SDFSCA funding.

4.1 Funding for Prevention

Districts typically receive small amounts of SDFSCA funding per student from the main program. A small

proportion of districts also receive funding from the “greatest needs” and Governors’ portions of the

program. In addition, the majority of districts receive funding from at least one source besides SDFSCA.

Overall levels of funding. The 1997-98 SDFSCA budget, $531 million

for state grants, may appear to be a huge sum of money. When spread

among the 42 million children enrolled in public schools (plus the

millions of children enrolled in private schools), however, the funding

available per child for prevention is less than the cost of a single

textbook. Except for the small number of districts receiving greatest

needs funding (9% of districts), most school districts receive nominal

SDFSCA allocations. For 60 percent of school districts without greatest

needs funding, the allocation amounts to less than $6 per pupil. See

Table 4-1. 

Two-thirds of districts received funding from sources other than SDFSCA

for prevention activities in the 1997-98 school year. These sources and the proportion of districts that

received them are as follows: state funds (34%); school district or local government funds (31%); private

foundation grants (9%); businesses (19%); law enforcement agencies (31%); and community groups, such

as the Lions and Kiwanis Clubs (24%). See Table 4-2. See Tables 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 in Volume 2 for additional

information on non-SDFSCA sources of funding.

Greatest needs funding. Twenty-eight percent of children nationally were enrolled in the 9 percent of

school districts that are receiving supplemental greatest needs funding. The funds were more likely to 

be targeted at districts with large

enrollments than districts with small

enrollments: 75 percent of very large

school districts (i.e., districts enrolling

90,000 or more students) received

greatest needs funding, compared to 29

percent of large school districts (i.e., districts enrolling from 10,001 to 89,999 students), 15 percent of

medium sized school districts (i.e., districts enrolling from 2,501 to 10,000 students), and 5 percent or

fewer of the smaller school districts (i.e., districts enrolling 2,500 or fewer students). 

Except for the small

number of districts

receiving greatest needs

funding (9% of districts),

most school districts 

receive nominal SDFSCA

allocations. 

Two thirds of districts received funding from

sources other than SDFSCA for prevention

activities in the 1997-98 school year. 
30

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

funding and district characteristics

Per pupil SDFSCA funding

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

$4 5.99 7.99 9.99 More

Characteristic % % % % %

Enrollment 

Less than 300 8 36 11 0 45

300 to 1,000 14 49 14 7 16

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

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

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

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

Urbanicity 

Urban 9 38 16 5 32

Suburban 5 59 16 2 18

Rural 10 43 16 6 26

Percent minority enrollment 

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

5.1 to 20% 10 55 7 4 25

20.1 to 50% 2 51 20 3 23

Greater than 50% 13 44 14 5 24

Poverty1

High poverty quartile 4 46 13 7 28

High/medium poverty quartile 13 45 12 3 27

Low/medium poverty quartile 11 43 21 4 21

Low poverty quartile 3 60 16 3 18

Receiving SDFSCA greatest needs funding 

Yes 3 16 8 9 64

No2 9 51 17 4 19

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 403 districts.

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

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

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

children.

2 Although it may seem unusual that districts not receiving needs funding received a SDFSCA allocation of more than $10, these findings

are based on survey responses.These findings may reflect the difficulty for some districts to report budget information on this progress

accurately.
For many of the districts receiving greatest needs funding (77%), the funding allowed them to increase

services for the neediest students. For nearly two-thirds of these districts (64%), the greatest needs

funding also permitted them to increase services to the neediest schools. Of the districts receiving greatest

needs funding, 75 percent used the funds to increase training for teachers. Eighty-six percent of the

districts receiving these funds reported that the funding resulted in the reduction of drug abuse problems,

violence problems, or both types of problems. See Table 4.1.3 in Volume 2 for additional information on

the influence of greatest needs funds.

31

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

per pupil funding and district characteristics

Per pupil non-SDFSCA funding

No additional Less

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

funds $4 5.99 7.99 9.99 More

Characteristic % % % % % %

Enrollment 

Less than 300 40 14 8 2 6 31

300 to 1,000 51 21 10 6 0 12

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

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

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

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

Urbanicity 

Urban 10 20 15 3 5 48

Suburban 32 27 5 4 7 26

Rural 42 28 8 4 3 14

Percent minority enrollment 

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

5.1 to 20% 31 24 8 6 5 25

` 20.1 to 50% 40 18 4 4 12 20

Greater than 50% 28 53 5 6 6 22

Poverty1

High poverty quartile 45 24 1 10 4 16

High/medium poverty quartile 34 27 9 4 5 21

Low/medium poverty quartile 36 29 8 3 5 20

Low poverty quartile 35 28 9 1 3 23

Receiving SDFSCA greatest need funding 

Yes 38 27 7 4 4 19

No 24 25 8 5 4 33

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 377 districts.

