PLANNING AND EVALUATION SERVICE

 

WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY: 

DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS 

IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS

REPORT ON THE STUDY ON SCHOOL

VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DOC #2001-35 

WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY: 

DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS 

IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS 

REPORT ON THE STUDY ON SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Contract No. EA96055001 

Prepared by: 

Scott Crosse 

Michele Burr 

David Cantor 

Carol A. Hagen 

Irene Hantman 

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., 

Burr, M., Cantor, D., Hagen, C.A. and Hantman, I. (2001). Wide Scope, Questionable Quality: Drug and

Violence Prevention Efforts in American Schools. Report on the Study on School Violence and 

Prevention. 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.
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. 

i 
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. 

ii 
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. 

iii 
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. 

iv 
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. 

v 
! 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 

vi 
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. 

vii 
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. 

viii 
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/.) 

ix 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In preparing this report, we relied heavily on work completed by Gary and Denise 

Gottfredson, which is reported in 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. 

Without the help of many people, this study would have been impossible. School

recruitment could not have been completed without assistance from Katie Andrew, Julie Anderson, Betty

Barclay-Hurley, Kristen Heavener, Robin Hill, Galen McKeever, Pat McClure, Sheri Nicewarner, Parvis 

Omidpanah, Jeff Roussos, and Fran Winter. The recruiters, along with Liv Aujla, Kevin Jay, Steve Linz, 

Kim Standing, and Diane Steele, made data collection happen. We received invaluable statistical and

programming support from Al Bishop, John Brown, Jason Grim, Ying Long, Lana Ryaboy, and Gary

Shapiro. 

We also wish to thank our federal Project Officer, Joanne Wiggins, and the members of our 

Working Group, which include Mark Lipsey, Jennifer O’Day, Cyril Wantland, and Mary Weaver. They 

have all been extremely supportive and helpful in developing and implementing this study.

Finally, we wish to thank the hundreds of schools and thousands of school staff and students 

who, by participating in the study, helped to make it a success. 

x 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................i 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................................................... x 

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 1 

Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1 

Study Objectives.......................................................................................................................................3 

Method ......................................................................................................................................................3 

Strengths and Limitations.........................................................................................................................5 

Report Organization..................................................................................................................................7 

2. PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS............................................................................................. 8 

Although Schools Experience High Levels of Less Serious Violent Crime and Property Crime, 

Serious Violent Crime Is Infrequent ...................................................................................................8 

Middle Schools Experience More Problem Behavior than Other Schools.............................................10 

Students and Teachers Generally Feel Safe at School............................................................................13 

Problem Schools: Characteristics and Problem Behavior......................................................................15 

3. EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS............................................. 26 

Schools Are Implementing a Wide Variety of Prevention Activities.....................................................26 

Schools Are Using Many Prevention Activities .....................................................................................31 

Most Schools Communicate Rules to Students and Monitor and Record Violations of Rules ..............32 

Schools Use a Variety of Responses to Desirable and Undesirable Student Behavior...........................32 

Schools Are Following Best Practices and Policies on School Rules and on Tracking Student 

Behavior but Need Improvement on the Range of Responses to Student Conduct and on 

Predictable and Consistent Discipline...............................................................................................33 

Problem Schools: Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior.........................................................................35

4. QUALITY OF EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS................... 39 

Quality of Prevention Programming in Schools Is Low .........................................................................39 

Activities Designed to Change the School or Classroom Environment Are Higher Quality Than 

Those Aimed at Altering Student Behaviors or Attitudes.................................................................41 

Security and Surveillance Efforts Are Implemented with the Highest Quality and Services to Family 

Members Are Implemented with the Lowest Quality.......................................................................43 

Problem Schools: Implementation of Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior .........................................45 

5. PLANNING AND INFORMATION.................................................................................................. 48 

Many School Districts Influence the Planning of Prevention Activities at Schools...............................48 

revention Planning Is Weak for Many Individual Activities ..................................................................50 

Sound Planning Is Related to High-quality Prevention Activities..........................................................51 

Problem Schools: Planning and Information .........................................................................................52 

6. FUNDING FOR PREVENTION EFFORTS IN SCHOOLS........................................................... 57 

SDFSCA is the Most Widely Used Source of Funding for Prevention Activities, though the Districts 

for Many Schools Also Receive Funding from Other Sources.........................................................56 

Districts Use SDFSCA Funds to Support a Wide Variety of Prevention Activities...............................57 

SDFSCA Funding is Very Important to District Prevention Programming............................................58 

xi 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

7. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 59 

Shift Resources to Emphasize Quality over Quantity.............................................................................59 

Improve Program Planning and Monitoring ...........................................................................................59 

Strengthen Factors Associated with Quality of Programming................................................................60 

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix Page

A. STUDY METHODS............................................................................................................................. 62 

B. METHODS AND CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE ADEQUACY OF PREVENTION 

 PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES......................................................................................................... 77 

List of Tables 

Table

3-1 Prevention activity categories and definitions............................................................................... 28 

3-2 School-wide arrangements and definitions.................................................................................... 29 

A-1 School-level response rates for the first phase of data collection .................................................. 69 

A-2 School-level participation rates for the second phase of data collection ....................................... 69 

A-3 Principal response rate ................................................................................................................... 70 

A-4 Provider response rate.................................................................................................................... 70 

A-5 Teacher response rate..................................................................................................................... 70 

A-6 Student response rate ..................................................................................................................... 71 

B-1 Measures of program quality ......................................................................................................... 78 

B-2 Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for quality measures that have 

similar criteria across program or activity types............................................................................ 81 

B-3 Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for quality measures that have 

different criteria across program or activity types......................................................................... 82

B-4 Measures of quality for school-wide discipline practices and cut points for assessing 

 adequacy ........................................................................................................................................ 84 

xii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

List of Figures

Figure Page

2-1 Percentage of schools in which one or more incidents of crime were reported to law 

enforcement – 1997-98 school year................................................................................................. 9 

2-2 Percentage of students reporting one or more incidents of personal victimization this 

year in school – 1997-98 school year............................................................................................. 11 

2-3 Percentage of teachers reporting one or more incidents of personal victimization this 

year in school – 1997-98 school year............................................................................................. 12 

2-4 Percentage of teachers reporting on the extent to which student behavior prevents them

from teaching – 1997-98 school year............................................................................................. 14 

2-5 Characteristics of problem schools and other schools – 1997-98 school year............................... 16 

2-6 Characteristics of students in problem schools and other schools – 1997-98 school year............. 17 

2-7 Percentage of problem middle schools and other middle schools in which one or more 

incidents of crime were reported to law enforcement – 1997-98 school year ............................... 19 

2-8 Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools in which one or more 

incidents of crime were reported to law enforcement – 1997-98 school year ............................... 20 

2-9 Percentage of students in problem middle schools and other middle schools reporting 

personal victimization this year in school – 1997-98 school year ................................................. 21 

2-10 Percentage of students in problem high schools and other high schools reporting 

personal victimization this year in school – 1997-98 school year ................................................. 22 

2-11 Percentage of teachers in problem middle schools and other middle schools reporting 

personal victimization this year in school – 1997-98 school year ................................................. 24 

2-12 Percentage of teachers in problem high schools and other high schools reporting 

personal victimization this year in school – 1997-98 school year ................................................. 25 

3-1 Percentage of schools using each type of prevention activity – 1997-98 school year................... 30 

3-2 Percentage of schools using specific responses to desirable student conduct – 1997-98 

 school year..................................................................................................................................... 34 

3-3 Percentage of problem middle schools and other middle schools using each type of 

prevention activity – 1997-98 school year..................................................................................... 36 

xiii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Figure Page

3-4 Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools using each type of 

prevention activity – 1997-98 school year..................................................................................... 37 

4-1 Percentage of programs or activities judged adequate for each quality measure – 

 1997-98 school year....................................................................................................................... 40 

4-2 Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for each type of prevention 

activity – 1997-98 school year....................................................................................................... 44 

4-3 Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for selected prevention activities 

for problem middle schools and other middle schools – 1997-98 school year.............................. 46 

4-4 Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for selected prevention activity 

for problem high schools and other high schools – 1997-98 school year...................................... 47 

5-1 Percentage of problem schools and other schools in districts reporting mandated school 

planning of prevention activities – 1997-98 school year............................................................... 53 

5-2 Percentage of problem schools and other schools in districts providing support for school 

planning of prevention activities – 1997-98 .................................................................................. 55 

xiv 
WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY: 

DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS 

Report on the Study on School Violence and Prevention 

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

Concern about youth violence has increased dramatically across the country. This has been 

especially true for violence that occurs in schools. Schools should provide disciplined and orderly 

environments that are conducive to learning and provide safe havens from violence. This report examines

the status of school safety nationally and what schools are doing to promote safety and prevent problem 

behavior. 

 Introduction 

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) Program, administered

by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), is the largest school-based federal program directed at

preventing student drug use and promoting school safety. As part of the 1994 reauthorization of

SDFSCA, Congress mandated that ED collect information on efforts to prevent violence in schools

nationally. 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. 

In the last decade, several studies have investigated the prevalence of problem behavior at 

schools and some of the factors associated with it. For example, Katchur and colleagues (1996) reported 

on the number of school-associated deaths that occurred from July 1992 through June 1994. Other 

studies that have investigated problem behavior in schools (e.g., possession of weapons) include Violence 

and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97 (Heaviside, Rowand, Williams & Farris, 1998),

Violence-Related Attitudes and Behaviors of High School Students—New York City, 1992 (Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, 1993); Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 1999); Monitoring the Future Survey (Johnston, O’Malley, and Bachman, 1998); and School 

1 
Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (Chandler, Chapman, Rand, and Taylor,

1998). 

However, very few studies have examined the types of prevention efforts that schools are 

using and how well the schools are implementing these efforts. One of the more comprehensive studies 

was conducted by the Minnesota Department of Education (1992). This study defined and described 26 

promising prevention strategies and reported on the utilization and perceived impact of these strategies in

Minnesota public schools. While useful, the study did not describe program implementation. Moreover,

the study had a state rather than a national focus and was conducted more nearly ten years ago. More 

recently, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (1995) reported on a nationwide search to find

effective efforts to reduce school violence, particularly gun violence. Although this study investigated 

efforts nationwide, it focused solely on promising prevention strategies. An intensive national effort

undertaken by the National School Board Association (1993) lists more than 750 prevention programs 

organized into 30 different categories. This effort and others (e.g., National School Safety Center, 1995; 

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 1995) identified a multitude of prevention strategies, but 

they neither provided national estimates of the types of prevention strategies schools are implementing 

nor assessed how the programs are being implemented. 

The Study on School Violence and Prevention is the first study in more than 20 years to 

examine in detail what schools nationally are doing to promote school safety, as well as describe the level

of problem behavior in schools. Although its title implies that we focused exclusively on violence, the 

study also encompasses other types of undesirable behavior (e.g., drug abuse and property crime) in 

schools. We refer to all of these types of illegal or prohibited behavior in schools, violent and nonviolent,

as “problem behavior.” 

The Study on School Violence and Prevention was a cooperative effort between ED and the 

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), U.S. Department of Justice. Mandated by Congress to investigate the 

extent of violence in schools, as well as efforts to prevent violence, ED commissioned the Study on

School Violence and Prevention. At the same time, 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 and evaluators 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. 

2 
Study Objectives 

We know that some schools are safer than others and that some schools appear to be more 

successful than others in implementing efforts to prevent problem behavior. Understanding the factors

and processes that contribute to school safety and the conditions under which prevention programs are 

well implemented is critical to policymakers and school officials. Hence, the study has focused on the 

extent and nature of problem behavior in schools according to students, teachers, and principals; and on 

the types of prevention efforts that are underway in schools and how well schools are implementing these 

efforts. The study has also investigated how prevention activities are funded and the role of SDFSCA in 

these efforts. The following study questions have guided the study.

! What is the incidence of problem behavior in schools nationally? 

! What types of efforts are underway in schools to prevent problem behavior? 

! How well are efforts to prevent problem behavior implemented? 

! To what extent do schools use sound planning processes and information on school 

prevention options to improve school management? 

! What sources of funding (including SDFSCA funds) do schools use to support 

prevention efforts?

! What are the policy-relevant characteristics and processes that distinguish safe and 

unsafe schools? 

Although this study did seek to assess the implementation of prevention activities and to

identify factors that may contribute to school safety, rigorously evaluating the effectiveness of these 

activities and factors was beyond its scope. 

 Method 

The Study on School Violence and Prevention is based on three separate data collection and

analysis efforts. 

! For the national level of the study, we conducted secondary analyses of the data 

collected for the Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence, which 

was sponsored by the National Center on Education Statistics (Heaviside et. al., 

1998); this survey collected information on school crime and violence prevention 

3 
efforts from administrators in a probability sample of public elementary and 

secondary schools. 

! The intermediate level of the study collected information on school crime and efforts

intended to prevent problem behavior from multiple sources (e.g., school district

administrators, principals, and program providers) in a probability sample of public

and private elementary and secondary schools. 

! The intensive level of the study drew on detailed quantitative and qualitative 

information collected from multiple sources in a purposive sample of 40 public 

secondary schools that participated in the intermediate level. 

This report presents what we have learned from the data collected for the intermediate level of the study.

We report on the national level and intensive level of the study separately.

Sample. From all public and private (sectarian and nonsectarian) schools in the United 

States, this study sampled 1,287 elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools to participate in the 

study. We stratified the sample by instructional level (elementary, middle, and senior high school) and

metropolitan status (rural, suburban, and urban), because we hypothesized that both school problem

behavior and prevention activities were likely to differ greatly on both of these factors. Using an equal 

probability of selection sampling method, we selected 143 schools from each of the nine strata. We 

recruited schools for the study through an extensive mail and telephone campaign. 

Data Collection. We conducted the first phase of intermediate level data collection, the 

principal screener survey, by means of mail survey with telephone followup. For this phase, we asked 

principals to report on the number and types of prevention activities in place at their schools. Their 

reports were guided by a comprehensive taxonomy of prevention efforts that classified activities into 19 

different groups ranging from individual-level prevention instruction or training to school-level activities 

intended to change or maintain the culture or climate of the school. (See Chapter 3 for more detailed 

information on these activities.) Gottfredson Associates, Inc. developed the taxonomy after conducting 

an extensive review of the types of prevention activities implemented in schools nationally.

The second phase of the intermediate level data collection entailed a second principal survey 

and surveys of individuals coordinating prevention activities (program providers) in the same schools that

participated in the initial principal survey. The principal survey collected information on principal

leadership, organizational capacity, discipline policy and management of student behavior, incidents of 

problem behavior reported to police, and funding sources for programs. The program provider survey

collected information on provider background and training, program selection and program

4 
implementation, including type of students served and amount of services delivered, as well as the use of

best practices.

1

 For schools that reported more than one prevention activity in a given category (i.e.,

prevention curriculum, instruction, or training; security and surveillance), we used probability sampling to 

select one of these activities, and collected information on only the selected activity at the school. 

At middle schools and high schools (secondary schools), in addition to surveying principals

and program providers, the second phase of data collection included surveying all teachers and a 

probability sample of students. (Student participation was voluntary; participating students were 

anonymous, and parents had the opportunity to refuse participation for their children.) The teacher

questionnaire focused on school safety, victimization, school climate, and level of implementation of 

prevention programming. The student survey collected information on school safety, victimization, 

problem behavior, and school climate. 

The second phase of data collection also included a survey of officials (primarily SDFSCA 

coordinators) in the districts associated with the middle and high schools participating in the study. This 

survey covered SDFSCA and non-SDFSCA programs and funding, as well as interactions between the 

district and school personnel that operate prevention programs. 

Analysis. In this report, we present weighted estimates. That is, the results reflect the 

probabilities of selection and nonresponse, making it more likely that the results presented are 

representative of schools nationally.

Where appropriate, we conducted tests of statistical significance to check whether or not

observed differences among groups are simply due to chance. Except where noted, we highlight in the 

text only differences that are statistically significant at a probability of less than or equal to five percent. 

Strengths and Limitations 

The main strengths of the Study on School Violence and Prevention are that it used multiple 

sources of information on problem behavior in schools and collected detailed information on the types

and implementation of prevention efforts. This is the first study in more than 20 years to obtain 

 

1

 Best practices were based on expert judgement and a review of the literature on the effectiveness of prevention activities. (See Gottfredson et 

al., 2000.)

5 
information nationally on problem behavior in schools from multiple sources (i.e., students, teachers, and

principals). It is also the first study to collect detailed information on how schools seek to prevent

problem behavior and to promote safe and orderly environments nationally.

