PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE

 

WIDE SCOPE, 

QUESTIONABLE QUALITY

THREE REPORTS 

FROM THE STUDY ON 

SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC #2001- 

WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY 

THREE REPORTS 

FROM THE STUDY ON 

SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Contract No. EA96055001 

Prepared by: 

Wide Scope, Questionable 

Quality: Drug and Violence 

Prevention Efforts in 

American Schools 

Scott Crosse 

Michele Burr 

David Cantor 

Carol A. Hagen 

Irene Hantman 

A Closer Look at Drug and 

Violence Prevention Efforts 

in American Schools

David Cantor 

Scott Crosse 

Carol A. Hagen 

Michael J. Mason 

Amy J. Siler 

Adrienne von Glatz 

School Crime Patterns: A 

National Profile of U.S. Public 

High Schools Using Rates of 

Crime Reported to Police

David Cantor 

Mareena McKinley Wright 

Westat 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

In affiliation with: 

Gottfredson Associates, Inc. 

3239B Corporate Court 

Ellicott City, MD 21042 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract No. EA96055001. The 

project monitor was Joanne Wiggins in the Planning and Evaluation Service. 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 

Rod Paige 

Secretary 

Planning and Evaluation Service 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Elementary and Secondary Education Division 

Ricky Takai 

Director 

August 2002

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to produce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be the following: Crosse, S., 

Cantor, D., Burr, M., Hagen, C.A., Hantman, I; Mason, M.J., Siler, A.J., von Glatz, A, and Wright, M. M. 

(2002). Wide Scope, Questionable Quality: Three Reports from the Study on School Violence and 

Prevention. Executive Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and

Evaluation Service. 

To order copies of this report, write 

ED Pubs 

Editorial 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 8-800-437-0833. 

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/OESE/SDFS/publications.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 

(202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
CONTENTS

WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY: DRUG AND VIOLENCE 

PREVENTION EFFORTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS - - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............... 1 

 Study Background...............................................................................................................................................1 

 Problem Behavior in Schools..............................................................................................................................2 

Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior in Schools ................................................................................................4 

Quality of Planning and Use of Research for Prevention Activies.....................................................................6 

SDFSCA Important to Funding for School Prevention Efforts ..........................................................................7 

 Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................................8 

A CLOSER LOOK AT DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS IN 

AMERICAN SCHOOLS - - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................. 10 

 Background.......................................................................................................................................................10 

 Method..............................................................................................................................................................11 

 Key Findings.....................................................................................................................................................12 

SCHOOL CRIME PATTERNS: A NATIONAL PROFILE OF U.S. PUBLIC 

 HIGH SCHOOLS USING RATES OF CRIME REPORED TO POLICE - - SUMMARY........ 17 

i 

WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY: 

DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Results from the Study on School Violence and Prevention indicate that, while schools 

nationally experienced relatively low levels of serious violent crime, some schools did experience serious

violence and disorder. In many schools, high levels of less serious violent crime and property crime were 

common, particularly in middle schools. To prevent such problem behavior and make schools more 

conducive to learning, schools implemented many and diverse prevention activities. However, on the 

whole, the quality of those prevention activities is poor. These findings, which are for the 1997-98 school

year, suggest that schools need to improve the quality of prevention programming through attention to 

needs assessment, planning, increased use of research-based approaches, and monitoring of 

implementation. 

STUDY BACKGROUND

The study on which these findings are based, the Study on School Violence and Prevention, 

was funded by the U.S. Department of Education (and conducted in collaboration with the National 

Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice) to investigate the extent of problem behavior in schools 

nationally and several aspects of delinquency prevention efforts in schools, such as types and quality of 

prevention efforts, how schools plan and use information about prevention options to improve their own

efforts and school management, and sources of funding for school prevention activities. 

During spring 1997, 886 elementary and secondary (i.e., both middle school and high

school) principals provided information about prevention activities in their schools. During spring 1998,

principals and prevention program providers in many of these same schools provided information on 

prevention efforts, their schools’ discipline practices, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

Act (SDFSCA) funding for prevention activities. In addition, students and teachers in many of the

participating secondary schools responded to surveys on their experiences with school disorder and with

prevention activities; school district officials associated with these secondary schools also provided 

information on SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA programs and funding. The patterns of problem behavior 

found by the current study are generally consistent with those found by other recent studies. 