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

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

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

percent of children.
32

Governors’ Program funding. Few districts (2%) received grants from the Governors’ portion of the

SDFSCA Program. Of the districts receiving SDFSCA Governors’ Program funding, 60 percent used the funds

for community efforts, including school participation in community coalition prevention efforts; recruiting

students for involvement in community-based prevention efforts; and integrating community projects into

school activities. Districts also reported using these funds to increase the availability of services (60%) and

to support school participation in community coalition needs assessments (30%). See Table 4.1.4 in Volume

2 for additional information on the use of Governors’ funds.

4.2 Spending on Prevention

Districts most often allocated prevention funding to program materials and implementation. For some

districts, the single most expensive prevention activity exceeds their SDFSCA budget.

General program activities. Districts were most likely to allocate SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA funding to

program materials and implementation. Eighty-five percent of districts allocated SDFSCA funds to purchase

materials; half of districts allocated non-SDFSCA funds to purchase materials. See Table 4-3. Relatively few

districts allocated SDFSCA funds to purchase equipment (e.g., metal detectors). Seventy-three percent of

districts allocated SDFSCA funds to program implementation; 46 percent of districts allocated non-SDFSCA

funds to program implementation. 

District estimates of their spending on prevention activities, especially on implementation, may seriously

understate the total amount of that spending. These estimates are based on the amount of SDFSCA and

other funding that districts have available centrally for

prevention. We expect that, for many districts, the

estimates omit costs incurred at the school level.

Prominent among these costs are those for teacher

hours for implementing district-supported prevention

curricula. As discussed in Section 3.2, prevention

instruction is one of the most frequent types of prevention activities supported by districts. Hence, we

suspect that many districts indirectly fund the implementation of these activities from budget categories

other than prevention, such as general instruction categories that include teacher salaries. In this sense,

some of the district spending on prevention may be “hidden” and omitted from our estimates of spending

on prevention. 

Districts were least likely to allocate SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA funds to program selection and evaluation.

Seventy-four percent of districts allocated no SDFSCA funds to program selection; 86 percent of districts

allocated no non-SDFSCA funding to program selection.

Sixty-three percent of districts allocated no SDFSCA

funds to evaluation; 80 percent of districts allocated no

non-SDFSCA funding to evaluation. See Tables 4.2.1 and

4.2.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on district

expenditures.

Districts were most likely to allocate

SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA funding to

program materials and implementation. 

Districts were least likely to allocate

SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA funds to

program selection and evaluation. 
33

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

funding, by type of activity 

Type of funding 

SDFSCA1 Non-SDFSCA2

Activity and percent of funding allocated % % 

Materials 

No funds allocated 15 50

Less than 20% 33 24

20 to 39% 30 11

40 to 59% 10 7

60 to 79% 5 3

More than 79% 8 6

Program selection 

No funds allocated 74 86

Less than 20% 22 13

20 to 39% 3 1

40 to 59% 0 0

60 to 79% 0 0

More than 79% 0 0

Training 

No funds allocated 33 63

Less than 20% 35 18

20 to 39% 19 12

40 to 59% 9 3

60 to 79% 3 1

More than 79% 0 2

Program implementation 

No funds allocated 27 54

Less than 20% 13 4

20 to 39% 17 9

40 to 59% 17 9

60 to 79% 12 5

More than 79% 15 18

Evaluation 

No funds allocated 63 80

Less than 20% 34 18

20 to 39% 2 1

40 to 59% 1 0

60 to 79% 0 0

More than 79% 0 0

Other administrative activities 

No funds allocated 65 79

Less than 20% 26 15

20 to 39% 5 4

40 to 59% 2 1

60 to 79% 1 0

More than 79% 1 1

Other activities3

No funds allocated 71 82

Less than 20% 8 4

20 to 39% 8 2

40 to 59% 4 2

60 to 79% 4 1

More than 79% 6 9

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

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

3 Other includes drug testing of students
34

Type of prevention activities. The use of SDFSCA funding varies considerably by type of program

activity. A large proportion of districts fund drug and violence prevention instruction either solely with

SDFSCA monies or with both SDFSCA and other funds. Twenty-three percent of districts fund drug

prevention instruction with only SDFSCA funds; 10 percent use only non-SDFSCA funds; 65 percent use both

SDFSCA and other monies to fund these activities; and only 1 percent of districts do not provide drug

prevention instruction. See Table 4-4. Similarly, 20 percent of districts fund violence prevention instruction

solely with SDFSCA funds, while 57 percent of districts use both SDFSCA and other resources to fund this

type of prevention activity. In contrast, forty-two percent of districts fund the communication of standards

for behavior (i.e., informing students about school rules and the consequences of violating those rules)

solely with non-SDFSCA funds. Notably, 39 percent of school districts provide no assistance to schools for

needs assessment, 54 percent provide no assistance for program selection, and 48 percent provide no

assistance to schools for program evaluation. See Table 4.2.3 in Volume 2 for additional information on

how services are funded.

