DOCUMENT RESUME 

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made 

ED 471 870 EA 032 191 

AUTHOR 

TITLE 

INSTITUTION 

SPONS AGENCY 

REPORT NO 

PUB DATE 

NOTE 

CONTRACT 

AVAILABLE FROM 

PUB TYPE 

EDRS PRICE 

DESCRIPTORS 

Crosse, Scott; Cantor, David; Burr, Michele; Hagen, Carol A.; 

Hantman, Irene; Mason, Michael J.; Siler, Amy J.; von Glatz, 

Adrienne; Wright, Mareena McKinley 

Wide Scope, Questionable Quality: Three Reports from the 

Study on School Violence and Prevention. 

Westat, Inc., Rockville, MD.; Gottfredson Associates, Inc., 

Ellicott City, MD. 

Department of Education, Washington, DC. Planning and 

Evaluation Service. 

DOC-2002-20 

2002-08-00 

236p.; For individual documents, see EA 032 182-183 and’ EA 

032 189. For Executive Summary, see EA 032 190. 

EA96055001 

ED Pubs, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Tel: 877-433- 

7827 (Toll Free); TTY: 800-437-0833 (Toll Free); Fax: 301- 

470-1244; e-mail: edpubs@inet.ed.gov; Web site: 

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/publications.html. For 

full text: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/publications.html. 

Collected Works - General (020) -- Reports - Research (143) 

EDRS Price MFOl/PC10 Plus Postage. 

Educational Administration; Educational Assessment; 

*Educational Environment; Elementary Secondary Education; 

Illegal Drug Use; National Surveys; *Prevention; *School 

Safety; *School Security; Social Influences; *Violence 

ABSTRACT 

This volume presents three reports on drug-use and violenceprevention efforts and school-crime patterns in American schools. The reports 

are based on findings from the Study on School Violence and Prevention, which 

investigated the extent of problem behavior in 886 schools across the U.S. 

The findings indicate that schools .in general were safe, but certain schools 

had significant problems that affected instruction and made some teachers and 

students feel unsafe. The higher rates of discipline problems in middle 

schools suggest that greater attention to prevention efforts in middle school 

may be warranted. School should focus on improving prevention activities by 

strengthening efforts to adopt, retain, or discard prevention efforts based 

on evidence of program effectiveness. While fighting did occur and the 

presence of weapons was not unheard of, the combination of the two was rarely 

seen in the same school. Theft was much more common than robbery, and while 

teachers may have been verbally abused, they rarely were attacked or 

threatened with a weapon. The fear of disorder did not seem to interfere with 

learning. Schools followed similar discipline procedures, but they varied 

considerably in how they recorded and used incident data. Schools that 

recorded high violence differed markedly from other schools in their size, 

location, and socioeconomic makeup. They tended to be in urban areas and had 

a high percentage of minority students. (RJM) 

WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUALITY: 

DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS 

IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS 

REPORT ON THE STUDY ON SCHOOL 

VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION 

3 
WIDE SCOPE, QUESTION 

DRUG AND VIQLENCE VENTPION EFFORTS 

IN AMERICAN SC 

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 affXiation with: 

Gottfiedson Associates, Inc. 

3239B Corporate Court 

Ellicott City, MD 2 1042 

4 
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 Eflorts 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 edDubs@inet.ed.gov. 

You may also call toll-free 1-877433-7827 (1-8774-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 8-800437-0833. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to www.ed.gov/Dubs/eduubs.html. 

This report is also available on the department’s web site at www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/eval.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) 205-81 13. 

5 
.. , 

Results from the Study 

EXECUTIVE SuRIIbpmY 

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. 

STUDYBACKGROUND 

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 fbnding 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 fhding. The patterns of problem behavior 

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

> 

f 

i 

6 
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 onequarter 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 (ie., 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, 2 1 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), fiee and reduced-price school lunch, and enrollment. Problem high schools 

also did not differ fiom the other high 

students. However, problem middle 

students than all other middle schools. 

ii 

schools in terms of the percentage if minority 

schools had a higher percentage of minority 

7 
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 

fiom 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 &om 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 confionted 

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. 

8 ... 

111 
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. 

rn 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 activitiesone 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 idomtion. 

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. 

9 

'* 

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 fiequency 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. 