1 
Although this study has many strengths, including the use of multiple information sources to

collect detailed information on characteristics of school prevention programming and adequacy of 

program implementation, it also has limitations, primarily with regard to response rates. Methodological 

issues are discussed in detail in the report's introduction and appendices. 

In the remainder of this summary, we highlight main findings from the study.

PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS 

During the 1997-98 school year, serious violent crime in schools was relatively infrequent. 

However, schools did experience high levels of less serious violent crime and property crime that

compromised instruction in many classrooms. Middle schools experienced more problem behavior than

other schools. On the whole, students and teachers felt safe at schools, although about one-quarter had

concerns about safety and disorder. 

Schools Reporting Incidents to Police 

One measure of school safety and disorder is the number of crimes and disciplinary incidents

that come to the attention of school administrators. The study asked principals about the number of 

crimes that they reported to law enforcement officials. In general, elementary schools tend to experience 

the lowest rates of serious incidents and middle schools the highest rates. 

! According to principal reports, 66 percent of schools experienced one or more 

incidents of less serious violent crime or property crime (i.e., fighting without a 

weapon, vandalism, or theft) and 10 percent experienced at least one serious violent 

crime (i.e., fighting with a weapon or robbery). 

! Compared with elementary and high schools, middle schools had higher levels of 

many types of problem behavior. According to principal reports, 21 percent of middle 

schools had one or more incidents of physical attack or fight with a weapon, compared

to 2 percent of elementary schools and 11 percent of high schools. Principals also

reported that 72 percent of middle schools experienced fights without a weapon,

compared to 34 percent of elementary schools and 56 percent of high schools. 

! Schools with high levels of serious violent crime—“problem schools”—were similar 

to all other schools on characteristics such as urbanicity (percent urban, suburban, and

rural), free and reduced-price school lunch, and enrollment. Problem high schools 

also did not differ from the other high schools in terms of the percentage of minority

students. However, problem middle schools had a higher percentage of minority

students than all other middle schools. 

2 
Victimization of Students and Teachers

Another measure of school safety and disorder is the amount of victimization experienced by

students and teachers while at school. This measure provides an important complement to data obtained

from principals about incidents reported to police, since administrators are not always aware of all the 

incidents that occur in schools. The study asked students and teachers in secondary schools (middle and 

high schools) about their experiences with various types of crimes and disorderly conduct. Middle school 

students and teachers were in many cases more likely to be victimized than their high school counterparts. 

! Approximately 18 percent of students in secondary schools were threatened with a 

beating, and 13 percent of students were attacked without a weapon. In terms of 

serious violent crime, 11 percent of students experienced at least one serious violent 

incident (robbery or threatened with a weapon) at school. 

! A slightly higher percentage of middle school students than high school students were 

the victims of robbery. For example, 8 percent of middle school students were robbed

of $1 or more in school, compared with 4 percent of high school students.

Additionally, for all types of less serious violent crime and property crime, a higher 

percentage of middle schools students than high school students reported being 

victimized. For example, 19 percent of middle school students were physically 

attacked in school, compared with 10 percent of high school students. 

! Approximately 62 percent of teachers experienced one or more incidents of less

serious violent crime or property crime (i.e., threatened in remarks by a student, 

received obscene remarks or gestures from a student, damage to property, or theft). 

Forty percent of teachers received obscene remarks or gestures from a student. 

Serious crime aimed at teachers was relatively rare. Only 3 percent of teachers were

attacked and received minor injuries, while even fewer (1%) were either confronted 

with weapons at school or were attacked and received injuries serious enough to 

require a doctor. 

! A higher percentage of middle school teachers than high school teachers received 

obscene remarks or gestures from a student (46% of middle school teachers versus 

40% of high school teachers) and middle school teachers were more likely (24%) than 

high school teachers (20%) to be threatened by a student. 

! Although students and teachers in problem high schools and in other high schools 

reported similar levels of victimization, students and teachers in problem middle

schools reported significantly higher levels of victimization for many specific types of 

crime than those in other middle schools. 

3 
Effects of Disorder on Teachers and Students

Members of the school community provide different perspectives on how the level of school

safety and orderliness affects them. 

! While most students and teachers reported feeling safe in their schools, about onefourth said they would avoid a specific place at school out of fear that someone might

hurt or bother them. 

! More than one-quarter (27%) of teachers in middle and high schools reported that the 

behavior of some students kept them from teaching a fair amount or a great deal. 

EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS

Schools are implementing a wide range of prevention and disciplinary activities to address 

problem behavior. Unfortunately, the overall quality of many of these activities is inadequate when

assessed against criteria established by the study for judging the quality of practices. 

Wide Scope of Prevention Efforts 

To reduce problem behavior, schools implemented many and diverse prevention activities. 

! On average, each school used 9 out of 14 general types (e.g., counseling and behavior 

modification) of prevention efforts. Although a few principals reported using no

activities at all, many reported using a large number of separate, specific activities—

one school reported using 61. The median number of specific prevention activities 

per school was 14. Approximately 20 percent of schools used at least 25 unique

activities and 6 percent reported using at least 40 unique activities. 

! The most common type of activity aimed at changing individual behavior was 

prevention curriculum, instruction, or training (76%), followed by counseling, social 

work, psychological, or therapeutic services (74%). The most common type of 

school-wide prevention activity was simply providing students with information. 

More than 80 percent of schools provided isolated information about alcohol, tobacco,

and other drugs. 

! Compared with other middle schools, problem middle schools (those with high levels 

of serious violent crime) used fewer of the different types of activities available to 

reduce negative behavior. Each problem middle school used approximately six

different types of efforts, while each of the other middle schools uses, on average, 

eight different types of efforts. Problem high schools and other high schools were 

similar on the number of different prevention efforts implemented. 

4 
Low Quality of Prevention Efforts 

Judging the quality of prevention activities was a multi-step process that entailed defining 

dimensions of quality and setting standards of adequacy. The standards of adequacy established for these

dimensions were appropriate for the various types of activities. The dimensions and standards were based

on expert judgment and a review of the literature on the effectiveness of prevention activities, including 

optimal planning practices, content, methods, and frequency and duration of activities. (For more detail,

see Appendix B.) 

While a large quantity of prevention activities were implemented in schools, the quality of 

those activities needs improvement. In general, activities designed to change the school or classroom 

environment were higher quality than those directed at altering student behavior or attitudes. 

! Prevention activities designed to change the school or classroom environment were 

generally of higher quality than programs aimed at changing individual student 

behaviors or attitudes. On one summary measure of quality (average percentage of 

quality measures judged adequate), scores for different types of activities designed to 

change the school or classroom environment ranged from 73 percent adequate (for

security and surveillance) to 51 percent adequate, while scores for programs aimed at

changing individual student behaviors or attitudes ranged from 51 percent adequate to 

42 percent adequate (for services and programs for family members). 

! Compared to programs aimed at changing individual student behaviors or attitudes, 

activities designed to change the school or classroom environment tended to achieve 

higher ratings on several dimensions of quality, including level of use by school

personnel, best practices for content, best practices for methods, duration, and 

frequency of operation. 

! The quality of prevention programs is lowest in rural areas and highest in urban areas,

though the difference is modest. Approximately 55 percent of the prevention

activities in rural areas were judged adequate, compared to 60 percent of the activities 

in urban areas. 

! For almost every type of program and each dimension examined, the quality of 

implementation was similar between the problem schools and other schools (at both 

the middle and high school levels). 

Mixed Quality of Disciplinary Practices 

Schools successfully communicated rules to students and monitored and recorded violations

of those rules. However, schools need improvement on the range of responses that they make to student

conduct and on the predictability and consistency of their disciplinary practices. 

5 
! Most schools communicated rules to students and monitored and recorded violations 

of rules. More than 95 percent of schools provided teachers, students, and parents 

with a copy of the school rules. Some 93 percent of schools were following best 

practices for communication and documentation of school rules and for keeping track

of student behavior. 

! Overall, schools used a variety of responses to desirable and undesirable student

behavior. However, relatively few individual schools merited a “best practices” rating 

for the range of appropriate responses to misconduct (27%) and range of appropriate 

responses to desirable behavior (20%). 

QUALITY OF PLANNING AND USE OF RESEARCH FOR PREVENTION ACTIVITIES

Mixed Picture on Quality of Planning 

Sound planning (including identifying goals, selecting activities, and making decisions about 

how to target prevention efforts) is important, in part, because it was associated with high quality 

prevention activities. The planning that underlies prevention activities in schools was frequently 

influenced by school districts. Planning to meet school-wide prevention objectives tended to be of higher 

quality than the planning of individual-level prevention activities. 