Another strength is the extensive data collected on the implementation of prevention efforts

and analyses designed to evaluate the adequacy of implementation. Additionally, the types of activities 

covered go beyond what are typically considered prevention programs (e.g., prevention instruction and

training), to include all activities undertaken by schools to prevent problem behavior and promote school

safety (e.g., improvements to instructional practices). 

The chief limitations of the study are the response rates achieved and level of detail 

available. The study encountered much greater difficulty than anticipated in obtaining the cooperation of 

schools. We obtained a 69 percent response rate in the screening phase of data collection, and 53 percent

of the schools originally sampled participated in one or more of the different data collection efforts during

the detailed phase. Forty-nine percent of schools participated in the principal survey; 50 percent of the 

secondary schools participated in the teacher survey; and 38 percent of the secondary schools participated

in the student survey. Nonresponse tended to be higher for schools predominantly located in urban areas 

and for non-Catholic private schools. Hence, these types of schools are underrepresented in the 

responding schools. We sought to correct for the under-representation through nonresponse adjustments 

to weights. However, to the extent that the nonresponding schools differed from other schools on the

variables of interest, their absence may still influence the study results. (See Appendix A for a detailed

discussion of response rates and weighting.) 

Additionally, although a great deal of information was collected from program providers and

other sources for the intermediate level, surveys necessarily limit the extent to which we can learn about

the processes and reasons underlying some of the phenomena observed. With the in-person interviews 

that we conducted for the intensive level of the study (reported on separately), we were able to explore 

some issues in greater depth, although for a much smaller number of schools. 

6 
 Report Organization 

This report is organized around the topics covered by the study questions. The chapters are 

as follows. 

! Chapter 1, above, provides an introduction to and background about problem 

behavior in schools. 

! Chapter 2 describes the 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. 

! Chapter 3 discusses efforts used by schools to prevent problem behavior, including

the number of efforts in place by instructional level and the number of different types 

of efforts in place. 

! Chapter 4 covers the implementation of efforts to prevent problem behavior and

assesses differences in quality of implementation by type of effort and type of school. 

! Chapter 5 describes how schools and districts plan prevention activities and how they 

use information (i.e., on effectiveness) in doing so. 

! Chapter 6 presents information on how districts and schools fund prevention 

programs and on the importance of SDFSCA funds to prevention activities. 

! Chapter 7 discusses our conclusions and their implications for policy and practice. 

In Chapters 2 to 5, we also contrast schools with high levels of serious violent behavior with

other schools on some of the topics covered in the chapters. These results allow us to consider the 

characteristics and processes that distinguish safe and unsafe schools. 

In Appendix A, we provide additional information on our methodology. We provide 

additional information on definitions and measures of program quality in Appendix B. 

7 
2. PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS 

Despite the publicity about school violence, elementary and secondary schools nationally are 

relatively safe. Serious violent crime is rare, relative to less serious violent crime and property crime.

Middle schools have higher levels of many types of problem behavior than other schools. Although 

students and teachers generally perceive their schools as safe, teachers report that problem behavior often 

interferes with teaching. 

This chapter is based on the results of surveys of principals, students, and teachers in our 

national probability sample of schools. Elementary school, middle school, and high school principals

reported on the number of incidents of problem behavior for their schools, during and after regular school 

hours; we report the results in terms of the percentage of schools nationally that experienced at least one 

incident of different types of problem behavior. A probability sample of middle school and high school

students at the schools reported on whether or not they were the victims of different types of crimes in

school and on whether or not they avoided certain locations, in and out of school, because of safety

concerns; we report the results in terms of the percentage of students nationally. Middle school and high 

school teachers at the schools reported on whether or not they were the victims of different types of

crimes in school, whether or not they avoided certain locations in school because of safety concerns, and 

the extent to which problem behavior interfered with their teaching; we report the results in terms of the

percentage of teachers nationally. The results are for the 1997-98 school year. 

Although Schools Experience High Levels of Less Serious Violent Crime and Property

Crime, Serious Violent Crime Is Relatively Infrequent 

Elementary, middle, and senior high schools experience high levels of less serious violent

crime and property crime. This problem behavior is noteworthy because it can potentially interfere with 

learning. However, serious violent crime, which can raise a high level of concern for the safety of 

students and school personnel, is relatively rare in schools. 

Less serious violent crime and property crime. Approximately two-thirds of schools 

(66%) and students (66%) experienced one or more incidents of any type of less serious violent crime and

property crime during the 1997-98 school year. Forty-four percent of schools reported to police one or

more incidents of fighting without a weapon. (See Figure 2-1.) A similar percentage of schools reported 

8 
Figure 2-1. Percentage of schools reporting one or more incidents of crime to law enforcement --

1997-98 school year 









































21

17

72

67

68

11

9

56

65

7

6

44

44

2

3

34

35

39

58

49

0 20 40 60 80



 Middle/junior



 All schools

Percentage of schools

Vandalism

Serious violent crime

Less serious violent

crime and property crime

Theft or larceny

Physical attack or fight

without a weapon

Physical attack or fight with

weapon

Robbery

Elementary High school

to police at least one incident of theft or larceny (44%), or vandalism (49%) during the 1997-98 school

year. Proportionally, fewer elementary schools reported one or more of these types of problem behavior

(58%) than middle schools (85%) or high schools (77%). 

9 
During the 1997-98 school year, approximately 18 percent of students in middle or senior 

high schools were threatened with a beating, and 13 percent of students were physically attacked. (See 

Figure 2-2.) Forty-seven percent of students in middle and senior high schools experienced theft of 

property worth less than $1; 45 percent of students experienced theft of property worth $1 or more. 

Approximately 62 percent of teachers experienced one or more incidents of any type of less

serious violent crime and property crime. (See Figure 2-3.) Forty-two percent of teachers in middle and

senior high schools received obscene remarks or gestures from a student during the past school year. A

smaller number of teachers experienced damage to personal property worth less than $10 (28%), theft of

property worth less than $10 (24%), and theft of property worth more than $10 (12%). 

Serious Violent Crime. During the 1997-98 school year, approximately 10 percent of

schools and 11 percent of students experienced one or more incidents of any type of serious violent crime. 

These levels of crime are about one-sixth the levels of less serious violent crime and property crime.

Seven percent of schools reported to police one or more incidents of physical attack or fight with a 

weapon; 6 percent of schools reported one or more incidents of robbery.

2

 

Four percent of students were robbed of less than $1, and 6 percent were robbed of more 

than $1. Approximately 5 percent were threatened with a gun or knife. 

Approximately four percent of middle and senior high school teachers experienced one or

more incidents of any type of serious violent crime during the 1997-98 school year. These teachers were

attacked and received minor injuries (3%), attacked and received injuries that required a doctor (0.7%),

and confronted by weapons at school (0.5%). 

Middle Schools Experience More Problem Behavior than Other Schools 

Middle schools experienced higher levels of some types of problem behavior than

elementary schools or high schools. Compared with elementary schools and high schools, a higher 

percentage of middle schools reported to police one or more incidents of physical attack or fight with a 

 

2

 Robbery differs from theft in that it entails the use or threat of violence or force.

10 
Figure 2-2. Percentage of students reporting one or more incidents of personal victimization this

year in school − 1997-98 school year 

5

22

19

5

6

4

5

45

13

8

6

54

49

4

4

44

42

16

10

18

47

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Middle/junior High school All schools

Percent of students

Physical attack

Serious violent crime

Less serious violent

crime and property crime

Threatened with a beating

Theft, $1 or more

Robbery, less than $1

Threatened with a knife

or gun

Theft, less than $1

Robbery, $1 or more

11 
Figure 2-3. Percentage of teachers reporting one or more incidents of personal victimization this

year in school -- 1997-98 school year 

0.5

1.1

5

12

28

14

31

46

24

59

0.6

0.6

3

12

21

14

26

40

20

66

0.5

0.7

4

12

24

14

28

42

21

62

4

2

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Confronted with a weapon

Physical attack, received

injuries requiring a doctor

Physical attack, received

minor injuries

Any type

Theft, more than $10

Theft, less than $10

Damage to property, more

than $10

Damage to property, less

than $10

Received obscene remarks

or gestures from student

Threatened in remarks by a

student

Any type

Middle/junior High school All schools

Less serious violent crime 

and property crime

Serious violent crime

Percent of teachers

12 
weapon (21% of middle schools versus 2% of elementary schools and 11% of high schools).

3

 A higher 

percentage of middle schools also reported one or more incidents of fighting without a weapon (72% of 

middle schools versus 56% of high schools and 34% of elementary schools). 

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

victims of robbery during the 1997-98 school year. 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 school 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. 

For some types of less serious violent crime and property crime, the percentage of teachers

that were victimized during the 1997-98 school year was higher for middle schools than high schools. 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 

experienced damage to personal property worth less than $10 (31% of middle school teachers versus 26% 

of high school teachers). Middle school teachers also were more likely than high school teachers to be 

threatened by a student (24% of middle school teachers and 20% of high school teachers). 

Students and Teachers Generally Feel Safe at School 

Approximately 24 percent of students and teachers in middle and senior high schools would 

avoid one or more places at school out of fear that someone might bother or hurt them there. As many as

12 percent of students would avoid a specific place at school (e.g., locker room). By way of comparison,

16 percent of students would avoid a place in their neighborhood other than the street where they live. 

Approximately 27 percent of teachers in middle and senior high schools rated one or more 

places at school other than their classrooms (especially locker rooms or gym, and rest rooms) as relatively

unsafe. They did feel that their classrooms were quite safe. Perceptions of safety, however, appear to be 

unrelated to student misbehavior in classrooms: 27 percent of teachers in middle and senior high schools 

 

3

 Findings based on principal reports indicating that middle schools have higher levels of some types of school crime than high schools are 

inconsistent with results from the NCES Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence (Heaviside, Rowand, Williams & Farris,

1998), which is also based on principal reports. These inconsistencies could be due to several methodological differences between the studies,

including the universe of schools selected and the response rates achieved.

13 
14 

A great deal

4%

Not very much

60%

A fair amount

23%

Not at all

13%

Percent of teachers

Figure 2-4. Percentage of teachers reporting on the extent to which student behavior 

 prevents them from teaching -- 1997-1998 school year
reported that the behavior of some students keeps them from teaching a fair amount or great deal of the 

time. (See Figure 2-4.) 

Problem Schools: Characteristics and Problem Behavior 

To increase understanding of the characteristics and dynamics of schools with the greatest

safety concerns, we identified the middle schools and high schools that had the highest levels of serious 

violent crime (robbery and physical attack or fight with a weapon) among schools in our national 

probability sample. We selected a school for this analysis if its principal indicated that incidents of 

serious violent crime reported to the police exceeded 2 per 1,000 students.4

 This level of crime in schools

is substantially higher than we found nationally (on average, 1.5 incidents per 1,000 students for middle 

schools and 0.9 incidents per 1000 students for high schools); it also is approximately twice the level of

serious violent crime detected in the study of Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools:

1996-97 (Heaviside et. al., 1998). The middle schools in the analysis account for approximately 16 

percent of middle schools nationally; the high schools account for approximately 8 percent of high

schools nationally. 

In this section and in each of the remaining chapters, we contrast the problem schools with 

all of the other schools at the same instructional level on their characteristics, problem behavior, types of

prevention activities in operation, quality of prevention programming, and prevention planning. For these

comparisons, we conducted tests of statistical significance of the observed differences between the 

problem schools and other schools. First, we examine the characteristics of the problem schools and the 

patterns of problem behavior that we found. 

Characteristics. Problem schools identified based on the principal reports were very similar 

to other schools on several characteristics. These characteristics include the percentage of schools that 

were in urban, suburban and rural locations, and the number of students enrolled. (See Figure 2-5.) The 

problem schools and other schools also were similar on the percentage of students who were eligible for 

free or reduced-price lunch. (See Figure 2-6.) Although the problem high schools were similar to (i.e., 

 

4

 We had considered identifying the problem schools using combinations of principal, student, and teacher reports. However, those different types 

of reports were only weakly associated with one another. While they are imperfect, we chose to use the principal reports because they were

more likely to capture incidents of serious violent crime than the other types of reports.

15 
Figure 2-5. Characteristics of problem schools and other schools -- 1997-98 school year

60

20

20

48

28

24

59

22

19

34

30

36

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rural

Suburban

Urban

Rural

Suburban

Urban

Other schools Problem schools

Middle schools

High schools

Percent of schools

Note: None of the differences

between problem schools and other 

schools are statistically significant at 

p <0.05.

16 
Figure 2-6. Characteristics of students in problem schools and other schools -- 1997-98 

 school year 

22

23

24

25

39

25

40

31

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Minority

Eligible for free or reduced

price school lunch

Minority*

Eligible for free or reduced

price school lunch

Other schools Problem schools

Middle schools

High schools

Percentage of students

*Difference between problem schools and other schools is statistically significant at p <0.05. None of the other differences are significant at that 

level.

17 
not statistically different from) the other high schools on the percentage of minority students, the problem 

middle schools had a higher percentage of minority students (40%) than other middle schools (24%).5

Problem Behavior. For practically all types of crime reported by the principal to the police, 

the problem schools had higher levels of crime than other schools. This is true for middle schools and

high schools. (See Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8.) The differences are greatest on serious violent crime by

definition. (We identified the problem schools using principal reports of violent crime.) For example, 

100 percent of problem middle schools experienced one or more incidents of any type of serious violent 

crime compared with 15 percent of other schools. However, we also found higher levels of less serious 

violent crime and property crime for the problem schools than for other schools. For example, 98 percent 

of problem middle schools experienced one or more incidents of any type of less serious violent crime

and property crime compared with 82 percent of other schools. The only exception is that problem 

middle schools and other middle schools were similar (statistically) on vandalism.

The problem high schools were similar overall to the other high schools on the percentage of 

students who experienced crimes at school. For the problem middle schools, the exceptions are that 

higher percentages of students experienced one or more incidents of any type of serious violent crime 

(16% for problem schools versus 13% for other schools) and of robbery of $1 or more (10% for problem 

schools versus 7% for other schools). (See Figure 2-9.) We found no differences between the problem 

high schools and other schools on less serious violent crime and property crime. (See Figure 2-10.)

However, the pattern, especially for serious violent crime, suggests that students in problem schools may

experience higher levels of crime. 

Students attending problem high schools were similar to students attending other high

schools in terms of feeling unsafe in one or more school locations, on the street where they live, and in

other parts of their neighborhoods. However, more students attending problem middle schools than other 

middle schools reported feeling unsafe in one or more school locations and in parts of their 

neighborhoods. 

 

5

While the percentage-point difference on the percentage of minorities between the problem high schools and other high schools is very close to

the difference between the problem middle schools and other high schools, only the latter difference is statistically significant at p < 0.05. This

occurred because the variability among high schools on percentage of minorities was substantially higher for the high schools than for the 

middle schools. The small number of schools in the problem school analysis contributed to the variability. 

18 
Figure 2-7. Percentage of problem middle schools and other middle schools reporting one or more

incidents of crime to law enforcement -- 1997-98 school year 

9

7

15

69

63

65

82

78

62

84

80

80

98

100**

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Physical attack or fight

with weapon*

Robbery*

Any type*

Physical attack or fight

without weapon*

Theft or larceny*

Vandalism

Any type*

Other schools Problem schools

Less serious violent crime

and property crime

Serious violent crime

**By definition, problem schools reported Percent of schools one or more incidents of serious violent

crime to law enforcement.

*Difference between problem middle

schools and other middle schools is

statistically significant at p <0.05.

19 
Figure 2-8. Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools reporting one or more 

incidents of crime to law enforcement -- 1997-98 school year 

5

2

7

53

54

62

76

67

73

84

95

100

100

100**

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Physical attack or fight

with weapon*

Robbery*

Any type*

Physical attack or fight

without weapon*

Theft or larceny*

Vandalism*

Any type*

Other schools Problem schools

Serious violent crime

Less serious violent crime 

and property crime

**By definition, problem schools reported one Percent of schools or more incidents of serious violent crime to 

law enforcement.

*Difference between problem high schools

and other high schools is statistically

significant at p <0.05.

20 
Figure 2-9. Percentage of students in problem middle schools and other middle schools reporting 

personal victimization this year in school -- 1997-98 school year

7

6

5

13

55

49

22

18

73

10

6

6

16

53

51

23

21

73

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Robbery, $1 or more*

Robbery, less than $1

Threatened with a knife or

gun

Any type*

Theft, less than $1

Theft, $1 or more

Threatened with a beating

Physical attack

Any type

Other schools Problem schools

Percent of students

Serious violent crime

Less serious violent crime 

and property crime

*Difference between problem middle schools

and other middle schools is statistically

significant at p <0.05.