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

Source of funding 

Both SDFSCA Activity 

Non- and not

SDFSCA SDFSCA Non-SDFSCA supported 

Activity % % % % 

Special, one-time events 29 18 48 4

Drug prevention instruction 23 10 65 1

Requisitioning and distribution of program manuals, 

materials, and supplies 22 17 31 31

Conflict resolution or peer mediation 21 20 39 20

Training in program implementation 21 16 25 38

Violence prevention instruction 20 13 57 10

Assistance with conducting needs assessment 17 27 17 39

Training in program planning and development 17 19 22 41

Student support services, for example, student 

assistance programs, counseling, mentoring, 

identification and referral 14 30 46 10

Parent education/involvement 13 26 37 25

Program evaluation assistance 13 17 21 48

Team building or organization development assistance 12 28 22 38

Technical assistance in selecting programs or 

activities to implement 12 17 17 54

Training or assistance in financial management 

for prevention programs 9 11 10 71

Communication of standards for student behavior 8 42 34 16

Community service projects 6 35 22 37

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

Alternative education programs 3 45 15 37

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

NOTE. Results are based on responses to multiple survey questions. Between 403 and 413 districts provided responses to a given question.
Most effective prevention activities. The cost of

the prevention activities identified by districts as their

most effective exceeded the SDFSCA funding of some

districts. This means that districts had to supplement

their SDFSCA funding to support those activities. For 15

percent of districts, the drug prevention effort that they

identified as their most effective cost more than 100

percent of their total SDFSCA allocation. See Table 4-5. For 29 percent of the very small school districts, the

most effective drug prevention effort exceeded 100 percent of their total SDFSCA allocation. 

35

The cost of the prevention activities

identified by districts as their most

effective exceeded the SDFSCA

funding of some districts. 

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

drug prevention activity, by percent of allocation and district 

characteristics

Cost of activity, as percent of SDFSCA allocation

Less More

than 20 to 49 to 60 to 80 to than 

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

Enrollment

Less than 300 18 18 16 1 18 29

300 to 1,000 46 18 8 5 10 14

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

2.501 to 10,000 42 20 10 9 8 11

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

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

Urbanicity 

Urban 41 8 13 23 0 15

Suburban 42 19 10 5 11 13

Rural 39 20 8 3 14 18

Percent minority enrollment 

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

5.1 to 20% 36 13 11 7 10 22

20.1 to 50% 44 18 14 6 9 9

Greater than 50% 53 10 9 6 1 20

Poverty2

High poverty quartile 35 17 6 7 16 19

High/medium poverty quartile 46 13 10 3 9 19

Low/medium poverty quartile 36 27 9 4 15 9

Low poverty quartile 42 18 10 4 10 16

Receiving SDFSCA 

Yes 40 19 9 4 12 15

No 43 20 12 11 7 7

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 362 districts.

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

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

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

27.4 percent of children; low/medium poverty quartile, 8.8 to 16.4 percent of children; and low poverty quartile, less than 8.8 percent

of children.
36

The cost of the violence prevention activity that districts identified as their most effective activity also

exceeded the SDFSCA funding for some districts. For 14 percent of districts, the cost of their most effective

violence prevention effort exceeded 100 percent of their SDFSCA allocation. See Table 4-6. For 30 percent

of the very small districts, their most effective violence prevention effort costs exceeded 100 percent of their

total SDFSCA allocation. 

Table 4-6. Percent of districts allocating SDFSCA funding to their most effective violence

prevention activity, by percent of allocation and district characteristics

Cost of activity, as percent of SDFSCA allocation

Less More

than 20 to 49 to 60 to 80 to than 

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

Enrollment 

Less than 300 25 13 12 5 15 30

300 to 1,000 53 11 12 4 3 18

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

2.501 to 10,000 51 23 10 5 4 7

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

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

Urbanicity 

Urban 46 14 12 1 13 14

Suburban 52 15 8 6 6 13

Rural 45 16 12 4 8 15

Percent minority enrollment

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

5.1 to 20% 48 18 9 2 3 20

20.1 to 50% 41 24 15 0 11 9

Greater than 50% 60 12 11 1 0 17

Poverty2

High poverty quartile 49 14 10 5 7 16

High/medium poverty quartile 52 13 13 1 5 17

Low/medium poverty quartile 49 19 12 2 11 7

Low poverty quartile 42 16 7 11 7 18

Receiving SDFSCA 

Yes 47 16 10 4 8 15

No 60 14 8 7 5 5

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 317 districts.