! The planning of prevention efforts was often influenced or shaped by the school

district. Districts for almost one-half of middle and high schools required the schools 

to participate in needs assessments or an evaluation by administering districtsponsored surveys. Districts for 60 percent of these schools also required the schools

to pick prevention activities from a list or at least offer this type of list. The majority 

of districts provided support for school planning of prevention activities in the form of 

assistance with conducting needs assessments, training on program planning and 

development, and training on program implementation. District involvement in

school-level planning is important, in part, because districts often have greater

expertise and resources to support planning than individual schools. 

! Planning for many of the individual level prevention activities was weak. Although

many individual-level prevention activities meet some criteria of sound planning, less 

than two-thirds of these activities met all of the criteria. However, planning for 

school-wide prevention efforts appeared to be considerably stronger than the planning

for individual level activities. 

! Problem schools (those with high levels of serious violent crime) and other schools 

tended to be similar on many aspects of program planning. However, problem middle 

schools were more often required to receive direction and assistance from their school 

districts, and are more often required to conduct some type of needs assessment or 

evaluation. Compared with other middle schools, problem middle schools are also

more often required to prepare plans specifying how prevention resources will be 

6 
used. For high schools, a higher percentage of problem schools than other schools 

receive training on program implementation. 

Insufficient Use of Research 

Although schools generally consulted a number of sources in selecting their activities, they

typically placed a lower priority on research-based sources. 

! On average, schools used two resources to select a given prevention activity. The 

resources most often used to select a prevention activity were other program providers 

(57% of activities) and meetings within the school district (51% of activities). 

! Research-based information was among the less frequently used sources for activity 

selection. Formal outcome evaluations and publications summarizing research were

used in the selection of 28 percent and 38 percent of activities, respectively.

! Perhaps as a result of the limited use of research-based information, only one-third of 

the prevention activities used methods or approaches found to be effective in the

research literature, while 61 percent of the activities used content whose effectiveness 

was supported by research. 

SDFSCA IMPORTANT TO FUNDING FOR SCHOOL PREVENTION EFFORTS 

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) Program was the most

common funding source for prevention activities in schools, though districts and schools also drew on a 

variety of other funding sources. Districts used SDFSCA funds to support diverse prevention activities. 

This funding was very important to district prevention programming. 

! Districts for approximately 98 percent of schools nationally, public and private, 

provided prevention activities that were funded at least in part by SDFSCA. Many 

districts also drew on a wide variety of other federal, state, and local funding sources 

to support their prevention efforts. 

! Districts used their SDFSCA funds for diverse prevention activities, including direct 

activities for students and indirect activities such as staff training. Activities that

received a high degree of SDFSCA support include prevention instruction or training, 

counseling, and prevention activities to improve instructional practices in the

classrooms. 

! In the schools for which principals reported using SDFSCA funds, almost one-half of 

the principals stated that these funds were very important to improving or maintaining 

the safety and orderliness of their school, or in preventing problem behavior. 

7 
CONCLUSIONS 

Several conclusions follow from the study’s findings. Although schools in general were 

relatively safe, certain schools had significant problems that affected instruction and made some teachers

and students feel unsafe. Clearly, approaches to preventing problem behavior in schools need

improvement, particularly in light of the central findings that schools nationally were implementing a 

large number of prevention efforts but the quality of those efforts was low overall. 

The findings of relatively higher rates of discipline problems in middle schools suggest that 

greater attention to prevention efforts in middle school may be warranted. Attention to middle school 

problems may also aid in preventing discipline problems in high school. 

Schools also should consider focusing on improving the quality of their activities. Schools 

might start by strengthening efforts to adopt, retain, or discard prevention efforts based on research

evidence on program effectiveness. In general, schools need to be more consistent in consulting the 

research literature and using that information to guide their prevention efforts. Given limited resources 

for prevention, focusing resources on strengthening promising, research-based activities—even at the 

expense of discontinuing weaker activities—may help schools and districts to better achieve their 

prevention goals. 

Another area where improvement could be addressed is in the area of program planning, 

monitoring, and evaluation. Strengthening needs assessments, including collecting information on the 

prevalence of problem behavior, would assist schools and districts in identifying problem areas to allow

for better targeting of prevention efforts. Greater emphasis on monitoring the implementation of 

prevention activities would help to ensure that they remain consistent with program models. Collecting

information on the results of activities is critical to gauging which activities are proving effective and 

which need to be strengthened or discontinued. 