21 
Figure 2-10. Percentage of students in problem high schools and other high schools reporting 

personal victimization this year in school -- 1997-98 school year

4

3

5

8

45

42

16

10

62

8

7

10

17

45

44

17

13

66

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Robbery, $1 or more

Robbery, less than $1

Threatened with a knife

or gun

Any type

Theft, less than $1

Theft, $1 or more

Threatened with a beating

Physical attack

Any type

Other schools Problem schools

Percent of students

Serious violent crime

Less serious violent crime 

and property crime

Note: None of the differences between

problem high schools and other high

schools are statistically significant at

p <0.05.

22 
Teachers in problem middle schools experience more crime and feel more unsafe than teachers in other

middle schools. (See Figure 2-11.) For example, a higher percentage of teachers in problem middle 

schools than other middle schools experienced damage to and theft of their personal property. Teachers 

in problem middle schools were also more likely to receive obscene remarks or gestures or be threatened 

by a student. In addition, a higher percentage of teachers in problem middle schools compared with other

middle schools reported having a weapon pulled on them and experiencing one or more incidents of 

serious violent crime. Finally, middle schools teachers in problem schools more often reported feeling 

unsafe in one or more places in their school, and a higher percentage indicated that the amount of problem 

behavior in their class prevented them from teaching. The problem high schools were similar overall to 

the other high schools on the percentage of teachers who experienced crimes at school. (See Figure 2-

12.) 

23 
Figure 2-11. Percentage of teachers in problem middle schools and other middle schools reporting 

personal victimization this year in school -- 1997-98 school year

0.4

0.9

4

4

11

27

14

30

45

22

65

1

2

6

7

17

36

17

36

53

30

74

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10

Confronted with a weapon*

Physical attack, received

injuries requiring a doctor*

Physical attack, received

minor injuries

Any type*

Theft, $10 or more*

Theft, less than $10*

Damage to property, $10 or

more*

Damage to property, less

than $10*

Received obscene remarks

or gestures from a student*

Threatened in remarks by a

studient*

Any type*

Other schools Problem schools

Percent of teachers

Serious violent crime

Less serious violent crime

and property crime

*Difference between problem middle

schools and other middle schools is

statistically significant at p<0.05.

0

24 
Figure 2-12. Percentage of teachers in problem high schools and other high schools reporting 

personal victimization this year in school -- 1997-98 school year

0.6

0.6

2

3

12

21

13

25

38

19

58

0.8

0.8

2

3

15

20

15

27

48

23

61

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10

Confronted with a weapon*

Physical attack, received

injuries requiring a doctor*

Physical attack, received

minor injuries

Any type*

Theft, $10 or more*

Theft, less than $10*

Damage to property, $10 or

more*

Damage to property, less

than $10*

Received obscene remarks

or gestures from a student*

Threatened in remarks by a

studient*

Any type

Other schools Problem schools

Percent of teachers

Serious violent crime

Less serious violent crime

and property crime

*Difference between problem high

schools and other high schools is

statistically significant at p <0.05.

0

25 
3. EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS 

Schools are implementing a great number and variety of prevention activities. In addition, 

most schools are communicating school rules to students, and schools are monitoring and recording

violations of school rules. Schools also use a variety of responses to desirable and undesirable student

behavior. Schools perform best on communication and documentation of school rules and on tracking

student behavior. They need the most improvement on the range of responses that they make to student 

conduct and on maintaining predictable and consistent discipline. 

This chapter is based on the results of the screener survey of principals in our national 

probability sample of schools. Middle school and high school principals reported on whether or not they 

were implementing in their schools any of 14 types of school prevention activities. (See Table 3-1.) 

They also reported on whether or not they were using any of five types of school-wide arrangements, such 

as activities that influence the composition of their schools. (See Table 3-2.) Finally, the principals 

provided information on the approaches they adopted to communicating and enforcing school rules and to 

monitoring and tracking student behavior. We report the results in terms of the percentage of schools 

nationally that implement different types of prevention activities and that adopt certain other practices; we 

also report findings on the numbers of activities that schools implement nationally. 

Schools Are Implementing a Wide Variety of Prevention Activities 

Principals reported using highly diverse prevention activities within the 14 types of 

activities. However, schools used some types of activities much more frequently than they did other 

types. 

Categories of School Activities. The most commonly used category of school activities 

according to principals is prevention curriculum, instruction, or training. Nationally, 76 percent of 

schools report using activities in this category to prevent problem behavior and/or promote orderliness in 

school. (See Figure 3-1.) This prevention activity is followed in frequency of use by counseling, social

work, psychological or therapeutic services (74%) and use of external personnel resources in classrooms 

(76%). More than 60 percent of schools also report using culture, climate, or norm change; behavior 

programming or behavior modification; recreation, enrichment, or leisure activities; and improvements to 

instructional practices. 

26 
Table 3-1. Prevention activity categories and definitions 

Prevention activity category Definition 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training Training or instruction in which the content involves 

knowledge, skills, attitudes, or values intended to prevent

problem behavior. Instruction or training may be brief (less 

than an hour) or of an extended duration.

Counseling, social work, or psychological and

therapeutic interventions

Provision of advice or guidance to remedy or prevent

problems using identifiable techniques of psychology, 

counseling, or social work. 

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms Includes the use of parent or community volunteers,

authority figures (e.g., police officers), classroom

consultants, aides, or older students. 

Culture or climate change, norm change Includes efforts to establish, encourage, or sustain a special 

school climate or culture though symbols, ceremonies, or

systematic procedures; communication of expectations; and 

use of social influence or attitude change techniques to

obtain commitment to norms. 

Behavioral or behavior modification interventions Tracking student behavior, setting behavior goals, and

feedback or punishment to decrease undesired behavior or 

rewards to increase desired behavior. 

Recreational, enrichment, and leisure activities Provision of, or access to, activities, play, amusement, or

diversions; exploration outside the school; for fun or

relaxation.

Improvements to classroom organization and 

management

Activities applied to entire classes to establish and enforce 

classroom rules, use rewards and punishments, improve the 

use or management of time, or change the way in which 

students are grouped for instruction by ability, achievement, 

or effort within the classroom.

Services to families Outreach or service to families to improve their child 

management and supervision practices or to provide other

family services. 

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or apprenticeships Provision of one-on-one attention to students other than

counseling or behavioral programming. 

27 
Table 3-1. Prevention activity categories and definitions (continued) 

Prevention activity category Definition 

Improvements to instructional practices Activities applied to entire classes that involve the adoption

or expansion of improved instructional techniques or

practices. Includes training, supervision, or assistance to

improve instructional methods. Not included are 

curriculum changes. 

Intergroup relations, interaction between school and 

community 

Activities to promote interaction among members of diverse 

groups and celebrate diversity, to promote relations between 

the school and the community, and improve intergroup 

relations or resolve or reduce conflict. 

Youth roles in regulating and responding to student

conduct 

Student participation in making school rules, in resolving 

disputes, or in responding to problem behavior (e.g., student

court, peer mediation, or student conflict resolution). 

Planning structure or process Structured or facilitated planning activities, as well as 

activity to coordinate or manage change in the school. 

Includes the use of methods or processes for planning or

program development, inclusion of a broad range of

individuals or perspectives in planning, or the use of

consultants to advise on school practices or solve problems. 

 

Security and surveillance Application of procedures to make it difficult for intruders 

to enter the school; watching entrances, hallways and school 

grounds; making it easier to report problem behavior;

searching for weapons or drugs; removing barriers to

observation or inspection; action to avert potential unsafe 

events. 

A higher percentage of middle schools than high schools used each one of the following nine prevention

categories: (1) prevention curriculum, instruction, or training; (2) counseling, social work, psychological 

and therapeutic interventions; (3) culture or climate change, norm change; (4) behavioral or behavior 

modification interventions; (5) improvements to classroom organization and management; (6) services to 

families; (7) intergroup relations, interaction between school and community; (8) youth roles in regulating 

and responding to student conduct; and (9) planning structure or process. 

28 
Table 3-2. School-wide arrangements and definitions 

School-wide arrangement Definitions

Simple provision of information regarding the 

harmfulness of violence, drug use, or risky

sexual behavior, or about the availability of

services 

Information may be provided by using posters, newsletters, 

brochures, announcements, handouts, videos, slide shows,

lectures, presentations, readings, or other methods. Information 

may be directed at students, parents, educators, or community 

members. Does not include instruction or training. Does not 

include information conveyed as part of any activity listed above. 

Reorganization of grades, classes, or school

schedules 

Include use of specially arranged school schedules, group of

students, formation of within-school units, or small class size to

prevent problem behavior or promote school order. May also

include within-school units such as “houses” or teams or special 

grade-to-grade promotion criteria. 

Activities that influence the composition of the 

school’s population 

Include special student recruitment efforts, school specialization 

in attractive educational programs, selective admissions criteria, 

scholarships, assignment of students with educational or behavior

problems to other schools, or a requirement of tuition or fees. 

Treatment or prevention interventions for 

administration, faculty, or staff 

Include prevention or treatment of alcohol, tobacco, or other drug

use, anger or self-control problems, or other health or mental

health problems. 

Architectural design or structural features of the 

school

Include the use of fences, space, facilities, barricades, physical 

arrangements, or artwork.

School-wide Arrangements. The most common type of school-wide prevention activity is

simple provision of information. (A figure with details on the frequency of school-wide arrangement is 

not shown.) More than 80 percent of schools in the nation provide isolated information about alcohol,

tobacco, and other drugs as one of their prevention activities. More than 75 percent of middle school 

principals and 71 percent of high school principals also report providing isolated information on violence, 

compared with only 56 percent of elementary school principals. 

For middle and high schools, the most common organizational strategy was mixing students

of differing conduct or abilities (67% overall). This strategy was followed by decreasing class sizes 

(32%), grouping students by ability or achievement (30%), using stringent criteria for grade-to-grade 

promotion (30%), and by assigning them to grade-level “houses” or teams (25%). Although equivalent

proportions of middle schools and high schools used the other categories, middle schools adopted the use 

29 
Figure 3-1. Percentage of schools using each type of prevention activity – 1997-98 school year 

55

57

62

65

64

66

76

74

76

42

55

58

58

56

0 50

Percent of schools

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or trainin

100

g

Counseling, social work, psychological,

or therapeutic activity

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms

Activity to change or maintain culture, climate,

or expectations 

Behavioral programming or behavior modification 

Recreaction, enrichment, or leisure

Improvements to instructional practices or methods

Intergroup relations or interaction between school

and community

Improvements to classroom organization and management

Interventions involving school planning structure or

process to manage change

Security and surveillance

Services or programs for family members

Youth roles in regulating and responding to student conduct

Type of prevention activity

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or job apprenticeship

30 
of houses or teams much more often than high schools or elementary schools (66% compared with 15% 

and 21%, respectively). 

Altering the composition of a school is another way to avoid problem behavior or promote 

orderliness in schools. This approach can mean either that the school is selective in its recruitment or 

admission, or that the school is a repository for problem children. Middle schools in all urbanicity

categories were equivalent on the extent to which schools were the repository of students with problem

behavior. However, suburban and urban high schools are much more selective in admitting students to

their schools than rural high schools. For example, private schools and public magnet schools can be

selective by actively recruiting students or establishing admissions criteria (e.g., good conduct, high test 

scores or high grades). 

Providing treatment or prevention interventions for administration, faculty, or staff is another 

way schools try to prevent problem behavior and promote orderliness in schools. Forty percent of schools 

provided drug treatment and prevention services, 27 percent provided anger management or self-control 

training, and 39 percent provided other health or mental health services. More urban and suburban 

schools than rural schools use this strategy to prevent problem behavior. 

The architectural (design or structural) feature most often used by both middle (68%) and

high schools (56%) to prevent problem behavior is cafeteria arrangements. One example of a cafeteria

arrangement is using multiple lunch lines to make lines move faster, which may avoid conflicts in line. 

Schools Are Using Many Prevention Activities 

Schools nationally use an average of 9 prevention categories (out of 14). On average, 

middle schools implement 8 different categories of prevention activities, while high schools use 10 

different categories. 

Within the 14 prevention categories, the number of separate or unique activities or

programs within a school reported by principals ranged from 0 to 61. The median number of activities 

used by schools nationally is 14, with middle schools reporting more activities than high schools. Urban

schools also used more activities than suburban or rural schools (although this difference is not 

statistically significant). Approximately 20 percent of schools used at least 25 unique activities, and 6 

percent reported using at least 40 unique activities. 

31 
Most Schools Communicate Rules to Students and Monitor and Record Violations of

Rules 

Establishing and communicating rules is another way that schools attempt to prevent 

problem behavior. More than 95 percent of schools provide teachers, students, and parents with a copy of 

the school rules. In addition, 90 percent of all schools communicate rules or consequences via handbooks

or posters. More than 90 percent of all schools have written rules regarding time for student arrival at 

school, drugs, and weapons; more than 80 percent of schools have formal written rules about students 

leaving the campus, visitor sign-in and registration, and student dress code. More middle schools than 

high schools (62% compared with 42%) have written rules on carrying items or wearing clothing in which

drugs or weapons could be concealed. Only about one-quarter of all schools (public and private schools 

combined) have rules regarding uniforms; rural schools are least likely to have such a policy.

Monitoring and recording violations of school rules may be as important as having and 

communicating such rules. Most schools (92%) have records or files on individual students (paper or

computer), and 89 percent currently use printed discipline forms, a referral system, or other methods for 

identifying and recording rule violations when they occur. Eighty percent of schools also have a system 

for investigating a student’s history, performance, or circumstances to help decide what disciplinary

action (if any) to impose. 

Schools Use a Variety of Responses to Desirable and Undesirable Student Behavior 

To promote orderliness, schools use a variety of responses to desirable and undesirable 

conduct. The most common response to desirable behavior (96%) across all schools is informal 

recognition or praise (e.g., oral praise), followed by formal recognition or praise (95%), and job or 

privilege reinforcers (87%) (e.g., allowing students to help the teacher). (See Figure 3-2.) For many of 

the other responses (e.g., activity reinforcers, social rewards, material rewards, redeemable token 

reinforcers), fewer high schools than other schools report using these responses to positive behavior. 

To prevent problem behavior, schools use many different types of responses to undesirable 

behavior, but some types are much more common than others are. Several of the responses to negative or 

undesirable behavior are used by virtually all of the schools in the sample, including notifying parents 

32 
about student behavior, holding a conference with the student, and holding a conference with parents. 

Ninety-four percent of schools use brief exclusion of students from attendance in regular classes (e.g., inschool suspension or “cooling off” room), and 93 percent use short-term withdrawal of a privilege (e.g.,

riding the bus, playground access, participation in athletics, or use of the library). The least common

responses are corporal punishment (16%) and Saturday detention (16%).6

 Responses involving the legal

system (e.g., charging a student with a crime and court action against student or parent) are more often 

used in middle schools, perhaps because problem behavior is more prevalent at the middle-school level. 

The use of various practices varies little by urbanicity. However, compared with urban and suburban 

locations, corporal punishment is more likely to be used in rural areas. 

Nearly all schools suspend or expel students, though schools differ on the types of offenses 

that warrant this extreme disciplinary response to problem behavior. The majority of schools suspend or 

expel students for possession of a gun (97%), drugs (96%), alcohol (91%), or a knife (91%). Less 

common but still prevalent are suspensions or expulsions for physical fighting (78%), possession of 

tobacco (70%), and use of profane or abusive language (52%). It is more common in middle schools than

in high schools to suspend or expel students for fighting or possession of tobacco. 

Schools Are Following Best Practices and Policies on School Rules and on Tracking

Student Behavior but Need Improvement on the Range of Responses to Student

Conduct and on Predictable and Consistent Discipline 

Based on ratings of school practices in five areas (i.e., communication and documentation, 

range of appropriate responses to misconduct, range of responses to desirable conduct, disciplinarian

consistency, and disciplinary decisionmaking), we found that 93 percent of all schools are following best

practices for communication and documentation of school rules and for keeping track of student behavior. 

(For an explanation of best practices ratings for the five measures of school-wide discipline practices, see 

Appendix B.)

However, few schools received a rating of following best practices under the other four

categories. For the range of appropriate responses to misconduct and range of appropriate responses to 

 

6

 According to the Center for Effective Discipline, approximately one-third of students nationally are enrolled in public schools that permit

corporal punishment (Corporal Punishment, 2000).

33 
Figure 3-2. Percentage of schools using specific responses to desirable student conduct -- 

1997-98 school year 

8

42

61

81

82

84

87

95

96

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Money

Other response to desirable

behavior

Redeemable token

reinforcers

Material reward

Social reward

Activity reinforcers

Job or privilege reinforcers

Formal recognition or praise

Informal recognition or

praise

Responses to desirable conduct

Percent of schools

34 
desirable conduct, only 27 percent and 20 percent of schools, respectively, are following best practices. 