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

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

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

27.4 percent of children; low/medium poverty quartile, 8.8 to 16.4 percent of children; and low poverty quartile, less than 8.8 percent of

children.
37

The cost of the prevention activity identified by districts as their most expensive activity is similar to that of

the most expensive drug prevention activity. This is expected given that the most effective drug prevention

program for 65 percent of districts also was their most expensive effort. See Table 4-7.

Table 4-7. Percent of districts allocating SDFSCA funding to their most expensive

prevention activity, by percent of allocation and district characteristics

Cost of activity, as percent of SDFSCA allocation

Less More

than 20 to 49 to 60 to 80 to than 

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

Enrollment 

Less than 300 9 26 16 1 15 33

300 to 1,000 16 26 18 8 13 18

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

2.501 to 10,000 30 25 13 6 10 15

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

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

Urbanicity

Urban 24 20 14 15 13 14

Suburban 24 27 14 6 12 19

Rural 21 24 13 8 15 19

Percent minority enrollment 

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

5.1 to 20% 20 22 14 9 14 22

20.1 to 50% 34 19 18 3 13 13

Greater than 50% 38 20 9 6 1 25

Poverty2

High poverty quartile 22 24 6 11 17 20

High/medium poverty quartile 29 20 17 3 10 21

Low/medium poverty quartile 19 27 17 9 16 12

Low poverty quartile 19 28 11 7 12 23

Receiving SDFSCA 

Yes 21 25 13 7 14 20

No 31 24 15 13 8 8

NOTE. Results are based on responses from 353 districts.

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

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

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

16.5 to 27.4 percent of children; low/medium poverty quartile, 8.8 to 16.4 percent of children; and low poverty quartile, less than 8.8

percent of children.
38

4.3 Importance of SDFSCA Funding

Districts reported that SDFSCA funding is critical to their prevention programs. Almost half of districts (46%)

would be likely to lose their prevention program if they lost their SDFSCA funding. Districts would decrease

the number of hours of services to students either by a

great extent (35%) or by a very great extent (42%), if

they lost SDFSCA funding. See Table 4-8. The majority of

districts also would decrease the number of students

receiving services and the number of prevention

programs and activities if funding were eliminated. See

Tables 4.3.1 through 4.3.3 in Volume 2 for more information on the expected effects of SDFSCA funding

changes.

Table 4-8. Percent of districts reporting changes to prevention efforts if they no longer

received SDFSCA funds, by type and extent of change

Extent of change

Very small Small Great Very great

Type of change % % % %

Decrease number of hours of services 

received by students 6 11 35 42

Decrease number of students receiving services 6 11 33 37

Decrease number of activities 4 10 36 47

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

Decrease training for teachers 8 20 28 34

Eliminate all prevention programming 4 14 25 29

Other1 2 2 7 12

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

1 Other potential changes include elimination of staff.

Almost half of districts (46%) would be

likely to lose their prevention program 

if they lost their SDFSCA funding. 
39

5. Evaluation and Reporting

Evaluation should inform the planning and program development phase of programming. Districts

typically collect information from schools on incidents of problem behavior and from other sources.

However, many districts use methods that raise questions about the validity and usefulness of the

information collected. Districts use the information that they collect in a variety of ways. A large proportion

of districts may need technical assistance on program evaluation and on other program-related topics.

5.1 Monitoring Incidents of Drug Use and Violence

The ongoing monitoring of incidents of drug use and violence by districts can serve as a valuable tool for

gauging progress towards goals, for detecting trends in problem behavior, and for understanding how

problem behavior responds to changes in policy and prevention strategies. A large proportion of districts

require reporting of serious incidents by schools. The quality of the information

on incidents is questionable, however. Districts tend to report relatively little

information on incidents to parents and the general public.

Types of Incidents Schools are Required to Report to Districts.

Districts most frequently require reports from schools on the more serious

types of incidents. These types of incidents include student possession of

weapons (97%); student use of drugs at schools or school-sponsored events

(95%); sale of drugs and alcohol on school grounds (93%); vandalism of school

property, including fires (92%); physical conflict among students (90%); and

physical abuse of teachers (89%). Additionally, a large proportion of districts

(89%) required schools to report absenteeism or class cutting. More than half of districts also require

reports from schools on hate crimes (75%), robbery or theft of items valued at more than $10 (75%), and

trespassing (62%). See Table 5.1.1 in Volume 2 for additional information on district reporting

requirements.

Tracking Incidents. Districts vary considerably on how they track

and organize the incident information that they collect from schools.