8 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 5 1 percent adequate, while scores for programs aimed at 

changing individual student behaviors or attitudes ranged from 5 1 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 OFPLANNING 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 fiom 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 fiom 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. 

Insuffrcient 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 hding source for prevention activities in schools, though districts and schools also drew on a 

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

This fhding was very important to district prevention programming. 

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

provided prevention activities that were fimded 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. 

1. . * 1:. 12 

vii 
CONCLUSIONS 

Several conclusions follow fiom 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 identifylng 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 ur discontinued. 

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

this study, Gottfiedson, Gottfiedson, 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. 

... Vlll 
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 identifjrlng 

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/PDFDochterimAR.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/OEWORAD/ICAD/exp~~anel/200 lexemplary-sddfs.htm1 

and www.ed.gov/offices/OERVORAD/KAD/exp~~anel/2OOlpromisingsddfs.html.) Additional 

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

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

Gottfiedson 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 Nicewmer, 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 A1 Bishop, .?oh 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 

Chavter Page 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

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 

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

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 Highquality Prevention Activities .......................................................... 51 

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 

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

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

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

xi 16 
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 

Apendix &gg 

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

B . METHODS AND CRITERIA FOR JUDGING THE ADEQUACY OF PREVENTION 

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

List of Tables 

Table 

3-1 

3 -2 

A- 1 

A-2 

A-3 

A-4 

A-5 

A-6 

B-1 

B-2 

B-3 

B-4 

Prevention activity categories and definitions ................................................................................ 28 

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

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

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

Principal response rate ................................................................................................................... 70 

Provider response rate .................................................................................................................... 70 

Teacher response rate ..................................................................................................................... 70 

Student response rate ...................................................................................................................... 71 

Measures of program quality .......................................................................................................... 78 

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

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

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

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

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

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

9.7 

xii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

List of Figures 

Pap;e 

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

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

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

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

Percentage of teachers reporting one or more incidents of personal victimization this 

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

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

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

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

Characteristics of students in problem schools and other schools - 1997-98 school ye ar............. 17 

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 

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 

Percentage of students in problem middle schools and other middle schools reporting 

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

Fimue 

2-1 

2-2 

2-3 

24 

2-5 

2-6 

2-7 

2-8 

2-9 

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 

2-1 1 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 Percenwge 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 

... c' 

.,, . 1 sjlll 
3-4 

4- 1 

4-2 

4-3 

44 

5-1 

5-2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

&igg 

Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools using each type of 

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

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

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

Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for each type of prevention 

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

Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for selected prevention activities 

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

Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for selected prevention activity 

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

Percentage of problem schools and other schools in districts reporting mandated school 

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

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

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

xiv 
WIDE SCOPE, QUESTIONABLE QUPhEH'kY: 

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 & Far~is, 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 

20 

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 fist 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 0, 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 NU and other 

publications, the project is called the National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools. 
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 safely 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 infonnation on school 

prevention options to improve school management? 

What sources of funding (including SDFSCA fimds) 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 PrincipaVSchool Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence, which 

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

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

'I 
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.) Gottfkedson Associates, Inc. developed the taxonomy ah 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 infomation on principal 

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

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

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

23 

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

best practices.' 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 refbse participation for their children.) The teacher 

questionnaire focused on school safety, victimization, school climate, and level of implement@on of 

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

problem behavior, and school climate. 

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

' Best practices were based on expcrt judgement and a review of the literature on the effectiveness of prevention activities. (See Gonh.edson et 

al., 2000.) 

5 
information nationally on problem behavior in schools fiom 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 fiom 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 infoxmation was collected fiom 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. 

1. 25 

6 
Report Organization 

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

as follows. 

rn 

rn 

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 infonnation 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. 
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 tern 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 tern 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 

Less serious violent 

crime and property Crime 

Vandalism 

Theft or larceny 

Physical attack or fight 

without a weapon 

Serious violent crime 

Robbery 

Physical attack or fight with 

weapon 

68 

67 

72 

17 

21 

I 1 

0 20 40 60 80 

Percentage of schools 

EA Elementary UMiddldjunior BHigh school .All schools 

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%). 

. .. 

, 

28 

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 1 1 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? 