This means schools are using only a small percentage of the possible responses available for undesirable 

and desirable conduct. Only 31 percent of schools in the nation received a rating of following best 

practices for predictable disciplinary decision making and only 48 percent for consistent discipline. 

Problem Schools: Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior 

Higher percentages of problem schools (i.e., schools with high levels of serious violent

crime as described in Chapter 2) than other schools tended to use several specific types of prevention

activities than other schools. Other middle schools tended to use a wider variety of prevention activities 

than problem middle schools. Overall, problem schools were more likely than other schools to have 

several different types of school rules. 

Type and Amount of Prevention Activity. Although a higher proportion of the problem 

middle schools use several of the different types of prevention categories, the other middle schools use a 

significantly higher number of the prevention categories. In other words, other middle schools use a 

wider variety of activities to reduce negative behavior, while a higher proportion of problem schools use 

specific types of violence prevention efforts. 

A higher percentage of problem middle schools than other middle schools use each of the 

following types of activities to prevent problem behavior: (1) behavior modification, (2) counseling,

social work, or therapeutic activities, (3) mentoring, tutoring, coaching, (4) recreational and enrichment, 

and (5) use of external personnel resources (such as police officers or other authority figures). (See 

Figure 3-3.) A similar percentage of problem middle schools and other middle schools use prevention 

curriculums (84% compared with 81%) and provide simple provision of information (97% compared with

95%). However, a higher percentage of problem middle schools reorganize grades, classes, or school 

schedules and use architectural features to try to reduce problem behavior. On average, problem middle

schools use about six different types of prevention efforts, while other middle schools use approximately

eight different types of efforts. 

Compared with all other high schools, problem schools were much more likely to have

counseling programs for the students (95% compared with 68%) and treatment or prevention services for 

the faculty and staff (80% compared with 42%). (See Figure 3-4.) Problem schools were also more 

likely to implement school-wide programs, such as activities targeting culture or climate of the school; 

35 
Figure 3-3. Percentage of problem middle schools and other middle schools using each type of 

prevention activity -- 1997-98 school year 

56

69

79

95

93

58

61

69

67

63

71

69

68

75

76

80

79

87

81

54

70

97

97

100

71

72

86

73

78

76

93

78

91

93

82

100

100

84

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Activities that influence the composition of the population

Treatment or prevention services for faculty or staff

Architectural features of the school*

Simple provision of information

Reorganization of grades, classes or schedules*

Youth roles in regulating and responding to student conduct

Services to families

Security or surveillance

Planning structures or process

Improvements to classroom organization and management

Intergroup relations, interaction between school/community

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or apprenticeship*

Improvements of instructional practices

Recreation, enrichment, or leisure*

Behavioral programming or behavior modification*

Culture or climate change, norm change

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms*

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic*

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training

Other schools Problem schools

Type of prevention activity

Percent of schools *Difference between problem middle

schools and other middle schools is 

statistically significant at p <0.05.

36 
Figure 3-4. Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools using each type of 

prevention activity -- 1997-98 school year

78

42

74

93

88

45

42

59

53

53

50

65

58

69

59

56

71

68

66

58

80

80

100

100

65

32

52

58

70

58

64

57

62

55

84

52

95

72

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Activities that influence the composition of the population

Treatment or prevention services for faculty or staff*

Architectural features of the school

Simple provision of information*

Reorganization of grades, classes or schedules*

Youth roles in regulating and responding to student conduct

Services to families

Security or surveillance

Planning structures or process

Improvements to classroom organization and management

Intergroup relations, interaction between school/community

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or apprenticeship

Improvements of instructional practices

Recreation, enrichment, or leisure

Behavioral programming or behavior modification

Culture or climate change, norm change*

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic*

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training

Other schools Problem schools

Type of prevention activity

Percent of schools *Difference between problem high schools and other

high schools is statistically significant at p <0.05.

37 
reorganization of grades, classes or schools schedules; and simple provision of information. Both types

of high schools were similar on the number of different categories of prevention efforts implemented and 

on most individual-level programs, including behavior modification, mentoring, and recreation. 

School Rules. We found a higher proportion of problem middle schools compared with 

other middle schools had written rules about dress code and about items (e.g., bags or clothes) in which

drugs or weapons can be concealed. At the middle school level, rules about uniforms are more likely to

be present in the problem schools than in other schools (27% compared with 17%, although the difference 

is not statistically significant). Close to 100 percent of all middle schools have rules about drugs. Hence, 

the problem schools and other schools are very similar on this measure. Problem middle schools and 

other middle schools also are similar on whether or not they have rules about students leaving campus 

during school hours, rules about hall wandering or class cutting, or rules about visitor sign-in and 

registration. 

All of the problem high schools in our sample have written rules about bringing weapons to

school, while a lower proportion of other high schools have such rules (100% compared with 92%).

Compared with other high schools, problem high schools are also more likely to have written rules about 

time for student arrival at school. Similar to the middle school findings, problem high schools and other 

high schools are similar with regard to students leaving campus, wandering the halls or cutting class, or 

visitor sign-in and registration. However, contrary to the middle school results, at the high school level

rules about school uniforms are more likely to be present in other schools than in problem schools—

20 percent compared with 13 percent (but again, this difference is not statistically significant). 

38 
4. QUALITY OF EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR IN SCHOOLS

Although the quantity of prevention programming in schools nationally is high, the quality

of this programming overall is low. Our analysis of prevention activities revealed that activities designed 

to change the school or classroom environment are generally of higher quality than those directly aimed at 

altering student behaviors or attitudes. Security and surveillance efforts are implemented with the highest

quality, and services to family members are implemented with the lowest quality. The quality of

programming is lowest in rural areas and highest in urban areas. While we would expect higher quality

programs to be more effective, we did not directly examine program effectiveness. 

This chapter is based on the results of surveys of program providers and principals in our

national probability sample of middle schools and high schools. Program providers and principals 

reported on many different aspects of the 14 categories of activities or programs described in Chapter 3.

For each type of activity, we used the data to develop the following 10 measures of program quality: 

(1) level of use by school personnel, (2) best practices for content, (3) best practices for methods, 

(4) number of lessons or sessions, (5) duration, (6) frequency of participation by students, (7) frequency 

of participation by staff, (8) proportion of students exposed or participating; (9) ratio of program or 

activity providers to students in the school, and (10) frequency of program operation (i.e., how often the 

program is used or operated.) For nine of the measures of quality, we also judged whether or not the level 

of quality observed could reasonably be expected to achieve a reduction in problem behavior or an 

increase in school safety. Activities that achieved at least a minimum standard of quality were designated 

as "adequate." (See Appendix B for a description of the minimum standards of quality required to 

achieve a rating of adequate.) We report the results in terms of the percentage of activities nationally. 

Quality of Prevention Programming in Schools Is Low

We rated each program as either adequate or not adequate on up to nine measures of 

program quality. (Note that not all of the quality measures were applicable to each of the 14 program 

types.) This can be thought of as giving up to nine pass/fail grades (pass is for adequate and fail is for not 

adequate) for each program studied. Across all programs, the percentage of activities judged adequate on 

the different quality dimensions ranged from a low of 33 percent for use of best practices for methods to a 

high of 75 percent for frequency of operation. (See Figure 4-1.) This means, for example, that only 33 

percent of all programs and activities, across all of the 14 program types, used best practices for methods. 

39 
Figure 4-1. Percentage of programs or activities judged adequate for each quality 

 measure − 1997-98 school year 

33

61

61

61

70

75

37

60

60

0 50 100

Percent of all programs and activities judged adequate

Frequency of operation

Duration of program

Frequency of participation -- students

Level of use by school personnel

Best practices -- content

Frequency of participation -- staff

Proportion of students exposed or participating

Number of lessons/sessions

Best practices -- methods

Quality measure

Note: Each bar indicates the percentage of all programs and

activities judged “adequate” (i.e., receiving a passing grade) on

a given program quality measure. For example, the bar labeled

“frequency of operation” indicates that 75 percent of all

programs and activities were judged adequate on this quality

measure.

40 
Only 37 percent of activities across all 14 program types provided a sufficient number of sessions and 

lessons to meet the adequacy criteria and only 61 percent of activities used research-based content (best 

practices for content). About 60 percent of activities across all program types have adequate levels of 

staff and student participation. On the more positive side, 70 percent of all activities meet the duration

criteria, and 75 percent are considered adequate on how often the activity or program is used or operated

(frequency of operation). As explained in Appendix B, this means that most programs last for 1 month or 

longer (duration criterion to be considered adequate), and most are operated continually throughout the

year (frequency of operation criterion to be considered adequate). 

Adequacy ratings vary by location. These ratings tend to be highest in urban areas and

lowest in rural areas. Overall, 60 percent of the activities in urban schools were judged adequate, 

compared with 55 percent in rural schools. 

Activities Designed to Change the School or Classroom Environment Are Higher 

Quality Than Those Aimed at Altering Student Behaviors or Attitudes

In general, activities designed to change the school or classroom environment are higher 

quality than those aimed at altering student behaviors or attitudes. For example, classroom organization 

and management practices are more likely than many other categories of activities (e.g., prevention 

curriculum, behavior modification, counseling, and recreation programs) to be used by one or more 

school personnel on a regular basis. Interventions involving improvements to instructional practices and

school planning are also used regularly by one or more school personnel. (A program or activity that is 

used regularly by one or more school personnel is considered adequate using the criteria for the level of 

use by school personnel quality measure). 

Seventy-six percent of prevention curricula have high levels of research-based content, but 

the methods for nearly three-fourths (73%) of these activities have tenuous standing in the research 

literature (meaning that 27% of prevention curricula have achieved adequacy for best practices for

methods). Counseling and mentoring programs are particularly weak on the use of best practices for 

methods. Only 8 percent of counseling, social work, and psychological or therapeutic activities and 18

percent of mentoring, tutoring, coaching, and job apprenticeship and placement programs use methods 

that are research based and considered best practices. (For the former type of activity, examples of those

methods include written diagnosis or problem statement prepared for each participant; for the latter

41 
activity, they include tutors, mentors, or coaches helping students with social or interpersonal situations or 

skills such as manners, self-control, or grooming.) In comparison, a higher proportion of classroom 

organization and management practices, a type of activity designed to change the classroom, have high

levels of research-based content and research-based methods (60% and 63%, respectively). 

Programs targeting individual behavior change are often implemented with low levels of

quality. For example, use of external personnel resources for classroom management and instruction 

almost never (2%) meet the lessons and sessions criteria for adequate program quality (which is greater 

than or equal to 25 sessions), and only 8 percent of counseling programs meet the best practices for 

methods criteria. While mentoring, tutoring, coaching, and job apprenticeship and placement programs 

have some positive aspects, they fall short in terms of the proportion of programs with adequate sessions 

and lessons (25%) and use of best practices for methods (18%). Similarly, only 23 percent of behavior

modification programs use best practices for methods. 

The number of sessions also varies by the focus of the prevention effort (changing the

classroom or school versus changing the individual). Mentoring programs have an average of

47 sessions, per school year compared with improvements to classroom instructional methods, which 

have an average of 101 sessions. For mentoring programs to be considered adequate, at least 52 sessions

must take place; for improvements to instructional methods, 30 sessions is considered adequate. This 

example indicates that, on average, mentoring programs fall short in terms of the number of sessions per

school year needed to be considered adequate; and improvements to classroom instructional methods, on

average, far exceed the adequate number of sessions. 

On the duration quality measure, school or classroom programs also outperformed programs 

aimed at altering student behaviors. As an example, only 47 percent of programs for families met the 

adequacy criteria for the duration quality measure compared with 84 percent for programs involving a 

school planning structure or process to manage change. 

Another way to view the quality of programming is in terms of the average percentage of

quality measures judged adequate for each of the 14 program types. To calculate this percentage, we

first calculate the percentage of quality measures judged adequate for each program or activity. For 

example, programs in the prevention curriculum, instruction, or training category use 6 of the

10 measures of quality. (In other words, only 6 quality measures are applicable to the prevention 

curriculum, instruction, or training category.) For a specific program, we might find that the program is 

42 
judged adequate on three of the six quality measures. This means that the percentage of quality 

measures judged adequate for the program is 50 percent. 

To calculate the average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for the category 

curriculum instruction, prevention, or training, we added the percentages of all the programs or activities 

judged adequate within this category and divided by the number of programs or activities. In other 

words, we obtained the average.7

 The higher the percentage, the higher quality the program category is

considered. 

Based on this approach, we found that improvements to classroom organization and 

management and interventions involving school planning structure or process to manage change are the 

two classroom- and school-level categories (or types of programs) with the highest average percentage

of quality measures judged adequate (71% for both types of programs). (See Figure 4-2.) In

comparison, the average percentage of quality measures judged adequate is only 51 percent for

recreation, enrichment and leisure activities; 47 percent for behavioral programming or behavior 

modification; 45 percent for counseling, social work, psychological or therapeutic activities; and 42 

percent for services or programs for families. 

Security and Surveillance Efforts Are Implemented with the Highest Quality and 

Services to Family Members Are Implemented with the Lowest Quality 

The best-implemented activity is security and surveillance. Ninety percent of these activities

meet the adequacy criteria for duration, and 95 percent meet the adequacy criteria for how often the

program is used or operated. More than 70 percent of security and surveillance programs used best

practices for methods and were rated as adequate on frequency of participation by staff. The security and 

 

7

 For example, if we had examined only three programs or activities in the prevention curriculum, instruction, or training category (instead of the

hundreds of programs that we actually studied), we would have calculated the percentage of quality measures judged adequate for each of

these programs, such as 50 percent, 70 percent, and 90 percent. To calculate the average percentage of quality measures judged adequate,

(for our example) we would have summed the percentages for the programs (210%) and divide by the number of programs (three) to obtain 70

percent. 

43 
Figure 4-2. Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for each type of prevention 

 activity − 1997-98 school year 

47

57

57

59

64

69

71

71

73

42

45

51

51

56

0 50 100

Average percent of quality measures judged adequate

Security and surveillance

Interventions involving school planning structure or

process to manage change

Improvements to classroom organization and management

Youth roles in regulating and responding to student conduct

Activity to change or maintain culture, climate,

or expectations

Improvements to instructional practices or methods

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or job apprenticeship

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training

Intergroup relations or interaction between school

and community

Recreation, enrichment, or leisure

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms

Behavioral programming or behavior modification

Counseling, social work, psychological,

or therapeutic activity

Services or programs for family members

Type of prevention activity

Note: Each bar indicates the percentage of all programs and activities

judged adequate (i.e., receiving a passing grade) for a given type of

prevention activity. For example, the bar labeled “security and surveillance”

indicates that 73 percent of all security and surveillance programs and

activities were judged adequate.

44 
surveillance category also had the highest average percentage of quality measures judged adequate

(73%). 

In contrast, only 31 percent of the services or programs for family members met the 

adequacy criteria for student frequency of participation and only 45 percent met the adequacy criteria for 

level of use by school personnel. The services or programs for family members also had the lowest 

percentage of programs meeting the duration criteria (47%) and had the lowest average percentage of

quality measures judged adequate (42%). 

Problem Schools: Implementation of Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior 

We examined the quality of implementation for all programs combined and for each of

8 types of prevention programs operating in problem middle schools,8

 other middle schools, problem high

schools, and other high schools. The eight specific types of prevention activities included (1) prevention

curriculum, instruction, or training; (2) behavioral programming or behavior modification; (3) counseling,

social work, and psychological, or therapeutic activities; (4) mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or job

apprenticeships and placements; (5) improvements to classroom organization and management;

(6) interventions involving school planning structures or process to manage change; (7) security and 

surveillance; and (8) services or programs for family members. 

We assessed overall program quality by examining the average percentage of quality 

measures judged adequate across programs in both problem and other schools. At the middle-school 

level, the results indicate that problem schools and other schools are similar on quality of programming

for these eight program types (categories) and for all programs combined (i.e., we found no statistically 

significant differences between these two types of schools). (See Figure 4-3.) At the high school level, 

problem schools implemented programs categorized as prevention, curriculum, or instructional training 

with greater overall quality than other high schools (83% compared with 60%). (See Figure 4-4.)

However, problem high schools and other high schools were similar on the average percentage of

quality measures judged adequate across all program categories (55% compared with 53%). 

 

8

 Problem schools were defined as those with high levels of serious violent crime, as described in Chapter 2. Only eight of the 14 types of

prevention programs were common to the problem middle schools, other middle schools, problem high schools, and other high schools. 