This is relevant because it defines how districts can use the incident

information. The most frequently reported schemes that districts use

for organizing their information are by school (91%)—which can

allow districts to follow trends within schools—and by type of

incident (77%)—which can allow districts to follow trends in types of

incidents. A smaller proportion of districts organized this information

by individual, either victim or perpetrator (59%). Hence, less than 60

percent of districts have the capability to use information on the

problem behavior of individual students or others (e.g., school staff,

parents, and other community members). For example, as part of documentation on disciplinary actions

or to identify the need for special services. See Table 5.1.2 in Volume 2 for additional information on district

tracking of incidents.

Districts most

frequently require

reports from

schools on serious

types of incidents of

problem behavior.

The most frequently

reported schemes that

districts use for organizing

incident data are by 

school (91%), which can

allow districts to follow

trends within schools.
Ensuring That Schools are Reporting Incidents Appropriately. Although information collection

and reporting systems should contain procedures for ensuring information quality, many districts lack

these types of procedures. Only 75 percent of districts routinely followup

with staff when incident forms are submitted with missing or inconsistent

information. A smaller proportion of districts train staff on completing

incident forms (59%) or distribute a handbook on procedures for

completing the forms (54%). Only 14 percent of districts reported that they

audit school records to ensure that schools accurately report incident

information. See Table 5.1.3 in Volume 2 for additional information on

district information quality procedures.

While they raise questions about the quality of district incident information,

the survey findings are silent on whether the lack of measures to ensure

the quality of incident information (e.g., training and procedures on

completing incident forms) found for many districts reflects more the simple nature of the forms in use (e.g.,

forms may be straightforward enough to make these measures unnecessary) or potential information

quality problems.

Reporting Information on Incidents to the Public. On the whole, the majority of districts report little

information on school safety and student drug abuse to parents and the general public. Although 40

percent of districts report general information on some or all incidents, smaller proportions report more

specific information on incidents: 27 percent report all incidents individually, 10 percent report certain

categories of incidents, and 6 percent only

report severe incidents. Seventeen percent

of districts report no information on school

safety and student drug abuse to parents

and the general public. See Table 5.1.4 in

Volume 2 for additional information on

district incident reporting.

5.2 Methods for Assessing Needs for and Evaluating 

Prevention Efforts

Districts can use information on incidents of problem behavior and information from other sources to

assess needs and evaluate their prevention efforts. A large proportion of districts used valid measures for

these purposes. However, the use of the measures still raises concerns, because the quality of the

information underlying them may be suspect.

Measures Districts Used to Evaluate the Outcomes of Prevention Efforts. Districts have

available to them an array of different measures for assessing needs and evaluating their Safe and DrugFree Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA)-funded prevention efforts. Each type of measure provides a

somewhat different type of information; each has strengths and limitations; and each may be more or less

relevant to a specific district prevention effort. Ideally, districts will use multiple measures to compensate

for the limitations of individual measures.

40

On the whole, the majority of districts report little

information on school safety and student drug

abuse to parents and the general public.

Although information

collection and reporting

systems should contain

procedures for ensuring

information quality,

many districts lack these

types of procedures. 
41

For evaluating problem behavior prevention efforts, a widely

used measure is the percentage of students self-reporting

criminal or violent victimization. Sixty-three percent of districts

reported that they used this type of measure, which is typically

based on surveys of students, during the 1997-98 school year.

Additionally, 77 percent of districts used the number of criminal

and violent incidents at schools, which is typically based on

incident reporting systems. The percentage of students selfreporting criminal or violent victimization measure has the

advantage of capturing information on less serious incidents that

may be invisible to incident reporting systems. Those less serious

incidents (e.g., threats of violence) are important because they

are much more frequent than the serious incidents; they can still

interfere with learning (e.g., by deterring students from attending school); and they can indicate the

potential for more serious incidents. The number of incidents measure may capture serious types of

incidents more completely than student reports of victimization, because those reports are often collected

from a sample of students; however, the number of incidents measure will miss many unreported less

serious incidents. See Table 5.2.1 in Volume 2 for additional information on district use of measures.

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

use in schools. Eighty percent of districts reported that they measured any use during the 1997-98 school

year. Large proportions of districts (73%) also reported using the percentage of students using alcohol,

tobacco, and other drugs in schools. Two-thirds of districts also measured student attitudes toward

alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. The any use measure provides a more relevant view of drug use than

the use in schools measure, because drug use is suppressed in the controlled environment of a school.

Moreover, the spirit of the SDFSCA program is to prevent any drug use, regardless of where it occurs.

Student attitudes toward alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs are a weaker measure than either of the othr

two measures because they are less directly tied to behavior; however, some researchers and

practitioners argue that they are associated with the likelihood of future use.

