Research in Brief 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Toward Safe and Orderly Schools—The National Study of 

Delinquency Prevention in Schools 

NOV. 04 
This and other publications and products 

found at: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

810 Seventh Street N.W. 

Washington, DC 20531 

John Ashcroft 

Attorney General 

Deborah J. Daniels 

Assistant Attorney General 

Sarah V. Hart 

Director, National Institute of Justice 

of the National Institute of Justice can be 

National Institute of Justice 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 

Office of Justice Programs 

Partnerships for Safer Communities 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
NOV. 04 

Toward Safe and Orderly Schools—The 

National Study of Delinquency Prevention 

in Schools 

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

This study was conducted by Gottfredson Associates, Inc., and Westat, 

and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, in cooperation with the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, grant number 96–MU–MU–0008. Additional 

support was provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention through grant number 98–JN–FX–0004. Support for the project 

was also provided by the U.S. Department of Education through a contract 

with Westat. 

NCJ 205005 
RESEARCH IN BRIEF / NOV . 04 

ABOUT THIS REPORT 

Schools are expected to provide a safe environment and 

to play an active role in socializing children for participation 

in a civil society. Most schools 

have programs to prevent 

problem behavior and serious 

misconduct such as drug use 

and violence. But how good 

are these programs? A recent 

national study surveyed principals, teachers, program implementers, and students about 

school safety and the programs used to prevent problem behavior and promote a 

safe and orderly environment. 

What did the 

researchers find? 

Nearly all U.S. public schools 

are using a variety of delinquency prevention programs 

and disciplinary practices. 

Some programs and practices 

may be of poor quality. Problem behavior was found to be 

pervasive, and most common 

in urban schools and among 

children at the middle school 

level. Although many programs were judged potentially 

effective, nearly half failed to 

meet the study’s criteria for 

quality. Staff training, program 

monitoring, and other organizational support from school 

leaders were found to be 

related to program quality. 

A school’s organizational 

capacity—staff morale and 

stability and a history of 

implementing programs— 

predicted the extent of 

program use and student 

participation. These findings 

suggest that to improve 

delinquency prevention programs and promote safety, 

schools should focus on 

supervision, staff development, and overcoming organizational problems that have 

thwarted program implementation in the past. 

What were the study’s 

limitations? 

The research was based on 

a sample survey in which respondents completed questionnaires to describe their 

schools and programs. Response errors are always a 

potential problem in surveys. 

For example, respondents 

may have withheld information that reflected badly on 

their schools or programs. 

Urban secondary schools participated at a lower rate than 

other schools. Although 

weighting was used to correct for this, differential participation still may have 

biased the results.1 

ii 
TOW ARD SAFE AND ORDERLY SCHOOLS 

Gary D. Gottfredson, Denise C. Gottfredson, Ellen R. Czeh, 

David Cantor, Scott B. Crosse, and Irene Hantman 

Toward Safe and Orderly Schools— 

The National Study of Delinquency 

Prevention in Schools 

This Research in Brief is 

based on “National 

Study of Delinquency 

Prevention in Schools,” 

final report to the 

National Institute of 

Justice, July 2000, 

NCJ 194129, available 

at www.gottfredson. 

com/national.htm 

or from the National 

Criminal Justice 

Reference Service 

at www.ncjrs.org/ 

pdffiles1/nij/grants/ 

194129.pdf. 

About the Authors 

Gary D. Gottfredson, 

Denise C. Gottfredson, 

and Ellen R. Czeh are 

scientists at Gottfredson 

Associates, Inc. David 

Cantor, Scott B. Crosse, 

and Irene Hantman are 

researchers with Westat. 

What have schools been doing to prevent delinquency 

and promote school safety? 

What are the extent and quality of school-based delinquency prevention programs? 

What can schools do to 

improve their programs? 

A national study completed in 

20002 found that despite the 

increase in knowledge about 

“what works” in school delinquency prevention, most of 

the Nation’s schools use prevention practices that are 

either unproven or known to 

be ineffective. Much of what 

schools do has not been studied by scientists to develop 

knowledge of effectiveness. 

In many schools, poor implementation may limit program 

effectiveness, even for programs known to be effective 

when well implemented. 