45 
Figure 4-3. Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for selected prevention 

activities for problem middle schools and other middle schools -- 1997-98 school year* 

42

46

33

55

49

78

64

71

56

32

52

41

55

60

81

60

80

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Services or programs for family

members

Counseling, social work,

psychological or therapeutic

Behavior programming or

behavior modification

Prevention curriculum,

instruction, or training

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching,

job apprenticeship/placement

Classroom organization and

management practices

Interventions involving school

planning structure or process to

manage change

Security and surveillance

All prevention activities

Other schools Problem schools

Type of prevention activity

Average percent of quality measures judged adequate

Note: None of the differences

between problem middle schools and

other middle schools are statistically

significant at p <0.05.

46 
Figure 4-4. Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for selected prevention 

activities for problem high schools and other high schools -- 1997-98 school year 

42

44

42

60

49

62

72

67

53

41

44

50

83

49

70

68

83

55

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Services or programs for family

members

Counseling, social work,

psychological or therapeutic

Behavior programming or

behavior modification

Prevention curriculum,

instruction, or training*

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching,

job apprenticeship/placement

Classroom organization and

management practices

Interventions involving school

planning structure or process to

manage change

Security and surveillance

All prevention activities

Other schools Problem schools

Type of prevention activity

Average percent of quality measures judged adequate *Difference between problem high

schools and other high schools is

statistically significant at p<0.05.

47 
5. PLANNING AND INFORMATION 

Comprehensive planning of prevention activities in schools entails assessing needs, setting 

objectives, selecting activities that can achieve the objectives, and assessing progress toward the

objectives. At the school level, these planning elements are often influenced or shaped by school

districts. Planning for many individual prevention activities is weak; school-level planning activities 

appear to be considerably stronger. Sound planning is associated with several measures of high-quality

programming. 

This chapter is based on the results of surveys of program providers in and school district

officials for our national probability sample of schools. The information from school district officials is 

for middle schools and high schools only; the information from program providers is for elementary

schools, middle schools, and high schools. School district officials, typically the prevention coordinator

or coordinator for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) program, reported

on how the districts for the middle schools and high schools participating in the study planned their 

prevention programs; we report the results in terms of the districts for a given percentage of secondary 

schools nationally. Program providers reported on aspects of how they planned their activities or 

programs; we report the results in terms of the percentage of schools nationally.

Many School Districts Influence the Planning of Prevention Activities at Schools 

Schools rarely plan prevention activities in a vacuum. A variety of forces and factors can

influence planning in schools, especially for local school districts. Specifically, districts often shape

school planning by restricting the range of prevention activities permissible and by requiring and 

providing support for schools to engage in planning. 

First, some districts restrict the choice of SDFSCA-funded prevention activities that schools

have open to them. (As discussed in Chapter 6, districts often draw on sources in addition to SDFSCA to

fund their prevention activities.) Districts for 20 percent of secondary schools require schools to select

prevention activities from a list offered by the district. Districts for another 44 percent of schools offer a

list of SDFSCA-funded prevention activities from which schools can choose activities. (Some of these 

schools have the option of adopting activities other than those on the district list.) However, schools also

can influence district use of SDFSCA funds. For example, in districts for 73 percent of schools, input 

48 
from secondary schools is a great or very great influence on the violence prevention efforts supported by

the district. 

Second, districts can require or encourage schools to engage in planning activities. Districts 

for 48 percent of secondary schools require schools to participate in needs assessments or evaluations by 

administering surveys sponsored by the district; districts for another 27 percent of schools permit schools 

to participate in these surveys at their discretion. Districts for 60 percent of schools require their 

secondary schools to prepare plans specifying how the schools will spend their SDFSCA funds; districts

for another 25 percent of schools permit schools to develop plans at their discretion. Finally, districts for

60 percent of schools require schools to report on their progress on SDFSCA-funded activities using 

forms or structures specified by the district; again, districts for 23 percent of schools leave reporting using

district specified forms or structures to the discretion of the schools. We are unable to judge the quality of

these prevention planning activities or the extent to which schools actively use them to improve their

prevention strategies. 

Third, many districts provide support for school planning of prevention activities. Districts 

for the vast majority of secondary schools provided the following: (1) training on program 

implementation (districts for 93% of schools), (2) assistance to schools on conducting needs assessments

(districts for 89% of schools), (3) training on program planning and development (districts for 88% of

schools), (4) technical assistance on selecting prevention activities to implement (districts for 84% of 

schools), and (5) assistance on conducting program evaluations (districts for 84% of schools). In

Chapter 6, we provide additional information on the types of assistance that districts provide to their 

schools. 

Prevention Planning Is Weak for Many Individual Activities 

Schools can engage in two types of planning of prevention activities. They can plan 

individual activities or programs; they also can conduct school-wide or systemic planning of prevention 

activities, which can entail taking a broader view of school problem behavior and how to reduce or 

prevent it. Fewer than two-thirds of individual prevention activities are based on “sound” planning. (We 

discuss the criteria for sound planning in the next section.) For the 57 percent of schools that engage in it, 

school-level planning appears to be considerably stronger than activity-level planning. 

49 
Activity- or Program-level Planning. Although planning for many individual prevention

activities meets some criteria of sound planning, planning for fewer than two-thirds of these activities 

meets all of the criteria. Our criteria for sound planning are as follows: (1) initiation of activity by 

“school insiders” (e.g., school staff), (2) development of activity by school insiders or researchers,

(3) selection of activity using research-based information sources, and (4) adoption of activity based on 

approaches that have been demonstrated by research to be effective. 

Initiation of prevention activities is the starting point for a school adopting or developing a

given activity. It might follow, for example, awareness of an unacceptable level or type of problem 

behavior in a school and the willingness to address it. The impetus for new activities can be local, for

example, a committee of concerned parents and school staff; at the other extreme, activities can be

imposed by outside actors, such as school districts. We consider initiation by school insiders to be an

element of sound planning because insiders are most knowledgeable about the applicability of prevention 

activities to their own schools; in addition, involving insiders in these roles can increase school staff

acceptance of and support for the activities. Schools were as likely to adopt prevention activities that 

were initiated by school insiders as activities that were initiated by school districts or researchers. None

of these types of initiators—school insiders, school districts, or researchers—had substantial influence on 

initiating activities. 

Development of prevention activities follows the initiation of these activities. It is the 

process of deciding what the prevention activities will include. Involving insiders in the development is 

important for some of the same reasons that insider initiation of prevention activities can be important. 

Involving researchers in development helps to ensure that the activities are tied to school needs and that

the activities are based on evidence of effectiveness. Prevention activities were as likely to be developed 

by school insiders as by external parties: Both were among the developers for 64 percent of the

prevention activities. Prevention activities were less likely to be developed by researchers (26% of

activities). 

Selection of prevention activities using research-based information is potentially valuable

because that information can inform the fit between the activities and school needs, and thereby increase

the likely effectiveness of the activities. On average, schools used two sources to select a given 

prevention activity; however, research-based sources were among the less frequently used sources. The 

sources that schools used most often to select activities were: (1) other program providers (57% of 

activities), (2) meetings within the school district (51% of activities), and (3) meetings outside of the

50 
district (50% of activities). Among the less frequently used sources were (1) formal outcome evaluation 

(28% of activities), (2) publications summarizing research (38% of activities), and (3) formal needs 

assessment (40% of activities). 

Adoption of prevention activities based on approaches that have been demonstrated by

research to be effective also can increase the chances that an activity will be effective in a particular 

implementation. Perhaps as a result of the limited use of research-based information on effectiveness,

only 33 percent of the prevention activities used methods or approaches found to be effective in the

research literature, and only 61 percent of the activities used research-based content. 

School-level Planning. In addition to the planning of individual prevention activities, many 

schools engaged in formal school-level planning that successfully incorporated the elements of sound 

planning. More than one-half of the schools (57%) have implemented “interventions that involve a 

school planning structure or planning process to manage change.” These activities were more likely than 

other types of activities to have as an objective improving school capacity for self-management (e.g., by

involving key individuals in planning for school improvement). 

The school planning structure or planning process activities include many elements of strong 

planning. The vast majority of these activities involve the following: (1) use of information about the 

school (91%), (2) identification of goals (91%), (3) use of information about effective practices (88%), (4) 

development of action plans (93%), (5) monitoring of planned activities (88%), and (6) evaluation of 

outcomes (91%). School planning activities were among the higher quality types of activities, with 71

percent of the quality measures for these activities being judged “adequate” (as opposed to 57% across 

measures for all activities). (See Chapter 4.) 

Sound Planning Is Related to High-quality Prevention Activities 

As mentioned in Chapter 4, the use of certain planning approaches is associated with higher 

quality prevention activities. Prevention activities initiated by school insiders are more likely to be 

associated with measures of higher quality programming than activities for which the school district or 

researchers had greater responsibly for initiation. Prevention activities that are developed locally or by 

researchers also are more likely to be associated with measures of strong implementation. Use of formal

needs assessment and more extensive searching for information about what will work best in the school is

51 
associated with measures of stronger implementation. The latter type of activities is especially likely to 

incorporate “best practices.” (As discussed in Chapter 4 and Appendix B, Gottfredson Associates

developed criteria for best practices for a given type of prevention activity, based on a review of the 

science-based literature.) 

Problem Schools: Planning and Information 

Problem schools and other schools tended to be similar on many aspects of program 

initiation and original program development. (As discussed in Chapter 2, problem schools were the 

schools with the highest levels of serious violent crime reported to law enforcement.) An exception is 

that school districts were more likely to start prevention activities for problem middle schools than for 

other middle schools. Compared with other middle schools, problem middle schools generally are more

often required to receive direction from school districts and are more likely to receive some forms of

assistance from them. 

Responsibility for Program Initiation and Original Development. School districts are 

more often responsible for starting prevention programs or activities in problem middle schools than in 

other middle schools. However, problem schools and other schools were similar on who originally

developed the school’s prevention programs (local or external parties or researchers). Problem high

schools and other high schools also were similar on all seven of the information sources used to select

prevention programs and on the average number of different information sources used (2.5 for problem 

schools compared with 2.3 for other high schools). 

Problem middle schools and other middle schools were similar on responsibility for starting 

school programs, original development of school programs, and the type or amount of information

sources sought to select prevention programs. 

School District Direction and Influence. In general, problem middle schools are more 

likely than other middle schools to be located in school districts that require schools to engage in certain

types of program planning and implementation activities. For example, when selecting prevention 

programs or activities, 39 percent of problem middle schools are located in districts that require schools to 

select programs or activities from a district list compared with only 14 percent of other middle schools.

(See Figure 5-1.) Problem middle schools also are more likely to be located in districts require to 

52 
Figure 5-1. Percentage of problem schools and other schools in districts reporting mandated school 

planning of prevention activities -- 1997-98 school year 

63

59

44

16

58

52

49

14

28

57

50

28

73

80

51

39

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Preparation of progress

reports*

Preparation of plans for

using prevention resources

Administration of surveys

Selection of programs or

activities from a list

Preparation of progress

reports

Preparation of plans for

using prevention resources*

Administration of surveys

Selection of programs or

activities from a list*

Other schools Problem schools

Percent of schools

High schools

Middle schools

*Difference between problem schools and

other schools is statistically significant at

p<0.05.

53 
schools to conduct some type of needs assessment or evaluation (64% compared with 35%). A larger 

percentage of problem middle schools (80%) than other middle schools (52%) are located in districts that 

require schools to prepare plans specifying how prevention resources will be used. In contrast, a much

lower percentage of problem high schools than other high schools (28% compared with 63%) are located 

in districts that require schools to write progress reports. 

Services and Resources Provided by School Districts. Problem middle schools are as 

likely as other middle schools to be located in school districts that provide training to schools on program 

implementation. However, a higher percentage of problem high schools than other high schools are 

located in districts that provide training on program implementation. (See Figure 5-2.) Roughly equal 

percentages of problem schools at both the middle school and high school levels are located in school 

districts that provide training on program planning and development. A higher percentage of problem 

middle schools than other middle schools also are located in school districts that provide assistance with

conducting needs assessments (96% compared with 83%). While more problem middle schools are 

located in school districts that provide program evaluation assistance (95% of problem schools compared

with 79% of other schools), approximately the same percentage of problem high schools and other high

schools are located in school districts providing this assistance. 

54 
Figure 5-2. Percentage of problem schools and other schools in districts providing support for 

school planning of prevention activities -- 1997-98 school year 

88

85

87

93

93

79

78

87

83

94

87

95

82

77

100

95

88

91

96

96

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Assistance on conducting

evaluations

Assistance on selecting

prevention activities

Training on program

planning and development

Assistance on conducting

needs assessments

Training on program

implementation*

Assistance on conducting

evaluations*

Assistance on selecting

prevention activities

Training on program

planning and development

Assistance on conducting

needs assessments*

Training on program

implementation

Other schools Problem schools

Middle schools

High schools

*Difference between problem Percent of schools schools and other schools is

statistically significant at p<0.05.

55 
6. FUNDING FOR PREVENTION EFFORTS IN SCHOOLS 

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) program is the most 

frequently used source of funding for district prevention programming. Many districts also draw on a 

wide variety of other federal, state, and local funding sources to support their prevention activities.

Districts use their SDFSCA funding for diverse prevention activities, including direct activities for 

students (e.g., prevention and instruction) and indirect activities (e.g., staff training). Districts for the

majority of schools believe that SDFSCA funding is important to maintaining their prevention

programming; a smaller proportion of principals indicated that this funding actually helped to increase the 

safety and orderliness of their school, or to prevent problem behavior. 

This chapter is based on the results of surveys of principals and program providers and 

school district officials for our national probability sample of schools. The information from school

district officials is for middle schools and high schools only; the information from principals and program 

providers is for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. School district officials, typically

the prevention coordinator or coordinator for the SDFSCA program, reported on how the districts for the 

middle schools and high schools participating in the study funded their prevention programs; we report 

the results in terms of the districts for given percentages of secondary schools nationally. Principals and

program providers reported on aspects of how they funded their activities or programs; we report the 

results in terms of the percentage of schools nationally. 

SDFSCA is the Most Widely Used Source of Funding for Prevention Activities, though 

the Districts for Many Schools Also Receive Funding from Other Sources 

SDFSCA was the most widely used funding source for prevention activities in schools. 

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

activities that were funded by SDFSCA. School principals and program providers within schools often

are unaware that their prevention activities are funded by SDFSCA. For example, only 58 percent of 

principals knew that their schools receive SDFSCA-funded resources. This information conflicts with 

reports by school district SDFSCA coordinators (for 88% of schools nationally) indicating that all public 

schools in their district provided SDFSCA-funded prevention services to students. We view the 

discrepancy as reflecting the difficulty school principals have in distinguishing among different types of 

services and funding received from their districts. 

56 
Students attending private schools are less likely to receive SDFSCA-funded prevention 

activities than students attending public schools. SDFSCA coordinators report that, although all or many

students received SDFSCA-funded services at 92 percent of public schools, all or many students received

such services at only 44 percent of private schools.9

 

In addition to SDFSCA, districts draw on many other sources of funding for prevention 

activities in schools. The most frequent other sources are general state funds (districts for 41% of

schools), state funds specially earmarked for prevention (districts for 31% of schools), and federal funds 

besides SDFSCA funds (districts for 31% of schools). In addition to these funding sources, 51 percent of

districts received in-kind contributions (e.g., photocopying of program materials); and, in 88 percent of 

districts, parents volunteered time (e.g., to assist with mentoring efforts). 

Districts Use SDFSCA Funds to Support a Wide Variety of Prevention Activities 

School districts use SDFSCA funds to support a broad range of prevention activities. To

some degree, SDFSCA funds support all of the types of prevention efforts described in Chapters 3 and 4. 

In districts for nearly 50 percent of schools nationally (49%), SDFSCA funds supported prevention 

instruction or training to a great or very great extent. Other activities that received a high degree of 

SDFSCA support include counseling (districts for 43% of schools), prevention activities to improve 

instructional practices in classrooms (districts for 42% of schools), training or staff development (districts

for 40% of schools), and behavioral programming or behavior modification (districts for 29% of schools). 

Activities that focus on architectural or structural features of the school were least supported by SDFSCA 

funds (districts for 4% of schools). The type of effort that received the most SDFSCA support from 

school districts was provision of information about violence, drug use, other risky behaviors, or the 

availability of prevention services (districts for 60% of schools). 

Districts also used SDFSCA funds to support prevention-related activities other than direct 

activities for students. These activities, which were funded in whole or in part by SDFSCA, include team

building or organization development (districts for 45% of schools), assistance with conducting needs

assessment (districts for 51% of schools), assistance in program planning (districts for 63% of schools), 

and assistance with program evaluation (districts for 58% of schools). Although many districts do 

 

9

 Equitable participation by private school students is statutorily required. However, private school officials may decide to have their students opt

out of the services.