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 

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

. 10 29 
Figure 2-2. Percentage of students reporting one or more incidents of personal victimization this 

year in school - 1997-98 school year 

I54 

Less serious violent 

crime and property crime 

Physical attack 

Threatened with a beating 

Theft, $1 or mox 

Theft, less than $ 

Serious violent crime 

Threatened with a knife 

or gun 

Robbery, less than $1 

Robbery, $1 or more 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

Percent of students 

0 Middle/junior Cl High school .All schools 
Figure 2-3. Percentage of teachers reporting one or more incidents of personal victimization this 

year in school -- 1997-98 school year 

Less serious violent crime 

and oronertv crime I 

')A 

Threatened in remarks by a 

student 

I---- 

Damage to property. less 

than $10 31 

Damage to property, more 

than $10 

Theft, less than $10 

The!?, more than $10 

Serious violent crime 

Any type 

Physical attack, received 

minor injuries 

Physical attack, received 1: 

injuries requiring a doctor 

Conhnted with a weapon (i 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent of teachers 

OMiddWjunior BHigb school .All schools 

12 31 
weapon (21% of middle schools versus 2% of elementary schools and 11% of high school^).^ 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 (3 1 YO 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 

’ 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 & Fanis, 

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. 

6.” 

32 

13 
Figure 2-4. Percentage of teachers reporting on the extent to which student behavior 

prevents them from teaching -- 1997-1998 school year 

A great deal 

4% 

Percent of teachers 

14 
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! 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 

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

pattems 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., 

' 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 nports because they were 

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

3. 

3 '4 

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

Middle scboola 

Suburban i. 

r Suburban 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

NW: Nmc of the di&rmccs 

buwm~ pmbkm schoob and other 

vhoot lllc stltirtiully silplificsnt at 

Percent of schools 

16 35 
Figure 2-6. Characteristics of students in problem schools and other schools - 1997-98 

school year 

~~ ~ 

Mlddle schools 

Hlgh schools I 

39 

Minority 

0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 

Percentage of students 

.Other schools OProblem schools 

*Diffcmcc between problem schools and other schools is statistically significant atp4.05. None of the other diffmnccs arc significant at tbat 

level. 

17 36 
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%): 

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 diffmences 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. 

'While the percentappoint 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 c 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. 

37 

18 
Figure 2-7. Percentage of problem ddde schools and oUIlnerr nmialldglle schools reporting one or more 

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

Less serious violent crime 

nnd property crime 

98 

Vandalism 

Theft or larceny. 

Serious violent crime 

Anytype* eloo' 

Robw I 

7 

78 Physical attack or fight 

with weapon. 9 

*Diffcrcncc between problem middle 

schools and other middk schools is 

statistically significant atp4.05. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

**By detinition. pmblcm schools repied 

one or mm incidents of Sniour violent 

crime to law enfolccmat. 

Percent of schools 

MOtherschools ORoblcmwhools 

19 

38 
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 

Lrss serious violent crime 

and property erlme 

100 

76 Any type* 

100 

Vandalism* 

62 

95 

nett or larceny+ 

84 Physical attack or fight 

without weapon* 

Serious violent crime 

Anytype* :I

67 Physical attack or fight 

with weapon* 5 

*Diffamcc betwen pmblan high school0 

pad orber high schools is ststisticSlly 

Witiuot atp ~0.05. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent of schools 

W)thaschools ORoblemschools 

39 

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 

Less serious violent crime 

and property crime 

13 

Anytype -73 I 

Physical attack I” 

Threatened with a beating 1 

7 Theft, %I or more 

SorlOQs vidcnt crime 

I I16 

Threatened with a knife or 

gun 

6 

6 P Robbery, less than % 1 

Robbery, $1 or more* po 

I I 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

*Diffua~~~ behwecn pmbh middk schools 

audothcrmiddkschoolsissmlistidy Percent of students 

mOthasfhools CIFWM~SCIWAS ri&uiAcoat atp 4.05. 

40 

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 

Less serious violent crime 

and property crime 

F3 Physical attack 

Threatened with a beating i' 

Theft, $1 or more - r-45 Theft, less than $ 1 

Serious violent crime 

Threatened with a knife 

Or gun F0 

Robbery, less than $1 r8 

Robbery, $1 or more 

4 

I 

Notc: NolleoftbedifkUllcab*wcm 0 10 20 30 PO 50 60 70 80 90 100 

pmbh high schmb and other high 

schools M smMrically SiIplifkrmt at 

p <0.05. 