The typical school’s delinquency prevention practices 

often fall short of models 

found through research to be 

effective. For example, only 

half of the prevention curriculums and one-fourth of 

the school-based mentoring 

programs in this study held 

as many sessions as programs that were found 

effective. 

How well programs are implemented is as important 

as program design. However, 

achieving quality implementation requires a complex 

base of support that may 

not be found within many 

schools. This is particularly 

a problem if they attempt 

to put in place an ambitious 

array of programs. 

An abundance of 

programs—but how 

good are they? 

Minor forms of problem behavior that interfere with 

education are common in 

schools. Serious problem 

behavior such as fighting, 

attacks, and carrying weapons 

occurs less frequently, but 

still altogether too often. 

Schools differ greatly in levels 

of disorder and crime, with 

middle schools on average 

experiencing the greatest 

problems. 

1 
RESEARCH IN BRIEF / NOV . 04 

A large number and wide ■ Direct services to students, 

variety of prevention activi­ families, or staff. These 

ties are currently under way include group instruction, 

in schools. Although multiple provision of instructional 

approaches may increase the materials, and a variety of 

likelihood that a school will interventions to prevent 

succeed in reducing delin­ problem behavior, promote 

quent behavior, they also school orderliness, and 

may spread resources too counsel students or their 

thin, diminishing the quality families. Interventions such 

of each effort. as community service, 

peer mediation, and student courts are seldom 

Prevention programs used compared to other 

Schools use 

very few of 

the possible 

methods of 

influencing 

student 

and practices 

Growing evidence suggests 

that specific categories of 

interventions or arrangements in schools can reduce 

or prevent delinquent behavior, drug use, and school 

disorder. 3 This evidence has 

been followed by an increasing attempt by government 

responses to misconduct. 

Schools use very few of 

the possible methods of 

influencing student behavior, such as rewards for 

desirable behavior. 

■ Organizational or environmental arrangements. 

Schools make substantial 

use of architectural and 

behavior. to identify and use knowledge- and science-based 

interventions. 

structural arrangements to 

prevent problem behavior 

and promote school safety. 

Urban schools are more 

Popular guides and lists of 

programs provided to schools 

for delinquency prevention 

are dominated by curriculum 

packages.4 But schools are 

likely than schools in other 

locations to use gates, 

fences, walls, and barricades, and to physically 

block off sections of the 

also using many other strategies to try to reduce problem building. 

behavior. Study researchers 

classified the myriad school 

prevention activities (see 

■ Discipline or safety management activities. Virtually 

all schools have strict rules 

exhibit 1) into three broad 

categories: 

about dangerous behavior 

and the possession of 

weapons, and virtually 

2 
TOW A R D S A F E A N D O R D E R L Y S C H O O L S 

Exhibit 1. Prevention activities to reduce problem behavior or promote 

school safety 

Percent of schools 

Prevention activity using activity 

Direct services to students, families, and staff 

Provision of isolated information* 90 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training 76 

Counseling, social work, psychological/therapeutic interventions 75 

Behavioral or behavior modification interventions 64 

Recreational, enrichment, and leisure activities 64 

Individual attention, mentoring, tutoring, coaching 58 

Services to families 55 

Treatment or prevention interventions for administrators, faculty, or staff 49 

Organizational and environmental arrangements 

Reorganization of grades, classes, or school schedules 81 

Architectural features of the school 76 

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms 72 

Distinctive culture or climate for interpersonal exchanges 66 

Improved instructional methods or practices 62 

Improved classroom organization and management methods or practices 57 

School planning structure or process—or management of change 57 

Improved intergroup relations or interaction between school and community 57 

Altered school composition 32 

Discipline and safety management 

Rules, policies, regulations, laws, or enforcement 100 

Security and surveillance 55 

Youth roles in regulating and responding to student conduct 40 

*Such as pamphlets about alcohol, tobacco, drug use, or risky sexual behavior. 

3 
RESEARCH IN BRIEF / NOV . 04 

all principals report that 

they communicate those rules. Most schools report 

that they apply severe consequences when these rules are broken. Schools 

are very likely to suspend 

or expel a student for possession of a gun, knife, 

alcohol, or other drugs. 