57 
provide these activities entirely without SDFSCA funds—for example, districts for 42 percent of schools

fund team building or organization development with only non-SDFSCA funds—SDFSCA funds play a 

major role in the needs assessment, planning, and evaluation assistance that districts provide to their

schools 

Districts varied on how they allocated SDFSCA resources across their schools. Most often 

districts used these funds to make prevention activities available to all schools districtwide (districts for

54% of schools). Districts also targeted funds based on school needs (districts for 22% of schools), used

a formula to allocate funds (districts for 11% of schools), and required schools to apply for funds (districts 

for 5% of schools). 

SDFSCA Funding is Very Important to District Prevention Programming 

District officials for 82 percent of schools report that SDFSCA funding has helped to 

continue useful programs to a great or very great extent. Districts for 72 percent of schools also report 

that SDFSCA funding has been a great or very great help with initiating new types of programs. 

In the 58 percent of schools for which principals report that SDFSCA funds are used, nearly

one-half of the principals (48%) said that SDFSCA funds are very important to improving or maintaining

the safety and orderliness of their school or are very important in preventing problem behavior. 

58 
7. CONCLUSIONS 

One of the central findings of the Study on School Violence and Prevention is that while, on

average, schools nationally are implementing a large number of prevention efforts, the quality of those 

efforts is low. In this chapter, we briefly examine the implications of that finding for policy and research.

We also suggest approaches to increasing the quality of school-based prevention. 

Shift Resources to Emphasize Quality over Quantity 

As discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, we were struck by both the large number of prevention 

activities in operation in schools and by the low quality of those efforts. For example, schools 

implemented a median of 14 different activities, but fewer than 60 percent of activities in certain

categories met adequacy criteria. 

The balance between quality and quantity of prevention efforts seems to have shifted to 

quantity. Given limited resources for prevention, we urge a shift back to quality. Fewer but higher 

quality activities may help schools and districts to achieve their goals better. For example, one of the 

quality dimensions on which activities fared least well is number of lessons or sessions: only 37 percent 

of activities were judged adequate on these criteria. One can argue that directing resources to increasing 

the number of lessons for the otherwise strongest activities--even if it means discontinuing weaker

activities--is justified. 

In our view, willingness to choose carefully among the activities to adopt, retain, or discard 

is the starting point for improving school-based prevention. The remainder of our conclusions assumes 

that administrators, particularly at the school and district levels, have this willingness. 

Improve Program Planning and Monitoring 

In addition to focusing resources on fewer but stronger activities, administrators may be wise 

to increase the amount of resources allocated to planning and monitoring prevention activities. We found

that planning for individual activities was fairly weak overall. For example, schools used formal need

assessments as a source in selecting only 40 percent of activities; they used publications summarizing

research as a source for selecting only 38 percent of activities. Also, only 61 percent of activities met

59 
adequacy criteria for using best practices for content; only 33 percent met criteria for using best practices 

for methods. 

To help make difficult decisions on adopting, retaining, or discarding prevention activities, 

districts need to investigate better the research evidence on the effectiveness of those activities. More and

more guides are becoming available that can facilitate these investigations, including those developed by 

the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (1995), U.S. Department of Education (e.g., on

exemplary and promising programs), and Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (e.g., on effective

prevention programs). Besides using these guides to select new effective activities, administrators should 

seriously consider using them to critically examine ongoing strategies and eliminate those that have little

or no research support. 

Administrators may also wish to increase emphasis on monitoring the extent to which the

implementation of research-based activities remains true to the program model, or be willing to conduct

their own outcome evaluation to ensure that program objectives are being met. Clearly, an important

issue is balancing attempts to achieve fidelity to a program model with the desire to tailor programming to

local needs and conditions. This is an area in which additional research would be helpful, for example, in 

identifying how and the extent to which different activities can be adapted before they lose fidelity. 

Strengthen Factors Associated with Quality of Programming

The Study on School Violence and Prevention raises serious questions about the overall

quality of school-based prevention programming. We found, for example, that several types of 

prevention activities were judged adequate on fewer than 60 percent of quality criteria. In line with 

focusing efforts better and allocating resources more wisely, educators may wish to concentrate on efforts

to improve quality. Gottfredson et al. (2000) discuss findings from our collaborative study on predictors 

of the quality and extensiveness of prevention activity. They conclude that the most important predictors

are: (1) extensiveness and quality of training of the staff who implement activities; (2) supervision of the 

activity; (3) principal support for the activity; (4) degree of structure or scriptedness of the activities; (5) 

local responsibility for initiating the activity; (6) use of multiple sources of information on the activity, 

including district personnel and experts; and (7) activity is a part of the regular school program. (See 

Gottfredson et al, 2000, for a detailed discussion of these findings and recommendations.) 

Some of these predictors emphasize program management at the school level, such as the

extent of staff training for implementing program activities and supervision of those activities. While 

60 
strengthening these factors may be obtainable for many schools and districts, they will have costs (e.g., 

for additional staff time). Again, the costs potentially could be met by focusing on fewer but stronger

prevention activities. 

61 
APPENDIX A. STUDY METHODS

In this appendix, we provide detailed information on the study method including: (1)

sampling, (2) recruitment, (3) questionnaires, (4) data collection, (5) response rates, (6) data processing,

(7) weighting, and (8) analysis. 

 Sampling

The sample was drawn from a commercial list of all public and private schools in the United 

States (excluding schools in Puerto Rico and other territories) maintained by Market Data Retrieval. The 

list incorporates data from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of Data, adds

private schools, and provides additional information (such as principal names). 

We drew a stratified probability sample of schools, with nine strata defined by the three 

instructional levels (elementary, middle, and senior high school) and three levels of metropolitan status 

(rural, suburban, and urban).

10 Stratifying the sample on instructional level and metropolitan status was 

desirable because we expected that prevention activities would be likely to differ greatly on both of these

factors. 

From each of the nine strata, 143 public and private schools (or 429 schools for each

instructional level) were selected. (Private schools account for 19% of the total sample: 23% of

elementary schools, 2% of middle schools, and 31% of high schools.) We hoped for a response rate of 

approximately 85 percent for each of the screener and the detailed data collection efforts, which would 

have yielded an overall response rate of just over 70 percent or approximately 300 schools from each

instructional level. The sample sizes were chosen based on an analysis of the relationship between the

standard error of the mean and sample sizes for each instructional level, since our study design called for

separate analyses for each level. The analyses revealed that large and moderate gains in the efficiency of

sample statistics could be made with sample sizes up to about 300 schools per instructional level. Beyond 

300, the gains in efficiency would be much more modest per additional 100 schools. 

 

10 The sampled high schools include a large percentage of schools that differ from what one typically considers a high school (i.e., schools with

either 9th to 12th grade or 10th to 12th grade enrollment). The convention that we used (and that has been used by many other education 

studies) is to classify schools with kindergarten to 12th grade enrollment as high schools. (In fact, public high schools with 9th to 12th grade or

10th to 12th grade enrollments account for only 33 percent of high schools nationally.) In addition to these combined schools, the sampled high 

schools include a number of vocational and alternative schools. 

62 
The reader should note that during data collection and analysis we discovered that 

approximately 7 percent of schools had been assigned inappropriate urbanicity classifications. In 

addition, approximately 1 percent of schools had been assigned inappropriate educational levels. We also

discovered that eight of our sampled schools were no longer functioning as schools. However, these 

inappropriate assignments had a negligible effect on sampling, weighting, and data analysis. 

 Recruitment

Recruitment consisted of several steps, including recruitment for the first phase of data

collection (or principal screener survey); and state, district, and school recruitment for the second phase of

data collection. 

 

Recruitment for Principal Screening Survey. Sample recruitment for the first phase of

data collection began in spring 1997 with a principal screening survey questionnaire that was mailed to all

sampled schools. The mailing included a letter from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) describing the 

study, and letters of endorsement from the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)

and the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). Schools that did not return 

completed questionnaires were prompted through the summer and fall of 1997 by telephone and mail, 

including overnight mail service. 

State Recruitment. For the second phase of data collection, the first step in the recruitment 

process was to contact each state’s superintendent’s office and the state SDFSCA coordinators. Materials 

were mailed to both chief state school officers (CSSO) and all state SDFSCA coordinators in October 

1997. Each package included letters from ED and NIJ describing the study, letters of endorsement from 

NASSP and NAESP, list of the sampled districts and schools in their state, and copy of the study 

brochure. Westat staff telephoned the CSSO offices to confirm receipt of the materials and to follow up 

on any questions. 

District Recruitment. Next, we approached the school districts in which the sampled 

schools were located. Recruitment materials were mailed to district superintendents in November 1997. 

Depending on information previously gathered on district policies, different recruitment packages were

sent to districts. For most districts, the mailing included a letter describing study activities and requesting 

permission for the sampled school(s) to participate in the study; for districts whose sampled school(s) 

indicated that it (they) had authority to decide to participate, the mailing included a letter only describing 

63 
the study activities. (During the first phase of data collection, principals had been asked to indicate

whether or not they could approve a student survey.) As needed, formal applications were submitted with 

the other recruitment materials. 

District recruitment was a lengthy and time-consuming process. Because we had a 

probability sample of schools, without any clustering of schools within school districts, we approached

more than 500 districts regarding participation of schools in their districts. In most cases, only one school 

in a district had been sampled and the most time-consuming part of recruitment was contacting the 

appropriate district official. Another complication was that recruitment efforts identified additional 

districts that should have initially been sent formal applications. 

Some recruitment was conducted by a refusal conversion team. After recruiters had

seemingly exhausted avenues of approach, the tough cases were turned over to project staff who were

more experienced in working with school districts. These staff approached all refusing districts and 

requested they reconsider their decision not to participate. Much district-level refusal conversion was 

underway just after a tragic school shooting; in light of those events, some officials did agree to

participate. 

Recruitment of the formal application districts was also managed by experienced project 

staff. Those districts were telephoned 10 days after the applications were submitted and repeatedly

telephoned until approval was granted or refused. Some districts were very responsive to our applications 

and made a decision within 6 weeks. Other districts required repeated contacting. 

School Recruitment. As soon as a district agreed to participate, efforts to recruit the 

school(s) in that district began. Making initial contact with principals was somewhat easier than reaching 

district officials, though it was still time intensive. Once reached, the principals were asked to participate. 

Some principals requested copies of study materials before giving consent. Other principals expressed

hesitation about surveying students. Where necessary, recruiters were permitted to drop the student

survey component so as not to lose the school’s participation completely. After principals agreed to

participate, the recruiters explained what participation would involve and asked the principal to name an

individual who could act as school coordinator. Principals were then sent a confirmation letter thanking

them for agreeing to participate. School coordinators were provided with a stipend of $100 to compensate 

them for work on the study that occurred outside of regular business hours. 

64 
We successfully recruited 220 elementary schools and 458 middle and high schools to

participate in the study. An additional 80 schools had initially agreed to participate, but were unable to do 

so. 

 Questionnaires 

Data collection was primarily conducted using instruments developed by Gottfredson

Associates. The instrument used to collect information from school district officials was developed by 

Westat. Specifics on the data collected from each type of respondent are as follows: 

! Principals completed screening instruments11 that identified all prevention activities

in the sampled school. 

! Principals provided information on the school’s discipline policy and management of 

student behavior. They also reported on (1) discipline practices, (2) school 

demography, (3) their leadership style, (4) biographical information, (5) origins of 

programs, (6) costs and funding sources for programs, (7) staffing stability, and (8) 

organizational capacity. 

! Program providers completed activity detail questionnaires. Fourteen 

questionnaires--one for each type of prevention activity--collected detailed

information on the implementation of each prevention effort. They also collected

information on the formal planning efforts that schools initiate to improve school

management and on the funding sources for violence prevention efforts. Topics 

included (1) content, (2) objectives, (3) level of use, (4) duration and frequency of

exposure, (5) time and place, (6) target population, (7) size of group, (8) training, (9)

cultural appropriateness, (10) sources of funding, (11) obstacles to implementation, 

(12) characteristics of provider, and (13) biographical information. 

! Teachers12 reported on student behaviors in class; personal safety; school climate, 

including the relationships between administrators and teachers, how they perceived

administrators and the rest of the teaching staff, and ability of staff to collaborate and 

work together toward shared goals and objectives; and information on the school’s 

programs and practices to prevent problem behavior or to increase school safety or 

orderliness. 

! Students13 also reported on their exposure to prevention efforts and on personal

victimization at school and their perceptions of school safety. In addition, the student 

survey collected information on demographics; educational plans and efforts;

 

11 The screener instruments were based on a taxonomy of prevention efforts that was developed after a review of technical reports, agency and 

foundation reports, and funding lists to identify examples of programs or activities undertaken by schools to reduce or prevent violence, drug

use, and other forms of problem behavior; more than 600 different program or activity models were classified to devise a comprehensive

taxonomy of prevention activities. 12 Teachers were only surveyed in middle and high schools. 

13 Students were only surveyed in middle and high schools.

65 
students’ access to, and experiences with, drug use, violence, and other delinquent 

behavior; school climate, including fairness of rules and their enforcement; and

correlates of problem behavior. 

! School district officials14 provided information on interactions with schools and the 

school personnel that operate prevention programming; amount and sources of

prevention funding received by the district, distribution of funds to schools in the

district, and limitations on uses of funding; and planning and evaluation of prevention 

programs. 

Data Collection for the Second Phase 

Conducting principal, provider, teacher, student, and district surveys was a complex task.

Again, elementary schools were treated differently than middle and high schools, in that elementary

schools were excluded from the teacher and student surveys. 

Surveying Elementary School Staff. The principal was the first contact at elementary 

schools. He or she was asked to confirm that prevention activities reported in the screener survey were 

still in place. The provider and principal surveys were then sent to the school. Follow-up contacts were

made when completed questionnaires were not quickly returned. In some cases, project staff asked the 

principal to name an individual to coordinate data collection efforts. 

Surveying Middle and High School Staff and Students. When principals committed their

schools to participating, they were asked to name an individual to serve as the school coordinator. In 

some cases, the principal was able to identify a coordinator immediately or chose to assume the

coordinators’ role themselves; in other cases, recruiters called back to learn who would serve as the

coordinator. Principals were told that the coordinator could be anyone from a school counselor to a 

parent volunteer; and, if necessary, we would send Westat field staff to administer the surveys. No 

principals chose the Westat field staff option. 

Once coordinators were identified, they were asked to complete a program review form to 

confirm that the prevention activities reported previously were still in place and a coordinator checklist 

that collected information about the student body (such as number of students per grade, average daily 

attendance, and percentage of students unable to read English at a sixth grade level). The checklist also

collected information on the number of teachers at the school, expected student survey date, and last day

 

14 District officials were only surveyed in districts with one or more middle schools or high schools participating in the study.

66 
of school. Finally, coordinators were asked to send a copy of their student roster so that we could sample 

students to be surveyed. 

We began sending study materials to middle and high schools in March 1998, soon after the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance was received. Data collection at elementary schools 

conducted by Gottfredson Associates under the NIJ grant had begun earlier.15 These materials included 

an instruction manual for the coordinator, parental consent materials, questionnaires, answer sheets, cover 

letters to school staff, confidentiality envelopes, and machine-readable pencils for the student survey. 

For the staff survey, the coordinator was instructed to distribute teacher questionnaires with 

our cover letter, an answer sheet, and a confidentiality envelope. They were given forms on which 

teachers were supposed to enter their names after completing the questionnaire. The coordinator’s

responsibilities also included distributing the principal questionnaires, and questionnaires to individuals 

who coordinated prevention activities (providers). For some schools, we selected a subset of program

questionnaires for providers to complete. This generally was done where one person was responsible for

coordinating multiple prevention activities. 

For the district official survey, questionnaires were sent to SDFSCA coordinators as soon

as school recruitment was complete. We only requested the participation of district officials in districts 

where at least one middle or high school was participating in the study. (The original analysis plan called 

for only analysis of data from middle and high schools for our report to ED. Information from elementary

schools is also presented in this report.) Before questionnaires were mailed, every effort was made to 

identify the appropriate respondent. In a number of cases, the individual we had been told was the 

appropriate respondent was not, so we sent replacement questionnaires. District questionnaires were sent 

with cover letters and postage paid return envelopes. Respondents were prompted by mail and telephone 

to return surveys. 

For the student survey, Westat staff developed a sampling algorithm that considered

average daily attendance, percentage of students with low English proficiency, and expected response 

rate, and computed how many students needed to be sampled to yield 50 completed surveys. At schools

 

15 A memorandum of understanding between the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the U.S. Department of Education (ED) specified that

Westat, under contract to ED, and Gottfredson Associates (GA), the recipient of a grant from NIJ, would coordinate future data collection 

activities to minimize burden on respondents. The memorandum also stated that Westat and GA would share access to data and coordinate on 

conducting analyses of the data.