Schools and districts can also focus on the predictors of program quality. In their report on

this study, Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Czeh, Cantor, Crosse, and Hantman (2000) identified several 

predictors, including extensiveness and quality of training of the staff that implement the activities and 

supervision of the activities. The increased costs associated with these and other factors could be offset,

in part, by decisions to fund fewer but stronger activities. 

8 
Ideally, along with a greater focus on research, schools will adopt a “continuous 

improvement” process, whereby quality of implementation, results of activities, and incidents of problem 

behavior are tracked to serve as a basis for modifying activities and developing future plans. 

Resources for Improving Quality 

Districts and schools have a variety of sources available to them to assist in identifying 

effective programs and activities. For example, the 1999 Annual Report on School Safety, a joint

publication of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education, provides descriptions of model programs 

designated as promising or of demonstrated effectiveness, along with resource lists of agencies,

organizations, and websites for further information. (See www.ed.gov/PDFDocs/InterimAR.pdf.) The 

U.S. Department of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools program used an expert panel process to

identify exemplary and promising drug and violence prevention programs based on evidence of

effectiveness. (See www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/2001exemplary_sddfs.html

and www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/2001promising_sddfs.html.) Additional 

information on developing high-quality school-based prevention programs is available from the Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools program website. (See www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/.) 

9 
A CLOSER LOOK 

AT DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND

As part of the 1994 reauthorization of SDFSCA, Congress mandated that the U.S. 

Department of Education (ED) collect information on efforts to prevent violence in schools nationally.

Consequently, ED initiated the Study on School Violence and Prevention to describe the level of problem 

behavior, including violence, in schools; to learn about the measures that schools are taking to prevent

problem behavior and promote school safety; and to examine the use of funds allocated through

SDFSCA. 

The Study on School Violence and Prevention was a cooperative effort between the U.S. 

Department of Education (ED) and the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice (NIJ). At 

the same time that ED commissioned the Study on School Violence and Prevention, NIJ awarded a grant 

to conduct the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. To maximize resources and 

minimize the burden to schools, the agencies and external researchers agreed to merge many of the study 

activities. In this report, we refer to the project as the Study on School Violence and Prevention; in NIJ 

and other publications, the project is called the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. 

This report focuses on one of three study components, referred to as the “intensive level.” It 

is the first study in over 20 years to examine in detail what schools are doing to promote school safety.

While the intensive level component is an in-depth examination of a limited number of schools, the two

other study components (national and intermediate level components) are based on broad surveys of

national probability samples of schools. This report is organized in accordance with the topics covered by 

the study questions: 

! Extent of problem behavior in schools, including the types of victimization 

experienced by students and teachers, and how students and teachers perceive the

safety of their schools. Also included is a description of incident reporting systems. 

! Efforts used by schools to prevent problem behavior and the quality of their 

implementation. These efforts include formal curricular programs as well as

disciplinary practices and policies, and security measures. Observations on school 

climate are presented here.

10 
! Planning processes used by schools and districts for prevention activities and the use 

of information (e.g., on effectiveness) in doing so. 

! Results of efforts to compare schools that differed on the extent of problem behavior. 

These results allowed us to consider the characteristics and processes that distinguish 

safe and unsafe schools. 

METHOD

The intensive level study gathered extensive qualitative and quantitative information from a 

purposive sample of 40 schools (20 middle schools and 20 senior high schools). All of these schools 

were among the over 230 schools that surveyed students during 1998 as part of an earlier phase of the 

study. We limited our selection to public secondary schools. In selecting the schools, we sought to 

include schools that varied on instructional level (middle schools and senior high schools), number of 

students enrolled (small and large schools), and metropolitan status (urban, suburban, and rural schools). 

In addition, we selected earlier schools that varied on safety, based primarily on information obtained 

from our surveys of principals, teachers, and students. 

We collected qualitative and quantitative information from diverse sources at each of the 40 

schools in the intensive level study. The primary vehicle for collecting this information was three-day 

site visits to the schools. While at the schools, site visitors made systematic observations; reviewed

records on incidents of violence; conducted focus groups with teachers and students; and conducted indepth interviews with district officials, principals, and school staff. In addition, we surveyed all teachers 

and a sample of students. 