Suspension or expulsion 

for physical fighting, possession of tobacco, and 

use of profane or abusive 

language is also common. The high percentage of 

schools reporting the 

“automatic” suspension or expulsion of students is 

surprising, given that U.S. 

Supreme Court decisions5 

mandate some degree of 

due process even for shortterm, out-of-school suspensions. Study findings 

suggest that school administrators may treat due 

process requirements 

casually and that afterschool and weekend detentions are used less 

than they might be. 

Schools are engaging in 

many approaches to preventing problem behavior that 

have received scant attention in scientific research. 

Although much has been 

written about instructional, 

behavioral, and cognitivebehavioral approaches, little 

research has focused on 

architectural changes, schoolwide discipline improvement, 

or strategies that alter the 

school’s physical or interpersonal environment. 

Program 

implementation 

Previous research has established that (1) high-quality 

activities can make a measurable difference in problem 

behavior, and (2) activities 

known to be effective do not work if poorly implemented.6 

For this study, researchers 

developed extensive quality 

criteria to measure the adequacy of prevention activities. 

They set thresholds that the 

identified activities must 

reach to plausibly be expected to have a measurable 

effect, that is, to be likely to 

reduce problem behavior or 

increase safety (see exhibit 

2). Averaging the ratings for 

the nine quality indicator 

categories shown in the exhibit, only 57 percent of the 

Nation’s school-based delinquency prevention activities were judged to be adequate. 

4 
TOW ARD SAFE AND ORDERLY SCHOOLS 

The study linked high-quality 

program implementation with 

several school or program 

characteristics: 

■ Aspects of a school’s climate. Schools with highquality programs tend also 

to have high faculty morale, 

organizational focus on 

clear goals, open identification of problems, and open 

communication between 

teachers and the principal. 

■ Leadership. Faculty assessment that the principal is a 

good educational leader is 

associated with a high level 

of prevention activity and 

extensive student exposure 

to activities. 

■ Training and monitoring. 

How thoroughly program 

implementers are trained, 

monitored, and reviewed is 

associated with the quality 

of schoolwide discipline 

and prevention activities. 

■ Local planning and responsibility. Program quality is 

greater for activities that 

are a regular part of the 

school program. Although 

schools make extensive 

use of programs developed 

outside the school district, 

quality of implementation 

tends to be higher when 

program implementers 

solicit input from local district personnel or experts. 

Poor implementation 

abounds. Despite their 

prevalence, delinquency 

prevention activities in the 

Nation’s schools are generally 

of poor quality—47 percent 

received a failing grade when 

judged by the researchers’ 

quality criteria.7 Classroomand school-level activities 

seem to be implemented with 

somewhat higher quality than 

activities targeting individual 

students. Many activities are 

implemented with insufficient 

strength and fidelity to be 

effective. 

For example, only 10 percent 

of the Nation’s schools report 

using what the study’s researchers consider to be 

minimally adequate discipline 

practices (see exhibit 3). The 

majority of schools either do 

not use available methods of 

influencing behavior or do not 

apply consistent disciplinary 

responses. 

Prevention activities of all 

types fall short in some 

areas. For example, both 

instructional and behavioral 

programs often fail to include 

Program 

quality is 

greater for 

activities that 

are a regular 

part of the 

school 

program. 

5
RESEARCH IN BRIEF / NOV . 04 

Exhibit 2. Survey results: adequacy of prevention activities 

Percent judged 

Quality indicator* Criterion for “adequate” rating adequate* 

Level of use by school personnel One or more persons conducting 

activity on a regular basis 

61 

Best practices—Content Uses 70% or more of identified 

best practices 

61 

Best practices—Methods Uses 70% or more of identified best 

practices 

33 

Number of lessons/sessions 

• Prevention curriculum, instruction, and training 

• Mentoring 

• Tutoring; recreation, enrichment, leisure 

• Improvements to instructional practices/methods 

• External personnel resources for classroom 

≥ 16 

≥ 52 

≥ 26 

≥ 30 

≥ 25 

37 

Duration 

• Prevention curriculum or training; counseling, social 

work, psychological or therapeutic activity; tutoring; 