GA had begun its data collection activities prior to execution of the memorandum. (OMB clearance is generally not required for research

conducted under a grant.) GA subsequently contracted with Westat to collect principal and provider data at the middle and high schools to

reduce confusion and respondent burden.

67 
with fewer than 50 students, all students were surveyed. After computing the sample size, the algorithm 

indicated which students should be selected (e.g., students 1, 7, 12, and 18). To get as representative a 

sample of the student body as possible, the roster was stratified by gender (or grade where gender

stratification was not possible), and separate samples were drawn. We then selected the appropriate

students from the roster and typed up the list of sampled students for mailing to the school with survey 

materials. 

In accordance with Westat’s IRB, the parental consent materials were passive in nature. 

That is, if parents did not want their children to participate in the study, they could either call Westat’s toll

free hotline or return the consent postcard to us and we would notify the school of their decision; some

schools instructed parents to call the coordinator directly to refuse consent. We asked that coordinators

mail parental consent letters to the parents of sampled students two weeks before data collection was 

scheduled. We provided a letter to parents, envelopes for the mailing, a return postcard, and stamps. We 

suggested that, in addition to the letter from the study directors, schools enclose a cover letter introducing 

the study, and we also included a suggested format. Parents of approximately six percent of the sampled 

students refused to allow their children to participate.

To minimize student absenteeism, we requested that students not be surveyed on Mondays 

or Fridays and that they be surveyed toward the middle of the school day. Another important instruction

to the coordinator was that students should be instructed to meet in place A where they were to be read a 

description of the study and be invited to go to place B if they agreed to participate. We asked

coordinators to take this step so that students would truly know that their participation in the study was 

voluntary. 

After allowing students the opportunity to refuse their consent, the coordinators distributed 

the questionnaires, answer sheets, confidentiality envelopes, and machine-readable pencils to the

participating students. To protect student confidentiality, we asked that students not record their names

on the answer sheets. In addition, we implemented procedures to discourage efforts to link personal 

identifying demographic information and other questionnaire responses. Demographic information was 

collected on the top part of the answer sheet; all other information was collected on the bottom part of the 

answer sheet. Students were instructed to separate the top and bottom parts of the answer sheet, seal the

bottom part in the confidentiality envelope, and turn the top part in separately. While the answer sheets

could be linked in analysis via machine-readable symbols, doing so manually would have been very 

difficult. 

68 
 Response Rates 

Of the 1,287 schools originally drawn from the Market Data Retrieval list, 69 percent

completed the principal screener questionnaire in the first phase of data collection. The main reasons

reported by principals for nonresponse include lack of time or interest and excessive respondent burden. 

These school-level response rates for the principal screener questionnaire are shown in Table A-1. 

Table A-1. School-level response rates for the first phase of data collection 

Schools 

Disposition Number Percent

Complete 886 69

Nonresponse 401 31

Total sample 1,287 100 

Because of the late start of recruitment and our inability to start data collection in middle and

high schools until March when OMB clearance was received, fewer schools than desired were able to 

participate in the post-screener phase of data collection. Table A-2 illustrates the school level 

participation rates for the post-screener data collection. The response rate for schools that had previously

completed the principal screener questionnaire was 77 percent. 

Table A-2. School-level participation rates for the second phase of data collection 

All schools Schools participating in 

screener survey* 

Number Percent Number Percent

Participate 678 53 678 77

Refuse 609 47 208 23

Total sample 1,287 100 886 100 

*We excluded 101 schools from the second phase of data collection due to district refusal.

Furthermore, not all the schools that participated were able to provide all the requested types 

of data. Table A-3 shows that 72 percent of eligible schools (i.e., those that had completed a principal 

screener questionnaire) provided principal data. Table A-4 shows that the provider response rate was 52

percent, Table A-5 shows the teacher response rate was 67 percent, and Table A-6 illustrates that the 

student response rate was 73 percent. 

69 
Table A-3. Principal response rate 

School 

Disposition Number Percent of eligible schools* 

Complete 634 72

Nonresponse 252 28

Total schools 886 100 

*Schools were eligible if they completed a screener survey form..

Table A-4. Provider response rate 

Provider 

Disposition Number Percent of eligible programs* 

Completed 3,691 52 

Nonresponse 3,413 48

Total sampled 7,104 100 

*Programs were eligible if they completed a screener survey form.

Reasons for provider nonresponse include the following: 

! Coordinator never distributed the questionnaires; 

! Appropriate respondent was ill; and 

! Could not locate appropriate respondent (e.g., appropriate respondent was not school 

staff and had completed work at the school for the year). 

Table A-5. Teacher response rate 

Teachers 

Disposition Number Percent of eligible teachers* 

Complete 13,842 67

Refusal 4,719 23

Nonresponse 1,470 7

Other 746 3

Total teachers 20,777 100 

*Six teachers were ineligible. 

70 
Most of the nonresponse was a result of questionnaires not being distributed to all teachers.

Reasons for “other” include the following: 

! Teachers, who were also program providers, completed only provider questionnaires, 

! Answer sheets completed in pen were unusable, and 

! Transmittal not returned explaining reasons for incomplete surveys. 

Table A-6. Student response rate 

Students

Disposition Number Percent of eligible students*

Complete 17,181 73

Refusal 762 3

Parent refusal 1,307 6 

Absent 416 2

Nonresponse 2,254 10

Other 1,629 7

Total sampled 23,549 100 

*Six hundred and three students were ineligible.

Coordinators indicated that much of the student nonresponse was due to teachers not 

releasing students from class to participate in the survey. In addition, approximately 3 percent of students 

refused to participate, in addition to those whose parents refused their consent. The exact nature of

nonresponse was not reported for nearly 7 percent of the eligible sampled students. 

We believe that both the student and teacher response rates would have been higher had field 

staff gone to the schools to collect the survey data; however, some schools might have refused to

participate if a condition of participating was having an outsider come into the school to conduct data 

collection. We also believe that overall participation would have been greater if we had been able to send

survey materials to these schools as soon as they had agreed to participate. 

Relatively low response rates increase the potential for nonresponse bias. To examine this 

issue, Gottfredson et al. (2000) analyzed the associations between participating in several of the data 

collection components (e.g., screener, principal, teacher, and student surveys) and the characteristics of 

schools and the communities in which they are located (based on 1990 Census data aggregated at the zip

code level). These associations indicate a relatively strong association between nonresponse and urban 

71 
location. That is, nonresponse tended to be higher for schools located in predominantly urban areas. 

School auspices (public, Catholic, or private sectarian or nonsectarian) also is strongly associated with

nonresponse: Private schools tended to have higher levels of nonresponse than public or Catholic 

schools. Hence, schools located in urban areas and private schools are underrepresented in the 

responding schools. We sought to correct for the underepresentation through nonresponse adjustments to 

weights. However, to the extent that the nonresponding differed from other schools on the variables of

interest, their absence may still influence the study results. 

 Data Processing 

Processing the data that was returned from schools was done in three steps. First, clerks

sorted the contents of each box. This was somewhat time intensive because all respondents had been

instructed to seal questionnaires in confidentiality envelopes that then had to be opened. The second step 

was to log the contents of each box and note differences between expected data and actual data. These 

differences were resolved by the recruitment staff. In some cases, reasons for discrepancies were noted; 

in other cases, replacement surveys were sent to the school. 

The third data processing step was to actually process the data. The principal and provider

surveys were coded and keyed into a database at Gottfredson Associates. The school district surveys were

coded and keyed into a database at Westat. The teacher and student answer sheets were processed by an 

optical scanning machine (also at Westat). The student forms were processed in their two component 

pieces. A program was written to match both halves of each data form. The program was unable to match 

all data forms, for example, because some students had marked in the machine-readable identification 

code. A clerk sorted through all of the data forms to resolve these problems. 

 Weighting 

Weights were developed by project statisticians to reflect differential probabilities of 

selection and to adjust for nonresponse. The study weights are as follows: 

! Screener 1 school-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to describe school 

characteristics, 

! Screener 2 school-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to describe activity 

characteristics, 

72 
! Screener 3 school-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to describe activity 

characteristics (these weights incorporated supplemental data gathered during the 

detailed phase of data collection), 

! Detailed principal questionnaire school-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to 

describe school and principal characteristics, 

! School district questionnaire school-level nonresponse adjusted weights (adjusted 

with respect to school and school district official response rates)—to describe school 

characteristics, 

! Student questionnaire respondent-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to describe 

characteristics of students nationally,

! Student questionnaire school-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to describe 

characteristics of schools nationally, 

! Teacher questionnaire respondent-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to describe 

characteristics of teachers nationally,

! Teacher questionnaire school-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to describe 

characteristics of schools nationally, 

! Activity (provider16) questionnaire activity-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to 

describe characteristics of prevention activities nationally, and 

! Activity (provider) questionnaire school-level nonresponse adjusted weights—to 

describe characteristics of schools nationally, 

The computation of these weights was a multistage process. First, base-weights were

developed for every sampled school based on the probability with which the school was sampled. Then, a 

nonresponse adjustment was applied to the base-weights for each type of set of school-level weights (one 

for each instrument) to compensate for the number of schools that did not participate in that aspect of data

collection. For the types of instruments that were completed by multiple respondents at a school, a 

respondent base-weight (based on the number of possible respondents) was created. Then, a second 

nonresponse adjustment was applied to the respondent-level base-weights to compensate for nonresponse

within a school, in the case of student and teacher weights; or within category, in the case of the activity

weights. Additionally, before the within respondent student and teacher nonresponse adjustments, an

algorithm was applied to help decide whether or not each school had sufficient responses to consider the 

school responding in that category.

 

16 Although we have referred to the survey on prevention efforts as provider questionnaires (because they were completed by prevention 

providers), the survey collected information on the actual programs and activities. They were also weighted to describe the characteristics of

the prevention activities themselves. 

73 
School-level Nonresponse Adjustment. The nonresponse adjustments were performed for

all data types by forming nonresponse cells at the school level based on sampling strata and the predictors

of school-level response propensity. The predictors of school-level response included school size, type of 

school (i.e., public and Catholic schools versus other types of private schools), and grade levels covered

by the school (i.e., whether a high school served 10th through 12th graders or some other combination of 

grade levels). 

Multiple Respondent Response Rate Adjustment. For students, teachers, and program 

providers to represent their universes (i.e., all middle and high school students, all middle and high school 

teachers, all prevention activities nationally), the respondent level files were adjusted based on within unit

sampling fractions. As noted, student samples were drawn with the intent of receiving 50 completed

student questionnaires, regardless of whether the school had 50 students or 5,000 students. Hence, each

responding student typically represented a number of other students in the school. Within each school,

student weights were also adjusted based on how many of the sampled students actually responded. 

We had asked that all teachers in each middle and high school complete teacher

questionnaires. Some schools did, in fact, return surveys for 100 percent of the teachers, but more 

typically, 60 percent to 80 percent of teachers participated. Within each school, the teacher base-weights 

were adjusted for the nonresponding teachers. 

As noted, more than 8,000 prevention activities were named by school principals. Project 

staff decided to ask a school to complete one provider survey within a given category. Hence, only 7,104

provider surveys were actually sent to schools. In addition, within a school, we sometimes drew a 

subsample of surveys so as not to overburden program providers. Weights were adjusted for these factors 

and for nonresponse within each of the 14 categories of prevention activities. 

Respondent-level Nonresponse Adjustment. The respondent-level, nonresponse 

adjustment was done separately for the student, teacher, and provider (activity) surveys. For the student 

survey, the respondent-level, nonresponse adjustment was a multistage process. Student sampling had 

generally been performed by stratifying students by either grade or gender; hence, these were critical

values for the weighting process. In some cases, because of data loss from the perforated student

response forms, a respondent’s grade and gender were not known. Missing values for grade and gender 

were “replaced” with imputed values. We then dropped students who had responded to less than 80

percent of the data items. After dropping these deficient records, a nonresponse adjustment was 

performed based on either gender or grade level, depending on how the sample was drawn. Hence, the 

responding male students in a school, for example, represented all male students in that school. This

74 
adjustment was performed only on schools judged to have a sufficient response rate. The response 

criterion was as follows: (1) total number of students in a school is 11 or more and the estimated 

proportion of responding students is more than 40 percent, or (2) total number of students in a school is 

less than 11 and the proportion of responding students is more than 70 percent. 

In computing weights for the teacher survey, teachers who responded to a low number of

items in the teacher questionnaire (less than 60%) were treated as nonrespondents. Then school response 

status was assigned based on the number and proportion of responding teachers in each sampled school. 

A school was defined as a responding school with regard to the teacher survey if (1) total number of

teachers in a school is 12 or more and the proportion of responding teachers is 25 percent or more; or (2)

total number of teachers in a school is less than 12 and the proportion of responding teachers is 50 percent

or more. By this rule, we defined about 5 percent of schools with at least one responding teacher as 

nonrespondents. 

The procedure for the activity-level nonresponse adjustment was similar to the procedure for 

the respondent level non-response adjustment. 

 Analysis 

Once the data were cleaned and weighted, Gottfredson Associates and Westat staff

conducted three types of analyses. These are: (1) data reduction and psychometric analysis (e.g., 

reliability and validity analysis); (2) descriptive statistics (e.g., measures of central tendency, dispersion, 

maximum and minimum values, and frequencies); and (3) inferential statistics (e.g., tests of differences 

between groups). Although each technique is potentially very useful, regardless of the statistical 

procedures used, none can be used to establish cause and effect relationships. 

One of the first steps in conducting the data analysis was to create composite measures made 

up of several different questions from a given questionnaire. Many of these measures had been used in 

earlier studies or designed as part of instrument development by Gottfredson Associates. Gottfredson 

Associates staff also performed psychometric (reliability and validity) analyses to assess the reliability 

and validity of the measures. They examined internal consistency measures such as Cronbach’s alpha 

and/or split-half correlations on the measures. 

In order to describe characteristics of the prevention activities, schools, and the districts, we 

computed descriptive statistics. These statistics, which primarily used weighted data, included 

75 
frequencies and measures of central tendency (such as the mean or median) for individual questionnaire 

items and composite scores. The descriptive statistics were also broken down by instructional level, 

urbanicity, and other variables of interest. 

In addition to descriptive statistics, we computed inferential statistics to examine whether or 

not a statistical relationship occurred by chance. While some of the research questions for the study were 

easily answered using descriptive statistics, others can only be answered using inferential statistics. These

analyses focused on associations between continuous variables (e.g., correlations) and differences 

between groups (e.g., chi-square tests and t-tests). To perform the inferential analyses correctly with 

weighted data, we used WesVar

® for Complex Samples, which is a special software application that was

designed by Westat to correctly calculate standard errors when using weighted data. 

76 
APPENDIX B. METHODS AND CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE ADEQUACY OF 

PREVENTION PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES

This appendix describes our approach to assessing the quality of school-based prevention 

programs or activities and the quality of school-wide discipline practices. It includes a description of the

adequacy cut points (criteria) that we used in the assessment of quality. 

Quality of School-Based Prevention Programing and Criteria Used to Judge Adequacy 

For the Study on School Violence and Prevention, Westat and Gottfredson Associates (GA) 

sought to assess the quality of school-based prevention programming. This entailed several critical steps, 

including: (1) defining 10 dimensions that are on rational or empirical grounds expected to influence the 

likelihood that a program will achieve a measurable effect; (2) within each dimension and separately for 

14 categories of prevention programs (e.g., prevention curriculum, instruction, or training; recreation, 

enrichment, or leisure; and mentoring), establishing criteria for the designation of “adequate” quality; and 

(3) comparing implementer reports about operating programs against the criteria. In other words, we 

conducted a criterion-based assessment, judging quality by comparing program performance against 

standards. 

Concern with the measurement of quality is based on the findings of research that indicates 

that the quality of program implementation, in prevention programs and educational innovations more 

broadly, can be highly variable and is critical to achieving desired effects. For example, G. D.

Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Czeh, Cantor, Crosse, and Hantman (2000) refer to research conducted by

Botvin, Baker, Dusenbury, Tortu, and Botvin (1990) that found tremendous variability in the fidelity of 

implementation of Life Skills Training and the deleterious effects of poor implementation. More 

extensive discussions of the problem of poor program implementation and program ineffectiveness may 

be found in reports by D. C. Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Skroban (1998); D. C. Gottfredson, Fink,

Skroban, & Gottfredson, 1997; G. D. Gottfredson, Jones, & Gore (in press); and Jones, Gottfredson, & 

Gottfredson (1997). 