One of the strengths of this study is that it combines quantitative and qualitative information 

from a wide variety of sources. The quantitative information represents each school with fairly high 

precision. The qualitative information provides, from multiple perspectives, details and insights that are 

typically unavailable with surveys. A limitation of the study is that the sample varied little on the

measures of safety we used for the intensive level. As a result, this limited our ability to compare and

contrast characteristics that distinguish safe from unsafe schools. 

11 
KEY FINDINGS

 Disorder in Schools 

Overall, the site visitors found that the vast majority of the schools have relatively low levels 

of serious crime1

. This was borne out by the surveys of students and teachers. While fighting did occur 

and the presence of weapons was not unheard of, the combination of the two was rarely seen in the same 

school. Theft was much more common than robbery, and while teachers may have been verbally abused, 

they very rarely were attacked or threatened with a weapon. 

Fear of disorder did not seem to interfere with the learning process. Even though the schools

visited were predominantly free of serious violence, less serious incidents still could have contributed to 

apprehension about being in school. This did not seem to be the case, however, in most of the schools 

included in the study. Site visitors at roughly two-thirds of the schools unanimously described their

schools as safe or very safe, with low or very low levels of disorder. Similarly, about a third of the site 

visitors reported that the schools they visited were completely orderly and safe. Only one site visiting 

team characterized their school as “unsafe.” 

While most schools followed similar discipline procedures, they varied quite a bit in how 

they recorded and used incident data. A review of the systems in place in the schools included in the site

visits found that: 

! Collection forms vary widely among schools, 

! Serious incidents usually are reported to the district or state, and 

! Victims and offenders are rarely reported in systems. 

At most schools, disciplinary information was reviewed informally within the school.

Principals and teachers were usually aware of the most prevalent types of disorder at their schools as well

as which students were more likely to cause trouble. However, few schools had specific procedures in 

place to review incident data. In addition, very few schools seemed to follow guidelines recommended in 

1996 by the National Center for Education Statistics task force on the collection and compilation of

incident data. Neither the level of detail collected on particular incidents nor the unit of collection

 

11 As used, “serious crime” refers to crimes such as aggravated assault, weapons violations, and robbery.

12 
(incident, victim, and offender) seemed to be in place in most schools to support the unit-based collection 

system recommended by the task force.

Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior 

Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior 

We described efforts to prevent problem behavior in terms of the following major categories: 

(a) prevention activities, (b) school security, (c) school discipline practices and policies, and (d) school 

climate. 

Prevention Activities. The review in this report is based on classifying prevention activities 

into 19 different types of programs using categories developed for an earlier phase of this study, which is

based on national survey data (Gottfredson et al., 2000; Crosse, Burr, Cantor & Hantman, forthcoming).

Our findings amplified those of the intermediate level study in that many programs discussed by site 

visitors did not meet minimal quality criteria along a number of basic characteristics, including financial 

support, frequency of participation by students, and monitoring and evaluation. These problems, we 

believe, reflect a view on the part of the schools that prevention programs do not generally play a critical 

role in preventing problem behavior in the school. In fact, many of the programs are being implemented

within schools that are perceived as being relatively safe and not in great need of such programs.

Particularly noticeable in these programs was the absence of data that documented the implementation 

process, as well as any formal or informal evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs. 

School Security. The description of school security was divided into three areas: (a) school

security staff, (b) law enforcement personnel, and (c) security devices and strategies. School security was 

the most common type of activity that administrators reported as specifically set up to prevent disorder in 

the school. The most prevalent security strategy used throughout the schools was various ways to

monitor student and non-student movement within the school. The staff and administrators were 

primarily responsible for this task. Generally, other types of security strategies--such as hiring special

security personnel, use of metal detectors, and random searches--were also used by a smaller number of

schools. These additional strategies tended to be implemented in those schools where student movement 

and, perhaps safety, may be more of an issue (large, urban schools). 

The implementation of many of these strategies was inconsistent. For example, site visitors

observed a number of times when hall monitors were not consistently enforcing rules and procedures 

13 
(e.g., use of hall passes). Several site visitors found locks, intended to keep people out, that were broken. 

Video cameras, when they were in place, were not widely monitored by staff. 

School Discipline Practices and Policies. We found considerable overlap in discipline

procedures across schools. The rules were generally guided by the school district and involved varying

levels of punishment as the offenses became more serious. Very few rewards were structured into the

procedures. Schools seemed to have few problems with communicating the rules to all students. 