recreation, enrichment, leisure 

• Mentoring 

• Planning structure or management of change; security 

and surveillance 

• Longer than a month 

• At least 1 school year 

• More than 1 full school year 

70 

Frequency of participation—Students 

• Culture, climate, or expectations; intergroup relations 

and school-community interaction; planning structure or 

management of change 

• Prevention curriculum or training; counseling, psychological 

or therapeutic activity; mentoring, tutoring; recreation, 

enrichment; services/programs for family members; 

external personnel resources for classrooms 

• Improvements to instructional practices or methods 

• Behavioral programming or modeling; security 

• At least 2–3 times per month 

• At least weekly 

• More than once per week 

• At least daily 

61 

Frequency of participation—Staff 

• Culture, climate or expectations; intergroup relations 

and school-community interaction; planning structure 

or management of change 

• Security and surveillance 

• At least 2–3 times per month 

• At least daily 

60 

*Feature or characteristic of the program used as a measure of intervention potency. 

6 
TOW A R D S A F E A N D O R D E R L Y S C H O O L S 

Exhibit 2 (continued). Survey results: adequacy of prevention activities 

Percent judged 

Quality indicator* Criterion for “adequate” rating adequate* 

Proportion of students exposed or participating 60 

• Culture, climate or expectations; intergroup relations ≥ 70% 

and school-community interaction 

• Youth participation in discipline ≥ 10% or referrals to a student 

court or peer mediation 

Frequency of operation 75 

• Culture, climate or expectations; intergroup relations, Continually throughout the year 

school-community interaction; planning structure or 

management of change; security and surveillance 

Mean proportion of activities/programs judged adequate 57 

*Feature or characteristic of the program used as a measure of intervention potency. 

state-of-the-art methods. 

Even for security and surveillance activities—where 

implementation may seem 

more straightforward than for 

other types of prevention 

activity—only 71 percent of 

the activities occurred daily. 

In light of these findings, 

improving the quality of 

implementation of schoolbased prevention activities 

is a high priority. 

Recommendations 

for practice 

Through analyses of 

aggregate-level correlations 

between school characteristics, prevention activities, 

and the average quality of 

implementation in schools, 

researchers identified seven 

elements linked to quality 

implementation (see exhibit 

4). These predictors of wellimplemented programs 

closely track many of the 

researchers’ original hypothesized predictors (see “The 

National Study of Delinquency 

Prevention in Schools”).8 

Most schools lack some or all 

of these elements. How can 

this situation be improved? 

Study researchers offer some 

ideas, derived by coupling 

known best practices with 

areas of need identified by 

the study. 

Focus on schools with the 

greatest need. By monitoring levels of problem behavior through annual surveys of 

students and teachers, rather 

7 
RESEARCH IN BRIEF / NOV . 04 

Exhibit 3. Percentage of schools with adequate disciplinary practices 

Category of practice Percentage 

Communication of rules and policies and documentation 93 

of disciplinary actions 

Consistent discipline 48 

Predictable disciplinary decisionmaking 31 

Range of appropriate responses to misconduct 27 

Range of responses to desirable conduct 20 

Adequate disciplinary practices (composite score)* 10 

* Each category comprises numerous practices. Researchers classified a school as having adequate disciplinary practices if the school used 70% or more of the practices in each category. 

Under these criteria, 10% of schools studied had adequate disciplinary practices. 

than relying on school administrators’ reports, school 

districts are more likely to 

identify schools that have the 

most problems with disorder. 

Focusing resources on these 

schools may be appropriate. 

For example, schools with 

relatively high levels of problem behavior might be provided training and technical 

assistance, and principals and 

other implementers might be 

monitored more closely. Districts might emphasize the 

assignment of first-rate administrators and faculty to 

such schools. 

Start within the school. If 

the school climate is poor (low 

morale, little focus, poor communication, low regard for 

the principal) or organizational 

support is lacking, it may be 

advisable to address infrastructure problems in the 

school as a whole before 

launching a program. Implementation of high-quality 

prevention activity may be 

thwarted unless the school 

principal supports the effort. 

Improve training and supervision. Quality prevention 

programming calls for more 

and better training and supervision of school personnel, 

including principals, and close 

monitoring of their activities. 