Percent of students 

.Other schools ORoblem schools 
Teachers in problem middle schools experience more crime and feel more unsafe than teachers in other 

middle schools. (See Figure 2-1 1 .) 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 fiom 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.) 
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 

Lar wrlour violent crlme 

and property crlme I 

74 Any w* 

Physical attack, received 

minor injuries 

I 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 I( 

43 

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 

Less serious vlolent crime 

and property crime 

61 

Any type 

I 

Threatened in remarks by a 

studient* 

Received obscene remarks 

or gestures fiom a student* 

Damage to property. less 

than $lo* 

Damage to property. $1 o or more* 

Serious violent crime 

Physical attack, received 

minor injuries 

.. 

Confronted with a weapon* o.6 I" 

0 10 20 30 40 SO M) 70 80 90 IOE 

'Diffcrscc kMm problan high 

PtiniCany rQbt atp<0.05. Rlotherschoolr OPmbkmrcboob 

dumb and &a high rcbools k Percent of teachers 

25 

44 
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 ruleales 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 md 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 fiequently than they did other 

types. 

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

according to principals is prevention claht.iculum, 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 extmal personnel resources in classrooms 

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

programming or behavior modification; mxeatim, mrichmt, or leisure activities; and improvements to 

instructional practices. 

,. 1. 

45 
Table 3-1. Prevention activity categories and definitions 

Prevention activity category 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training 

Counseling, social work, or psychological and 

therapeutic interventions 

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms 

Culture or climate change, norm change 

Behavioral or behavior modification interventions 

Recreational, enrichment, and leisure activities 

Improvements to classroom organization and 

management 

Services to families 

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or apprenticeships 

Definition 

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. 

Provision of advice or guidance to remedy or prevent 

problems using identifiable techniques of psychology, 

counseling, or social work. 

Includes the use of parent or community volunteers, 

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

consultants, aides, or older students. 

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. 

Tracking student behavior, setting behavior goals, and 

feedback or punishment to decrease undesired behavior or 

rewards to increase desired behavior. 

Provision of, or access to, activities, play, amusement, or 

diversions; exploration outside the school; for fun or 

relaxation. 

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. 

~~ 

Outreach or service to families to improve their child 

management and supervision practices or to provide other 

family services. 

Provision of one-onsne attention to students other than 

counseling or behavioral programming. 

.r 

27 46 
Table 3-1. Prevention activity categories and definitions (continued) 

~ 

Prevention activity category 

Improvements to instructional practices 

Intergroup relations, interaction between school and 

community 

Youth roles in regulating and responding to student 

conduct 

Planning structure or process 

Security and surveillance 

Definition 

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. 

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. 

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). 

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. 

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 cunicuIum, 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. 

47 

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

School-wide arrangement ~ 

Simple provision of information regarding the 

mess of violence, drug use, or risky 

sexual behavior, or about the availability of 

services 

Reorganization of grades, classes, or school 

schedules 

Activities that influence the composition of the 

school’s population 

Treatment or prevention interventions for 

administration, faculty, or staff 

Architectural design or structural features of the 

school 

Definitions 

Information may be provided by using posters, newsletters, 

brochures, announcements, handouts, videos, slide shows, 

lectures, presentations, readings, or other methods. Infomation 

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

members. Does not include instruction or mining. Does not 

include information conveyed as part of any activity listed above. 

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. 

Include special student recruitment efforts, school specialization 

in attractive educational programs, selective admissions criteria, 

scholarshtps, assignment of students with educational or behavior 

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

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

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

health problems. 

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 fiequency of school-wide arrangement is 

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

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

43 29 
Figure 3-1. Percentage of schools using each type of prevention activity - 1997-98 school year 

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms 

Type of prevention activity 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training 

76 

49 'h . c 

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 fiom 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. 

50 

31 
Most Schools Communicate Rules to Students and McD~MQ,~. 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 onequarter of all schools (public and private schools 

combined) have rules regarding unifm; 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 refml system, or other methods for 

identifjmg and recording rule violatbns when they occur. Eighty percent of schools also have a. system 

for investigating a student's ~S~QV, pdmce, or ci~mMces to help decide what &.scigli 

action (if any) to impose. 