However, we found some evidence that rules are inconsistently enforced across students. How common 

inconsistent enforcement was across relatively minor and serious infractions is unclear. Many of these 

inconsistencies may stem from the general process of letting teachers handle many of the infractions 

within the classroom. As noted by a number of administrators, teachers do vary on how they deal with 

disorder problems. Much of the inconsistency reported by students may be related to these differences in 

individual style across teachers and other staff. 

School Climate. We described school climate using a typology based on the school climate

goals outlined by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI] (1993) and Kelly et al. 

(1986). 

Staff/student relationships. The majority of the sites reported good communication between 

staff and students, although examples of high and low quality communication are described in the report. 

Site visitors observed that highly visible, communicative, and engaging principals had schools with some 

of the strongest climate relations. Students often described these principals as caring, approachable, and

fair. Conversely, principals in schools with poor climate were often described by teachers and students as

non-collaborative, unapproachable, unengaged and intimidating. 

Goals. With respect to school goals, the schools in our sample were classified into four

different types: (a) strong focus on academics, (b) focus on academics but struggling to improve 

performance, (c) mixed academic reputation but a strong emphasis on controlling disorder, and (d) great 

deal of emphasis on extra-curricular aspects. 

Rules and procedures. Schools were described as having two basic approaches to rules and 

procedures. One was where teachers tended to deal with all but the most serious discipline problems, 

including setting punishment and calling parents (if necessary). The second approach tended to deal with 

small infractions within the classroom and then refer students to an administrator for repeated or more

14 
serious infractions. The administrator was responsible for assigning punishment and contacting parents. 

Regardless of the approach, consistency of rule enforcement emerged as an important issue, especially

among students (as expressed in the focus groups). This also re-emphasized the role of the principal in

setting the overall tone in a school when it came to discipline and enforcement of rules. School staff 

expressed more satisfaction if the principal set clear expectations, communicated regularly with staff, and

gave them a voice in management issues. 

Facilities and environment. Most of the schools were described as being clean, both inside and outside. 

Vandalism was rarely seen. Some variety was found in the condition of the buildings. The community

environments sometimes contrasted with the school. In this sense, some schools were clearly “safehavens” for the students. 

 Planning 

The study team developed a definition of sound planning and applied it when selecting six 

schools for detailed analysis. Once selected, the schools were contacted and asked to elaborate on the 

information that was initially elicited in the national survey. Respondents were asked about the kinds of

school-level planning structures, the main functions of these structures, and the outcomes of the planning. 

The kinds of school-level planning structures varied across schools. Regardless of 

variability, however, all of the schools had at least one school-level planning structure that regularly

assessed (through formal or informal needs assessments) the need for reduction or prevention of problem 

behavior. This did not necessarily result in implementing prevention activities. 

Distinguishing Middle Schools with Different Levels of Disorder 

To conduct this analysis, a limited number of schools were identified as having “high” and 

“low” levels of disorder using the data from the student surveys. Schools were compared across the high 

and low disorder groups along school characteristics, community characteristics, prevention programs, 

security, discipline, and climate. This comparison was intended to identify policy-relevant factors that

distinguished schools with high and low levels of disorder, with the intent of suggesting approaches that 

policy-makers and school personnel may wish to pursue to increase school safety. 

Complicating this analysis was the fact that, as a whole, the 40 schools in our sample tended 

to have relatively low levels of disorder. Middle schools tended to have higher levels of disorder than 

15 
high schools. For the high schools, less than five percent of students in the low disorder schools had

experienced being robbed or threatened with a weapon; approximately 16 percent of students in the high

disorder schools were victims of such violent incidents. This range (11%) was exceeded by the range for 

the middle schools (33%). Between 28 and 37 percent of students in high disorder middle schools 

experienced one or more violent incidents. Because of the limited range in disorder among the high 

schools, this analysis was restricted to middle schools. 

What seemed to most clearly distinguish the high and low disorder schools? Not

surprisingly, school and community characteristics were clearly important. The high disorder schools

tended to have higher levels of poverty, unemployment, and other risk factors associated with community

disorder. Schools that were ranked high on disorder tended to have more programs specifically targeting 

reduction of problem behavior and had considerably more security arrangements (e.g., school security

devices). This seemed to be driven primarily by the level of perceived need of the school. Low disorder 

schools did not allocate their resources towards prevention programs when they did not feel it was 

warranted. This is especially true for security devices. 