Use more promising practices. Potentially valuable 

practices—such as intervention with the families of students, use of the full range 

of sanctions and rewards for 

8 
TOW A R D S A F E A N D O R D E R L Y S C H O O L S 

student behavior, and promoting youth roles in the regulation of student behavior— 

can lead to improvements in 

schoolwide discipline. Improving day-to-day responsiveness 

of school discipline systems 

is an appropriate way to address concerns about student 

behavior; suggestions to impose stricter sanctions appear 

to miss the mark. 

Involve school staff, the 

community, and experts. 

Because local planning and 

greater use of available data 

are linked to quality programming, schools could benefit 

by encouraging more local 

involvement while adhering 

to program standards and 

guidelines. 

Exhibit 4. Predictors of high-quality delinquency prevention activities 

Training is extensive and of high quality. 

Training for program-specific activities and, more generally, in classroom management and 

behavior management is provided. 

Program activities are supervised at all levels. 

Program implementation and school disciplinary practices are closely supervised by the 

principal, and the principal is supervised by district personnel. 

The principal supports prevention programs. 

The principal openly supports prevention activities and is perceived by staff as an effective 

education leader. Faculty morale is high, the organization is focused on clear goals, and the 

principal sees few obstacles to program development. Communication between the principal 

and the faculty is open. 

Activities are highly structured. 

Programs are scripted, follow manuals and implementation standards, and use quality 

control mechanisms. 

Programs are locally initiated. 

Programs are started and run by school insiders, researchers, or district personnel. But these 

programs are not necessarily locally developed. Researchers found that externally developed 

programs tended to be of higher quality than locally developed programs. 

Multiple sources of information are used. 

Activities are selected from a wide variety of sources, including district personnel and 

outside experts. 

Activities are integrated into the regular school program. 

Implementing the program is a formal part of the implementer’s job. Activities are a regular 

part of the school program, do not depend on volunteers, and are conducted during the school 

day (not after school or on weekends). 

9 
RESEARCH IN BRIEF / NOV . 04 

THE N S DELINQUENCY P SCHOOLS 

After identifying and classifying existing programs, researchers hypothesized that several factors 

were important for successful implementation of delinquency prevention programs— 

■ 

experience with prevention programs. 

■ School leadership, staff traits, and past accomplishments. 

■ Budget and resources. 

■ Organizational support (training, supervision, principal support). 

■ Program structure (manuals, implementation standards, quality control mechanisms). 

■ Integration into normal school operations, local initiation, and local planning. 

■ Program feasibility (match between program design and regular school activities; few 

obstacles). 

■ 

received some support from the data except budget and resources. 

Exhibit 5. Study methodology 

Classify and 

describe existing 

programs 

Compile empirical data; validate 

predictive factors 

Send Phase I 

questionnaires to 

principals of 

1,279 public, 

private, and 

Catholic schools, 

stratified by level 

and location (urban, 

suburban, rural) 

Send Phase II 

questionnaires to 

students, activity 

coordinators, 

teachers, and 

principals of 

1,278 schools 

(same sample 

as Phase 1) 

Perform statistical 

analysis; compare 

results with 

existing research; 

test hypotheses 

about quality 

implementation 

factors 

The taxonomy involved 

24 categories and nearly 

300 subcategories 

Actual sample size: 848 

Extract findings, 

conclusions, and 

recommendations 

Develop program 

taxonomy from 

source materials 

provided by 

State and Federal 

agencies, 

foundations, and 

technical assistance 

providers 

Actual sample size: 

• 581 principals 

• 16,014 students 

• 13,103 teachers 

• 3,691 activity coordinators 

ATIONAL TUDY OF REVENTION IN 

To gather information about school delinquency prevention programs, the researchers surveyed 

elementary, middle, and secondary level schools (see exhibit 5). 

Organizational capacity of the school, especially staff morale and stability and the school’s 

Level of disorder. 

To test the hypotheses and gather data, two phases of surveys were used. All of the factors 

Report 

10 
TOW ARD SAFE AND ORDERLY SCHOOLS 

Implications for 

research 

Despite the great variety of 

prevention strategies in use, 

most research on schoolbased delinquency prevention has focused on curricular 

and behavioral programs. 