Information Collected by Districts From Different Sources. Measures of problem behavior are

only as useful as the information on which they are based. For example, rates of alcohol, tobacco, and

other drug use among students are most useful if they are based on a well-designed and wellimplemented prevalence survey of students. (Such prevalence surveys include, for example, the Youth

Risk Behavior Survey and the Monitoring the

Future Survey.) During the 1997-98 school year,

35 percent of districts conducted a periodic

prevalence survey of elementary school

students; 57 percent of districts conducted a

periodic prevalence survey of middle school

students; and 61 percent of districts conducted a periodic prevalence survey of high school students.

During the 1997-98 school year, most districts collected information on the scope of drug and violence

For evaluating problem

behavior prevention efforts, 

a widely used measure is 

the percentage of students

self-reporting criminal or

violent victimization. Many

districts also used the 

number of criminal and

violent incidents at schools.

The quality of information is an issue for the

districts that collected information with

periodic prevalence surveys. 
problems from school administrators, other school staff (e.g., teachers, guidance counselors, or school

psychologists), and police or security. Districts reported that administrators (86%) and security (43%) were

asked about incidents of drug use and violence. Other school staff were asked about their personal

impressions of school safety (84%). They also reported that these individuals were asked for their personal

impression of program effectiveness (administrators [75%], other school staff [87%], police and security

[44%]). Eighty percent of districts used this information to assess the impact of existing programs; 81

percent used it to assess the need to add new prevention strategies. Evaluation information was also

collected from community members such as parents (73%) and health care agencies or providers (49%).

Eighty-one percent of districts collected personal impressions of program effectiveness from these

sources—most (85%) also collected personal impressions of the level of drug use and violence in schools

from them. More than three-fourths of districts used the information to assess the impact of existing

programs (84%) and to assess the need to add new prevention strategies. See Tables 5.2.2 through 5.2.7

in Volume 2 for additional information on district information sources.

The quality of information is an issue for the districts that collected information with periodic prevalence

surveys. To be valid, prevalence surveys must collect information from practically all potential respondents

or from a sufficiently large probability sample of those potential respondents. A large proportion of districts

failed to meet this standard. (We were unable to assess the adequacy of the sample sizes used by districts

in probability samples. For this report, we assume that the sample sizes were sufficient.) Of those that

surveyed elementary school students (35% of districts), 73 percent surveyed practically all students or a

probability sample of students; of those that surveyed middle school students (57% of districts), 82 percent

surveyed practically all students or a probability sample of students; of those that surveyed high school

students (61% of districts), 82 percent surveyed practically all students or a probability sample of students.

Hence, a relatively small proportion of districts collected information with a periodic prevalence survey

using a valid selection method: 26 percent of districts surveyed elementary students using a valid method,

47 percent of districts surveyed middle school students using a valid method, and 50 percent of districts

surveyed high school students using a valid method. See Tables 5.2.8 through 5.2.10 in Volume 2 for

additional information on district student information gathering.

An additional factor than can affect the quality of an evaluation is whether it is conducted by an internal or

external evaluator, or whether or not it is based on the observations of the program administrator. A

window on this issue is provided by district responses about the basis for their identifying a specific drug

prevention program as effective. Although 38 percent of districts indicated that an evaluation from an

internal or external source was the basis for their judgment on the program, an additional 38 percent of

districts based their judgment on SDFSCA coordinator observations or conclusions. Judgments based on

coordinator observations or conclusions are likely to be weaker, given the potential for bias and the

probable lack of systematic research methods. Similar rates apply for the violence prevention programs

that districts identify as their most effective. See Tables 5.2.11 and 5.2.12 in Volume 2 for additional

information on bases for identifying the most effective prevention programs.

Technical Assistance on Evaluation and Reporting. Although a large proportion of districts

appeared to need technical assistance on program evaluation (e.g., based on the quality of prevalence

survey information that they collected for evaluation), less than half of districts received it (39%) or reported

42
43

that they needed it (45%). The largest districts were more likely to receive technical assistance than other

districts (e.g., 71% for the largest districts vs. 45% for districts with enrollments of 2,501 to 10,000 and 37%

for districts with enrollments under 300).

5.3 Use of Research

Districts used the results of research on their own prevention efforts in many general and specific ways.

They tended to use program-related research results to expand or modify existing programs more often

than to eliminate programs. Potential information quality problems; however, raise questions about the

decisions that were based on the results.

Information from district evaluations of

prevention programs contributed to several

different types of program actions. The most

frequent actions were the addition of new

programs to address problem areas (75%),

activation of discussion among stakeholders

(73%), and measurement of progress towards goals and objectives (72%). Less frequent actions were the

reduction of activities that have been relatively ineffective (60%), elimination of activities that have been

ineffective (59%), and modification of program targeting (59%). See Table 5.3.1 in Volume 2 for additional

information on district use of evaluation.