The most important policy-relevant differences between the two groups of middle schools 

were related to discipline practices and climate. Low disorder schools were characterized by several 

important characteristics, including strong principals, school staff viewing themselves as working as a 

team, active involvement of teachers in maintaining order inside and outside the classroom, and generally 

positive relationships among staff and students. In contrast, high disorder schools lacked a clear approach

to discipline, did not convey expectations to students well, and demonstrated poor communication

between teachers and administrators. 

This last result reinforces the finding that managing a school and the effects of this

management on school climate is vitally important to keeping schools safe and secure. While programs 

to prevent violence undoubtedly play some role in reducing violence, very little evidence from this study 

indicated that this is what distinguishes schools with high and low levels of disorder. In fact, this study

suggests that the use of prevention programs is, in part, a reaction to disorder. As a result, schools with 

higher levels of disorder seem to implement more prevention programs than schools with lower levels. 

16 
SCHOOL CRIME PATTERNS: 

A NATIONAL PROFILE OF U.S. PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS 

USING RATES OF CRIME REPORTED TO POLICE 

SUMMARY 

This report profiles violence in U.S. public high schools. It is based on analysis of data from 

a U.S. Department of Education survey of school principals that asked about the number and types of 

crimes they reported to police for the 1996-97 school year. The analysis shows that violence is clustered

within a relatively small percentage of locations, with about 60 percent of the violence occurring in 4

percent of the schools. This is about four times higher than would be expected based on national rates of 

crime. 

High schools are grouped by the nature and level of crimes occurring in the school. Four

patterns emerge from this grouping: 1) No Crime, 2) Isolated Crime, 3) Moderate Crime and 4) Violent

Crime. High schools in each group are described in terms of their student population characteristics, 

community characteristics, and school violence prevention efforts. 

The results indicate that the characteristics (size, location, socio-economic make-up) of highviolence schools differ markedly from the other schools. High schools with the highest levels of violence

tended to be located in urban areas and have a high percentage of minority students, compared to high 

schools that reported no crime to the police. They also tended to be located in areas with high social 

disadvantage and residential mobility. It should be noted, however, that a relatively large minority of the 

schools in the Violent Crime group were located in rural areas (36%), so that the image of school violence 

being solely restricted to central cities is not accurate. 

The types of violence prevention programs differed between crime groups. The schools that 

experience a high level of serious violence also reported high use of prevention measures and programs 

that were specifically aimed at controlling violence. Schools in the Violent Crime group appeared to put

more emphasis on programs geared toward changing individual behavior, such as behavioral modification

or other types of individual attention. This contrasted with high schools in the other three crime groups,

which tended to place a higher priority on prevention instruction or counselors within the school. 

Similarly, the Violent Crime group was more likely than the other groups to adopt a variety 

of security measures to reduce risk of crimes, particularly random metal detectors, used by about one17 
third of the Violent Crime group (compared to 10% or less in the other groups). The crime groups also 

differed in their use of law enforcement and security personnel. The schools in the Violent Crime group 

were more likely to use this as a measure to control disorder than were schools with lower levels of crime. 

These observations indicate that schools with the greatest need (i.e., highest rate of violent

crime) took action at a fairly high rate (e.g., around two-thirds of the schools reported using many of the

programs/activities). A follow-up question is whether these programs are effective at reducing violence. 

The current analysis did not allow for assessment of whether programs were implemented in an effective

way and/or significantly reduced the amount of violence in the school. 

The report suggests that methods to prevent school violence be tailored to the level and type 

of crime problems that schools are experiencing. Also, future evaluation of prevention methods should 

put some emphasis on schools experiencing the most severe problems. Comparing these schools to those 

with a similar profile but lower levels of disorder would be especially useful. This would provide an 

efficient and cost-effective way to better understand how to significantly reduce crime in the nation’s high

schools. 

18 
REFERENCES 

Gottfredson, G., Gottfredson, D. C., Czeh, E. R., Cantor, D., Crosse, S. B., & Hantman, I. (2000). 

National study of delinquency prevention in schools. Final report for the National Institute of

Justice, U. S. Department of Justice, Grant # 96-MN-MV-008. Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson 

Associates, Inc. 

Kelly, E. Glover, J., Keefe, J., Halderson, C., Sorenson, C., & Speth, C. (1986). School climate survey. 

Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education (1993). Reaching the 

Goals Goal 6 (ISBN 0-16-045220-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

19