Schools Use a Variety of Responses 40 Desirable and Urndesirable Student Behavior 

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

conduct. The most common response to desirable behavior (96%) across a11 schools is inform1 

recognition or praise (e.g., oral praise), followed by formal recognition or praise (95%), and job 8% 

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 notifymg parents 
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%): 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 (ie., 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 

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

corporal punishment (Corporal Punishment, 2000). 

.’ I 52 

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

1997-98 school year 

Responses to desirable conduct 

lnfonnal recognition or 

praise 

Formal recognition or praise 

Job or privilege reinforcers 

Activity reinforcers 

9t 

9s 

87 

a4 

0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent of schools 

Social reward 

Material reward 

82 

81 
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; 

‘%, ..: I ?” 5 4 . .. . , .I.. 

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

prevention activity - 1997-98 school year 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training 

m 

I 

IW 

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic. 

1 I ..... 

IW 

Use of external penonnel resources in classrooms+ 

Culture of climate change, norm change 1\40"' 

Behavioral programming or behavior modification* 

Recreation, enrichment, or leisure" 

# 7LT 

Improvements of instructional practices 

yJ 

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or apprenticeship* 

Intergroup relations. interaction between schooVcommunity 

Improvements to classroom organization and management 

Planning structures or process 

s L(b 

Security or surveillance 

I.! Services to families 

71 Youth roles in regulating and responding to student conduct 

Reorganization of grades, classes or schedules* 100 

Simple provision of information 

Architectural features of the school* 

;, , , 

Treatment or prevention services for faculty or staff 

Activities that influence the composition of the population 56 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

*DiReAnce be- problem middle 

schools and other middle schools is 

statistically significant atpc0.05. 

Percent of schools 

.Other schools OPmblem schools 

55 36 
Figure 3-4. Percentage of problem high schools and other high schools using each type of 

prevention activity - 1997-98 school year 

Type of prevention activity 

Prevention cuniculum, instruction, or training 

Counseling, social work, psychological, or therapeutic+ 

71 Use of external 

Culture 

personnel 

or climate change, 

resoucces 

norm 

in classroom 

change+ sw I55 

59 Behavioral pmgmnuning or behavior modification 

-1 62 

69 Recreation, enrichment, or leisure 

Improvements of instructional practices I r18 

Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or apprenticeship 1 3y5 

Intergroup relations, interaction between schooVcommunity 

Improvements to classroom organization 

Planning structures or 

and management 

process IS

65 

Security or surveillance 

Services to families 

Youth roles in regulating end responding to student conduct 

Reorganization of grades, classes or schedules. 

Simple pmvision of infomation+ 

Architectural features of the school 

Treatment or prevention services for faculty or staff 

Activities that influence the composition of the population 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Percent of schools Diha krwcsl problem high schools sad oths 

igh schools is smtistiully sigifiemt ntp4.05. 

.Other schools ORoblan schools 
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 anival 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 schools20 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) fiequency 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 padfail 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 fiom 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. 
Figure 4-1. Percentage of programs or activities judged adequate for each quality 

measure - 1997-98 school year 

Quality measure 

Frequency of operation 75 

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 lessodsessions 

Best practices - methods 

~ 

Note: Each bar indicates the percentage of all progrms and 

activities judged "adequate" (i.e.. receiving a passing grade) on 

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

programs and activities were judged adequate on this quality 

meBSUE. Percent of all programs and activities judged adequate 

40 

59 
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 

(fiequency 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 program 

have some positive aspects, they fall short in tenns 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. 

"he 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 

fmt 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 

61 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? 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 overage 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 

mtices for methods and were rated as adequate on fiequency of participation by staff. The security and 

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

hundreds of progtam 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 uwmge percentage of quality measures judged adequate, 

(for our example) we would have summed the percentages for the programs (2100h) and divide by the number of programs (three) to obtain 70 

paeent. 