Districts tended to use information from a given source for multiple purposes. Of the districts that collected

information from students on the scope of drug and violence problems during the 1997-98 school year,

the majority used the information to assess the need to add new strategies (89%) or to assess the need

to modify existing strategies (87%); 74 percent of these districts used the information to assess the need

to drop existing strategies. Districts that collected information from school staff and police and security

staff used the information to assess the need to add new strategies (83%), assess the need to modify

existing strategies (80%), and to assess the need to drop existing strategies (73%). Districts that collected

information from community members also used the information to assess the need to add new

strategies (85%), assess the need to modify existing strategies (80%), and assess the need to drop

existing strategies (71%). See Tables 5.3.2 through 5.3.7 in Volume 2 for additional information on district

use of information sources.

The results on district use of information

indicate that districts were more likely to

modify existing programs than to

eliminate those programs. One possible

explanation is that the evidence standard

is higher for dropping programs than it is

for modifying them or adopting new programs. Efforts to drop programs can face active opposition, for

example, from constituencies that may have developed for the programs and from staff whose positions

may depend on the programs. Dropping programs can also be interpreted by district staff as admitting

Information from district evaluations of

prevention programs contributed to several

different types of program actions. 

The results on district use of information indicate

that districts were more likely to modify existing

programs than to eliminate those programs. 
failure. Only the strongest findings indicating null program results may be able by themselves to overcome

these types of forces. See Tables 5.3.8 and 5.3.9 in Volume 2 for additional information on district

modification of prevention programs.

5.4 District Assessment of State Policies and 

Overall Program Impact

Besides more funding, districts would most like from their state education agencies (SEAs) more or

improved information on prevention-related topics. Seventy-nine percent of districts would like more or

improved information on research-based prevention programs.

An equal proportion of districts would like more or improved

information on evaluating prevention programs. A somewhat

smaller proportion of districts would like more or improved

information on program planning (62%) and program

implementation (61%). Nineteen percent of districts would

recommend that SEAs adopt stricter targeting of funds. See Table

5.4.1 in Volume 2 for additional information on d istrict

recommendations on SEA policies.

Districts tended to view the SDFSCA Program more as a source of

program support than in terms of the outcomes that it has

achieved. More than three-fourths of districts (76%) reported that

SDFSCA funding has helped them to continue useful programs.

But less than half of districts reported that the funding has

reduced school violence (40%) or has reduced student drug abuse (45%). Additionally, 29 percent of

districts reported that SDFSCA funding had improved student academic performance.

These findings on how SDFSCA funds have helped districts varied considerably by district size. The very

large districts (districts enrolling 90,000 or more students) were more likely than the smaller districts to

report that funding led to reductions in school violence and student drug abuse, and to improvements in

student academic performance. This pattern may well reflect the variation in the amount of SDFSCA

funding that districts receive, which is directly related to district size. See Table 5.4.2 in Volume 2 for

additional information on district perceptions of the SDFSCA program.

44

Seventy-nine percent of

districts would like more or

improved information on

research-based prevention

programs. An equal

proportion of districts would

like more or improved

information on evaluating

prevention programs. 
45

6. Implementing the Principles of Effectiveness

To provide a baseline for measuring district progress in complying with the Principles of Effectiveness, we

assessed their current performance against these standards. The majority of districts seem to meet the

first principle, which is to assess school and community needs and use that information in program

planning. The quality of some of the information that districts use is suspect; we are unable to judge the

extent to which they use this information effectively. However, many districts are unable to meet the

second principle, which is to develop measurable goals and objectives and design programs to meet

them. The third principle, which is to use research-based prevention activities, also is out of reach for

many districts. On the fourth principle, which is to evaluate prevention efforts, many districts appear to be

on track; again, the quality of some of the information used by districts is questionable and the extent to

which they use information effectively is unclear. To comply with all of the principles, districts may require

additional resources, in the form of technical assistance or funding.

6.1 Background

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) developed the Principles of Effectiveness to guide state and local

implementation of the SDFSCA Program. In developing this framework, ED was responding to criticism

that the SDFSCA Program lacked sufficient effectiveness and accountability. The Principles direct state

education agencies (SEAs) and districts to plan and implement their SDFSCA programs in ways that are

consistent with current understanding of how best to prevent and reduce student drug abuse and to

promote school safety. 

To provide a baseline for gauging district progress in implementing the Principles, we assessed their

performance against those standards. (The Principles became effective after the reference period for this

study.) The assessment also can provide information on the areas in which districts most need assistance

to comply with the Principles in the future.

6.2 Principle 1: Base Programs on a Thorough Assessment of

Objective Data about the Drug and Violence Problems in

the Schools and Communities Served 

The majority of districts are meeting this principle or are well along the path to doing so. See Chapter 5.

Most districts are collecting information from a number of sources including students, teachers, school

administrators, parents, and community representatives. Moreover, most districts are using this

information to plan prevention programming. (We were unable

to evaluate the adequacy of district efforts to use needs

assessment data for planning.) For example, 89 percent of

districts used student data information to assess the need to

add new strategies. 