No comprehensive measures of program quality applicable to all kinds of programs have 

ever been developed. To meet the need for survey-based measures of quality in the present research, we 

have defined quality in terms of 10 indicators that capture both program intensity and adherence to best 

practices. These dimensions are as follows: (1) level of use by school personnel, (2) best practices for

content, (3) best practices for methods, (4) frequency of operation, (5) number of lessons or sessions, (6)

77 
duration, (7) frequency of student participation, (8) frequency of staff participation, 9) ratio of providers

to students in the schools, and (10) proportion of students exposed or participating. Hence, an adequate or

“good” prevention program (i.e., program that is likely to achieve measurable effects) is one that achieves 

a specific minimum threshold on each of these dimensions. These 10 measures of program quality and the 

range of responses appear in Table B-1. 

Table B-1. Measures of program quality 

Measures Possible range of responses 

Level of use by school personnel Ranges from “1” (at least one person in the school knows something about

it) to “5” (one or more persons is conducting the activity on a regular

basis) 

Best practices for methods Ranges from 0 to 100 percent*

Best practices for content Ranges from 0 to 100 percent*

Frequency of operation Ranges from “1” (special occasions once or twice a year) to “3”

(continually throughout the year) 

Number of lessons and sessions This question had an open response category in which the respondent

could write in the exact number of lessons or sessions 

Duration Ranges from “1” (less than a day) to “7” (more than a full school year) 

Frequency of participation by students Ranges from “1” (monthly or less often) to “6” (more than once a day)

Frequency of participation by staff Ranges from “1” (monthly or less often) to “6” (more than once a day)

Ratio of providers to students in the 

school

100 (ln(Np/Ns+1)), where Np= number of persons providing the service and

Ns= the number of students in the school 

Proportion of students exposed or

participating

Generally, Ne/Ns, where Ne= number of students exposed or participating

and Ns= number of students in the school. For the category youth 

participation in school decision making, Ne= disciplinary incidents

handled by student court of peer mediation and Ns= disciplinary incidents 

handled by student court, peer mediation, or the administration 

___________________________ 

* Scores for the best practices scales are the proportion of the identified best practices (content or methods) reportedly used in a particular activity 

or program. For example, for the program activity prevention curriculum, instruction, or training, the program provider was asked about the use 

of 10 best practices, such as use of rewards for group accomplishments, student recognition for effort expended, and assessment of student 

mastery and reteaching material not mastered. Following this example, if a program provider reported using 4 of the 10 best practices, the

curriculum, instruction, or training program would receive a score of 0.40 (4 divided by 10) for the best practices for methods measure. 

The importance of some of these indicators is self-evident. Level of use of a program is

important, because if no one is using a program it can have no influence. Frequency of staff participation

is important for the same reason. If school personnel seldom operate a program, it cannot have much 

effect on anything. Interventions of very brief duration cannot be expected to have much influence on

levels of problem behavior (which tends to be enduring characteristics of persons and subject to powerful

influences by peers) on the basis of rational analysis as well as general evidence about the relation of dose 

78 
to program effectiveness (Lipsey, 1992). Accordingly, number of lessons, duration, and frequency of

student participation are obviously related to a program’s potential to influence problem behavior. Other

indicators of potential program quality are more tentative. We measured the proportion of students 

exposed to or participating in programs on the grounds that an intervention that reaches only a small

number of individuals will generally leave most of the population unaffected. Ratio of providers to

students is a similar indicator: if a very large number of students relative to the number of providers

engage in a prevention activitiy, that program’s influence is likely to be diluted. 

The importance of other indicators is induced from a reading of the literature reporting on 

evaluations of specific programs. For instructional programs, meta-analytic literature reviews (Tobler,

1986; Tobler & Stratton, 1997) as well as an examination of the primary literature imply that programs 

involving the use of cognitive-behavioral instructional approaches tend to be more effective that programs 

that omit these approaches (also called “interactive” approaches by Tobler). In some areas, a research 

literature makes the identification of a least some “best practices” an unambiguous task. This is certainly

true for instruction, behavioral, and classroom management programs where a great deal of literature 

exists on effective interventions (see generally Slavin, 1997, on instruction; Emmer, Evertson, Clements,

& Worsham, 1994, on classroom management; and Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995, on behavioral

interventions).

In other areas, little or no scientific literature is available to guide the induction of best

practices. This is true of recreation or enrichment activities, for example, where no credible literature

implies the effectiveness of such programs for preventing problem behavior and very little in the way of 

published guidance or recommendations from experienced practitioners. In such cases, we specified no 

best practices and measured none in the present research. 

Between these two extremes are program areas where guidance in the form of established

professional opinion exists. For example, counselors, social workers, and school psychologists in training

are taught to base intervention on an assessment of the problem, establish treatment goals, and follow up 

on progress. This guidance did form the basis of specification of some best practices, because it is

sensible to regard an intervention with objectives as likely to be more effective than one without 

objectives. 

Because of the unevenness of the literature on best practices in different categories of

preventive intervention, best practices are not measured in several of the categories. In these categories,

the assessment of quality rests solely on indicators such as duration, frequency, and level of use that can 

generally be assessed for any kind of intervention. 

79 
GA also identified thresholds for “adequacy” that varied by the 14 categories of prevention 

activities or programs. Tables B-2 and B-3 show the minimum criteria necessary to be judged adequate

on each of nine measures of program quality. (One of the quality measures does not have corresponding

adequacy criteria.) Given the diversity of prevention activities, developing separate criteria was

necessary. For example, the criterion for adequate duration was longer than a month for the prevention 

curriculum, instruction, or training program category (where instructional programs of less than six

week’s duration are seldom found to have substantial effects). In contrast, the criterion for duration was at 

least one school year for the mentoring category (where the single credible evaluation implying the

effectiveness of mentoring was of a carefully implemented program of a full year’s duration [Tierney et 

al., 1995]). In developing the “adequacy” criteria for each dimension of quality and each program

activity, Gary Gottfredson and Denise Gottfredson, experts in the field of delinquency and violence 

prevention in schools, independently indicated the level for each criterion. They based their judgements 

on their understanding of the research (reviewed in an extensive manner by D. C. Gottfredson, 1997, 

2001; and D. C. Gottfredson, Wilson, and Najaka, in press) for each program category; for categories that

lacked sufficient research on which to base an assessment, they exercised their judgments. The raters

discussed and resolved any discrepancies on ratings. In assessing the reasonableness of these ratings,

readers may wish to consult the detailed account of the cutting scores for adequacy spelled out in the full

report (G. D. Gottfredson et al., 2000). A summary rating was also developed based on the fraction of the

separate dimensions of quality that were judged to be adequate. This summary rating is extremely

conservative – often calling for only a fraction of the individual ratings to be “adequate.” By this lenient

standard, a program may be judged “adequate” if it meets several criteria even if no one is implementing 

it on a regular basis. 

In the final step, Westat and GA collected and analyzed survey data from a national

probability sample of program providers using program-specific instruments that measured each

dimension of quality. That is, the researchers developed and used 14 different instruments that

corresponded to the 14 categories of prevention activities. In their analyses, the researchers assessed the 

performance of each program against the criterion for each dimension of quality. They summarized the

results in terms of program category and dimension of quality. Readers need not rely solely on the 

“adequacy” ratings in interpreting the data on program quality. The underlying quantitative data – not

dichotomized using any cutting scores – are available in a longer report (G. D. Gottfredson et al., 2000). 

80 
Table B-2. Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for quality measures that have 

similar criteria across program or activity types 

Quality measures with common minimum

criteria across program or activity types 

Minimum criteria required to 

be judged adequate 

Level of use by school personnel For all program types: minimum criteria needed to be judged as

adequate is defined as at least "one or more persons is conducting

the activity on a regular basis" 

Best practice for methods For all program types where best practices: methods could be 

established, 70 percent or more of possible best practices used (see

footnote on previous page) is needed for the program to be judged

adequate 

Best practices for content For all program types where best practices: methods could be 

established, 70 percent or more of possible best practices used (see

footnote on previous page) is needed for the program to be judged

adequate 

81 
Table B-3. Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for quality measures that have 

different criteria across program or activity types* 

Quality measures with different minimum 

criteria across program or activity types 

Minimum criteria required to

be judged adequate

Number of lessons and sessions for

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training Greater than or equal to 16 

Mentoring Greater than or equal to 52 

Tutoring 

Recreation, enrichment, leisure 

Greater than or equal to 26 

Greater than or equal to 26 

Improvements to instruct practices/methods Greater than or equal to 30 

External personnel resources for classroom Greater than or equal to 25 

Duration 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training 

Counseling, social work, psychological or therapeutic activity

Tutoring 

Recreation, enrichment, leisure 

More than 1 month 

More than 1 month 

More than 1 month 

More than 1 month 

Mentoring At least 1 school year 

Planning structure or management of change; security and surveillance More than 1 full school year 

Frequency of participation for students 

Culture, climate or expectations

Intergroup relations and school-community interaction 

Planning structure or management of change

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training 

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic activity

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, apprenticeship 

Recreation, enrichment, leisure 

Services/programs for family members 

External personnel resources for classroom

At least weekly

At least weekly

At least weekly

At least weekly

At least weekly

At least weekly

Improvements to instructional practices More than once per week 

Behavioral programming or behavioral modeling 

Security and surveillance

At least daily 

At least daily 

Frequency of participation by staff 

Culture, climate or expectations

Intergroup relations and school-community interaction 

Planning structure or management of change

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

Security and surveillance At least daily 

Frequency of operation 

Culture, climate or expectations

Intergroup relations and school-community interaction 

Planning structure or management of change

Security and surveillance

Continually throughout the year

Continually throughout the year

Continually throughout the year

Continually throughout the year 

Proportion students exposed or participating 

Culture, climate, or expectations

Intergroup relations and school community interaction 

Greater than or equal to 70% 

Greater than or equal to 70% 

Youth participation in discipline Greater than or equal to 10% of referrals handled by

student court or through peer mediation 

* Not all quality measures apply to all program types.

82 
Quality of School-wide Disciplinary Practices and Criteria Used to Judge Adequacy 

In a parallel process, we also conducted a criterion-based assessment for measuring quality

of school-wide disciplinary practices, judging quality by comparing practices against standards. Quality

of school-wide discipline practices consists of five measures: (1) communication and documentation, (2) 

range of appropriate responses to misconduct, (3) range of responses to desirable conduct, (4)

disciplinarian consistency, and (5) predictable disciplinary decision making. (See Table B-4.) The items

that make up each of the five scales and the cut points necessary for an adequacy or best practices rating

were developed by the same two experts in the field of delinquency and violence prevention in schools 

mentioned in the previous section. These two researchers have published extensively in this area (e.g., 

see Gottfredson, D.C., 1997; Gottfredson, D.C., 2001; Gottfredson, G.D. and Gottfredson, D.C., 1985)

and are familiar with the extant literature. 

For a school to be judged adequate or using best practices on the first four measures listed,

70 percent of the responses to the items that make up the measure must be the desired responses. Desired

responses are those that have been shown in the research literature to be the best approach (or best 

practice) for that particular area of school-wide discipline. An example of the category “best practices for

range of appropriate responses to misconduct” would be evidence of a great variety of appropriate

responses to misconduct. Using the communication and documentation scale as an example, responses 

for five of the seven items (71%) need to be the desired responses for a school to receive a best practices 

or adequacy rating on the communication and documentation scale. For the fifth measure, predictable 

disciplinary decision making, the average response to two questions on how often teachers and students

can predict the administration's disciplinary response must be equal to or greater than (where a “4” means

that it can be predicted most of the time, and a “5” means that it can be predicted almost always). 

83 
Table B-4. Measures of quality for school-wide discipline practices and cut points for assessing 

adequacy 

Measure Explanation

Possible 

range of 

responses 

Cut point 

for

adequacy

Best practices for 

communication and

documentation

This measure is made up of seven items about the extent

of distribution of the school's discipline policy and

current efforts to maintain or use procedures for 

documentation. Higher percentages mean that more

sound communication and documentation practices are

employed. 

0 to 100% 70% 

Best practices for 

range of appropriate 

responses to

misconduct

This measure is made up of 17 items about a variety of 

potential responses to misconduct the schools might

exercise, ranging from brief exclusion from class, to use

of peer mediation or student court, detention, reprimands,

and to notifying parents to community service. A higher

percentage means that a greater variety of appropriate

responses are employed. 

0 to 100% 70% 

Best practices for 

range of appropriate 

responses to desirable 

conduct 

The range of appropriate responses to desirable conduct

scale is made up of seven items about the variety of 

potential responses to desirable student behavior that a

school might exercise, ranging from material rewards

through informal recognition or praise, activity or

privilege reinforcers, to formal recognition or praise. A

higher percentage means that a greater variety of 

potential reinforcers are used. 

0 to 100% 70% 

Best practices for 

disciplinarian

consistency 

Made up of three items, this scale is about whether

specific disciplinary responses are independent of the

source of referral, identity of the decision maker, or the 

student disciplined. Higher percentages mean the 

disciplinarian(s) is/are administering discipline with 

greater consistency. 

0 to 100% 70% 

Best practices for 

predictable 

disciplinary

decisionmaking 

This short scale is made up of the average of two Likerttype items that assess whether students and teachers can 

predict the administration's disciplinary response. The 

responses are on a scale from 1 to 5, where a “4” = most 

of the time and a “5” = almost always. Higher scores

imply greater predictability. 

1 to 5 4 

84 
REFERENCES 

Botvin, G., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Tortu, S., and Botvin, E. (1990). Preventing adolescent drug abuse

through a multi-modal cognitive-behavioral approach: Results of a 3-year study. Journal of 

Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 58, 437-446. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1993). Violence-related attitudes and behaviors of high 

school students-- New York City, 1992-1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 42 (40),

773-777. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance -- United States,

1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 49 (No. SS-5). 

Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (1995). Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, 

Colorado: Author. 

Chandler, K.A., Chapman, C.D., Rand, M.R., & Taylor, B.M. (1998). Students’ reports of school crime: 

1989 and 1995. Washington, D.C: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. 

Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., Clements, B. S., & Worsham, M. E. (1994). Classroom management for 

secondary teachers (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Gottfredson, D.C. (1997). School-based crime prevention. In L.W. Sherman, D.C. Gottfredson, D. 

MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway (eds.). Preventing crime: What works, what 

doesn't, what's promising: A report to the United States Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. 

Gottfredson, D.C. (2001). Delinquency and schools. New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Gottfredson, D. C., Fink, C. M., Skroban, S., & Gottfredson, G. D. (1997). Making prevention work. In

Weissberg, R. P., Gullotta, T. P., Hampton, R. L., & Adams, G. R. (eds.), Healthy children 2010: 

Establishing preventive services. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Skroban, S. (1998) Can prevention work where it is needed 

most? Evaluation Review, 22, 315-340. 

Gottfredson, D. C., Wilson, D. B. & Najaka, S. S. (Forthcoming). School-based crime prevention. In

Farrington, D. P., Sherman, L. W., and Welsh, B. Preventing crime. United Kingdom: Harwood 

Academic Publishers. 

Gottfredson, G.D., and Gottfredson, D.C. (1985). Victimization in schools. New York: Plenum. 

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. 

Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, E. M., & Gore, T. W. (In press). Implementation and evaluation of a cognitivebehavioral intervention to prevent problem behavior in a disorganized school. Prevention

Science. 

85 
Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C. & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. 

public schools: 1996-97. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (1995). Reducing gun and other violence in schools: An onsite analysis of fifteen promising programs. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (1998). Outcome measures from the Monitoring the 

Future Study relevant to Goal 7: Safe, disciplined, and alcohol- and drug-free schools. Report 

commissioned by the National Education Goals Panel. 

Jones, E. M., Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1997). Success for some: An evaluation of a 

“Success for All” program. Evaluation Review, 21, 643-670. 

Katchur, S.P., Stennies, G.M., Powell, K.E., Modzeleski, W., Stephens, R., Murphy, R., Kresnow, M., 

Sleet, D. & Lowry, R. (1996). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1992-1994. 

Journal of the American Medical Association, 275, 1729-1733. 

Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of

effects. In T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, R. J. 

Louis, & F. Mosteller (eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. NY: Russell Sage

Foundation. 

Minnesota Department of Education. (1992). Promising prevention strategies: A look at what works. St.

Paul, MN: Author. 

National School Boards Association. (1993). Violence in the schools: How America's school boards are 

safeguarding our children. Alexandria, VA: Author. 

National School Safety Center. (1995). School safety work book. What works: Promising violence 

prevention programs. Malibu, CA: Author. 

Slavin, R. E. (1997). Educational psychology: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big 

Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 

86