Studies clearly show that the 

strength of the implementation effort affects program 

outcomes—in other words, 

even a well-designed program requires careful implementation by school staff.9 Research is needed especially on approaches that have 

not been studied but are 

widely used, such as school 

security practices, architec­ tural arrangements, counseling approaches to problem 

behavior, and other practices 

identified by this study.10 

Studies that involve multiple 

schools to test for interactions of school characteristics 

with preventive interventions would be useful. Research 

plans should include incentives for school participation. 

By comprehensively cataloging existing programs 

and isolating the factors that 

affect program success, this 

study has revealed the size 

and complexity of the problem of preventing delinquency and maintaining safe, 

orderly school environments. 

The measures of program 

quality developed for the 

study may be useful for program assessment and determining schools’ technical 

assistance needs. Further 

research on these issues is 

desirable. 

Quality rests 

on capacity 

In view of the large amount, 

wide variety, and limited 

quality of prevention activity 

under way, it may be wiser for many schools to improve 

the quality of what they are 

already doing than to adopt 

new programs. The evidence that program 

quality depends on school 

capacity—morale, focus, 

communication, strong 

leadership—suggests that 

school district administrators 

have a role to play. Districts 

can foster these critical 

aspects of school infrastruc­ ture by providing resources for planning and organization 

development, selecting effective leaders, setting standards,11 and holding schools 

accountable for the quality 

of their prevention activities. 

State and Federal agencies 

can encourage local initiation 

of prevention activities and 

can promote quality by 

11 
RESEARCH IN BRIEF / NOV . 04 

disseminating information 

about the characteristics of 

effective programs, rather 

than just distributing lists of 

recommended or exemplary 

programs. Such lists may be 

misleading if they direct 

attention to program names 

without also providing guidance on concrete standards for program implementation. That schools universally want 

to ensure a safe and orderly 

environment and prevent 

delinquent behavior is evident from this study. Some 

schools face considerable 

obstacles to effective implementation of even widely 

acclaimed programs. These 

schools may be better served 

by shifting their focus away 

from the adoption of more 

programs to building the 

organizational capacity to 

support high-quality implementation of fewer, carefully 

selected programs. 

Notes 

1. Researchers expected to find a 

lower level of quality implementation 

in urban schools, but found the opposite. This may be because many 

schools in the most disorganized 

and high-crime urban settings did 

not participate, or it may be because 

urban schools have more assistance 

in or place higher priority on programs to reduce problem behavior. 

See Gottfredson, G.D., D.C. 

Gottfredson, E.R. Czeh, D. Cantor, 

S.B. Crosse, and I. Hantman, “National Study of Delinquency Pre­ vention in Schools,” final report to 

the National Institute of Justice, 

Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, Inc., 2000: 4-20, 

NCJ 194129. 

2. Supported largely by the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ) in cooperation with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), surveys were 

conducted in 1997 and 1998. See 

Gottfredson, G.D. et al., “National 

Study of Delinquency Prevention in 

Schools”: 1-16 to 1-27. NIJ and BJA 

saw the study as a precursor to 

rigorous outcome evaluations of 

school-based delinquency prevention 

programs. 

3. See, e.g., Gottfredson, D.C., 

Delinquency and Schools, New York: 

Cambridge University Press, 2001; 

Hansen, W.B., and P.M. O’Malley, 

“Drug Use,” in Handbook of Adolescent Health Risk Behavior, R.J. 

DiClemente, W.B. Hansen, and L.E. Ponton, eds., New York, NY: Plenum Press, 1996: 161–192; Institute of 

Medicine, Reducing Risks for Mental 

Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive 

Intervention Research, 

Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press, 1994; 

and Weissberg, R.P., and M.T. Greenberg, “School and Community 

Competence-Enhancement and 

Prevention Programs,” in Handbook 

of Child Psychology: Child Psychology in Practice, vol. 4, W. Damon, 

I.E. Sigel, and K.A. Renninger, eds., 

New York: Wiley, 1997. 

4. See Making the Grade: A Guide 

to School Drug Prevention Programs 

(updated and expanded edition), Washington, DC: Drug Strategies, 1999. 

5. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. 

Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1975); and 

12 
TOW ARD SAFE AND ORDERLY SCHOOLS 

Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308, 95 

S. Ct. 992, 43 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1975). 

6. A relation has been found between level of implementation and 

effectiveness for school-based and 

other kinds of programs. See Alper, 

J., “The Nurse Home Visitation 

Program,” in To Improve Health and 

Health Care, vol. V, S.L. Isaacs and 

J.R. Knickman, eds., The Robert 

Wood Johnson Anthology, San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002; 

Botvin, G.J., E. Baker, L. Dusenbury, 

E.M. Botvin, and T. Diaz, “Long-Term 

Follow-up Results of a Randomized 

Drug Abuse Prevention Trial in a 

White Middle Class Population,” 

Journal of the American Medical 

Association 273(1995): 1106–1112; 

Botvin, G.J., E. Baker, L. Dusenbury, 

S. Tortu, and E.M. Botvin, “Preventing Adolescent Drug Abuse Through 

a Multimodal Cognitive-behavioral 

Approach: Results of a 3-Year Study,” 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 58(1990): 437–446; and 

Henggeler, S.W., G.B. Melton, M.J. 

Brondino, and D.G. Schere, “Multisystemic Therapy With Violent and 

Chronic Juvenile Offenders and Their 

Families: The Role of Treatment 

Fidelity in Successful Dissemination,” Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology 65(1997): 

821–833. 

7. The study’s “report card” on the 

quality of U.S. school-based delinquency programs gave an “A” to only 

18 percent of schools nationwide. 

See Gottfredson et al., “National 

Study of Delinquency Prevention in 

Schools”: 4-21 to 4-22. 

8. See ibid., chapter 6, for detailed 

discussion of how the predictors 

were derived. The study’s hypotheses are discussed in chapter 1. 

9. See Botvin et al., “Preventing 

Adolescent Drug Abuse.” Also see 

Gottfredson, D.C., G.D. Gottfredson, 

and S. Skroban, “Can Prevention 

Work Where It Is Needed Most?” 

Evaluation Review 22(1998): 

315–340. 

10. For a detailed taxonomy of 

school-based prevention activities 

and objectives, see Gottfredson et 

al., “National Study of Delinquency 

Prevention in Schools”: 3-5 to 3-32 

and appendix D. 

11. One structure for integrating 

implementation standards with planning and program development is 

described in Gottfredson, G.D., “A 

Theory-Ridden Approach to Program 

Evaluation: A Method for Stimulating Research-Implementer Collaboration,” American Psychologist 

39(1984): 1101–1112; also see Gottfredson, G.D., D.E. Rickert, Jr., 

D.C. Gottfredson, and N. Advani, 

Standards for Program Development 

and Evaluation Plans (2d ed.), Ellicott 

City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, 

1999. 

Additional reading 

Gottfredson, D.C., Delinquency and 

Schools, New York: Cambridge 

University, 2001. 

Gottfredson, G.D., and D.C. Gottfredson, Gang Problems and Gang 

Programs in a National Sample of 

Schools, Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates, 2001 (ERIC 

No. ED 459 408). Available at 

www.gottfredson.com/gang.htm. 

Gottfredson, G.D., and D.C. Gottfredson, “What Schools Do to 

Prevent Problem Behavior and 

Promote Safe Environments,” 

13 
RESEARCH IN BRIEF / NOV . 04 

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 12(2001): 

313–344. 

Gottfredson, G.D., and D.C. Gottfredson, “Quality of School-Based 

Prevention Programs: Results From 

a National Survey,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 

39(2002): 3–35. 

Youth Violence: A Report of the 

Surgeon General, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, 

Rockville, MD, 2001. Available at 

www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/ 

youthviolence. 

Esbensen, F.-A., Evaluating 

G.R.E.A.T.: A School-Based Gang 

Prevention Program, Research for 

Policy, Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice, June 2004, 

NCJ 198604, available at www. 

ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/198604.pdf. 

14 
The National Institute of Justice is the 

research, development, and evaluation 

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

NIJ provides objective, independent, 

evidence-based knowledge and tools 

to enhance the administration 

of justice and public safety. 

NIJ is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention, and the 

Office for Victims of Crime. 
DOJ/NIJ *NCJ~205005* 

NOV. 04 

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of Justice Washington, DC 20531 Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 

PRESORTED STANDARD 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

PERMIT NO. G–91