The majority of districts are

meeting principle 1 or are well

along the path to doing so. 
46

An area for improvement is the methods that many districts use to conduct prevalence surveys of

students. Many districts are using flawed methods for such surveys, which are important sources of

information for needs assessments and evaluations.

6.3 Principle 2: Design Activities to Meet Measurable Goals 

and Objectives for Drug and Violence Prevention

A large proportion of districts lack measurable goals and

objectives (i.e., goals and objectives that are sufficiently wellspecified to permit assessment of the extent to which they are

achieved). See Chapter 2. Based on the main sample of districts,

only half have any measurable goals or objectives in place. For

example, 52 percent have an outcome goal or objective that

specifies the extent to which abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by students would be reduced.

Only 25 percent of districts have process goals and objectives that specify a minimum number of hours

of drug prevention. Based on the subsample of districts, an even smaller proportion of districts may have

measurable goals and objectives than the proportion based on the main sample.

6.4 Principle 3: Design and Implement Activities Based on

Research or Evaluation that Provides Evidence that the

Strategies Used to Prevent or Reduce Drug Use, Violence, 

or Disruptive Behavior Among Youth

Few districts are using research-based prevention activities. See Chapter 2.

Although the majority of districts reviewed research on the effectiveness of

potential programs, less than 10 percent of districts were implementing

drug prevention activities that have been demonstrated to be effective. The

findings were similar for violence prevention activities. 

A large proportion of districts

lack measurable goals and

objectives.

Few districts are using

research-based

prevention activities. 
47

6.5 Principle 4: Evaluate Programs Periodically to Assess

Progress Toward Achieving the Goals and Objectives; 

and Use the Evaluation Results to Refine, Improve, and

Strengthen the Program, and Refine Goals and Objectives,

as Appropriate

Many districts appear to be on the right path to meeting the

fourth principle. See Chapter 5. For example, 72 percent of

districts used results from their evaluation of prevention efforts

to measure progress towards goals and objectives, and many

districts used these results to modify programs. However,

district evaluations will be most useful if they are based on

measurable goals and objectives and on high-quality

information. As mentioned, these areas need improvement.

6.6 Technical Assistance and

Resources

We should avoid being critical of district progress in

implementing the Principles of Effectiveness as they took effect

after the 1997-98 school year, which is the reference period for the study. However, since 1994, the

SDFSCA Program, as reauthorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), has required

some of the same processes that are now mandated by the Principles. A primary aim of the ESEA was to

provide recipients of funds with increased flexibility to design and implement programs that meet local

needs and support education reform strategies. The greater flexibility was to be matched by greater

accountability for achieving measurable results. The revised statutory provisions of the SDFSCA State and

Local Grants Program reflect this policy. Specifically, the reauthorization sought to increase accountability

for program funds by requiring:

• Local needs assessments using objective data;

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

local levels; and

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

objectives.

The data indicate that school districts are greatly in

need of assistance to implement the Principles.

Areas of need include (a) crafting measurable

goals and objectives, (b) linking goals and

objectives to efforts, (c) gathering objective data

about drug and violence problems, (d) choosing

Many districts appear to be 

on the right path to meeting

principle 4. For example, 

72 percent of districts used

results from their evaluation of

prevention efforts to measure

progress towards goals and

objectives, and many districts

used these results to modify

programs. 

The data indicate that school districts are

greatly in need of assistance to implement

the Principles. 
48

research-based strategies, and e) evaluating progress towards meeting their goals and objectives. Given

that so few districts reported receiving guidance in these areas and so many would like guidance, we

strongly suggest that SEAs and ED improve and expand technical assistance to school districts. This

should take the form of effectively disseminating information and conducting training on the areas that

are most problematic. 

Clearly, another important issue is the availability of resources for implementing the Principles. For many

smaller districts, the SDFSCA allocation alone is inadequate for them to

meet the standards established by the Principles. These districts already

are having trouble stretching their prevention budgets. Unless they

dramatically shift resources away from direct prevention activities for

students or receive additional funding, such districts will be unable to afford

activities that include evaluating progress towards goals and objectives.

SEAs, ED, and Congress may wish to consider whether or not all districts

should be expected to make further progress in implementing the

Principles of Effectiveness without providing additional SDFSCA resources. 

For many smaller

districts, the SDFSCA

allocation alone is

inadequate for them 

to meet the standards

established by the

Principles. 
49

References

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

D.C.

Gottfredson, D.C. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D.C., MacKenzie,

D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S. Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising:

A report to the United States Congress.

51

Appendix A

Questionnaire for the National Study of Local Education Agency

Activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and

Communities Act