43 

62 
Figure 4-2. Average percentage of quality measures judged adequate for each type of prevention 

activity - 1997-98 school year 

Type of prevention activity 

Security and surveillance 

Interventions involving school planning structure or 

process to rnanage 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 

57 

57 

Intergroup relations or interaction between school 

and community 

Recreation, enrichment, or leisure 

Use of external personnel resources in classrooms 

Behavioral programming or behavior modification 

I 

Counseling, social work, psychological, 

or therapeutic activity 45 

Services or program for family members 

Note: Each bar indicates the perrentage of all pmpms and activities 

judged adequate (i.e., mxiving a passins grade) for a given type of 

premthn activity. For example, the bar labeled "security and surveillance" 

0 50 

*- '3 percent Of security and sweillanw Wm and Average percent of quality measures judged adequate activities WRC iudged adeaute. 
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: 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%). 

* 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 wen common to the problem middle schools. other middle schools, problem high schools, and other high schools. 

64-, 

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* 

Type of prevention activity - 60 

All prevention activities 

Interventions 

Security 

involving 

and surveillance 

school 

I' 

'

planning structure or process to 

manage change 

Classroom organization and 

management practices 

Mentoring, tutoring, 

job apprenticeship/plent 

coaching, I' 

55 

55 

Prevention curriculum, 

instruction, or training 

Behavior programming or 

behavior modification 

Counseling, social work, 

psychological or therapeutic 

Services or memk programs for family -42 

Yote: None of the differences I meen problem middle schools and 

bther middle schools are statistically 

dmificant at 04.05. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Average percent of quality measures judged adequate 

.Other schools URdblem schools 

65 

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 

Type of prevention activity 

I H I55 

All prevention activities 

__ Security and surveillanee 

1ntcmntion.s involving shoo1 I ____ 168 

planning sbuchvc or process to 

Classroom orgenization and 

lnanagmKnt practices 

Mentoring. tutoring, coaching. 

job apprcntiecship/placct 

Pmrmtion curriculum 

insbution. or trainine 

Behnvior propmming or 

behavior modification 

44 

44 

Counseling, social worlr. 

psychological or therapeutic 

10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 'Diff- between problem high 

lchoob md othn hi& schools is Average percent of quality measures judged adequate 

66 

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 ofien 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 highquality 

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 fiom 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 pennissible and by requiring and 

providing support for schools to engage in planning. 

First, some districts restrict the choice of SDFSCA-hded 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 fiom a list offered by the district. Districts for another 44 percent of schools offer a 

list of SDFSCA-hded prevention activities fiom 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 

67 

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 specifymg 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 

Chapter6, 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 

69 

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. 

I 

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 

70 

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, Gottfiedson 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 fiom 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 

71 

52 
Figure 5-1. Percentage of problem schools and other schools in districts reporting mandated school 

planning of prevention activities - 1997-98 school year 

Middle schools I 

Selection of programs or 

High schools 

using 

Administration 

Reparation 

Preparation 

activities 

prevention 

rePo* 

of 

from 

of 

plans 

resources* 

of 

progress 

a 

surveys 

list+ 

for 

- 

In 

Selection of programs or 

using 

Administration 

activities 

prevention 

from 

of 

resources 

surveys 

a list 

I

59 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

Difhmce krwcca problem schools md 

4.05. 

&nschools is statistically significant at Percent of schools 

Kldwr schools UPmbkm scbod, 

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 specifymg 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. 

73 

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 

Assistance on conducting 

needs assessments* 

Middle schools 

I 

96 

Tmining on program 

implementation 

Training on program 

planning and development 

I h 

91 

Assistance on conducting 

needs assessments 

77 

93 

Assistance on selecting 88 

prevention activities 

Training on program 

planning and development 

Assistance on conducting 

evaluations' 

I 82 

87 

High schools 

Training on program 100 

implementation* 

Assistance on selecting 95 

prevention activities 

Assistance on conducting 

evaluations 

I 

I 1 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 

'Difrmce kMea problem 

rhls and olhn schools is 

itatistically significant at pc0.05. 

Percent of schools 

.OthcrscbooL DRoblanachooh 

74~ 

55 
6. FUNDING FQR PREVENTION EFFORTS PN SCHOOLS 

The Safe md hg-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 SC~QO~S 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 prom providers and 

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

SDHSCA 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 Wded by SDFSCA. School principals and program providers within schools often 

are maware bt their prevention activities are hded by SDFSCA. FOP example, only 58 percent of 

principals hew 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-furnded prevention services to students. We view the 

discrepancy as reflecting the difficulty school principals have in distinguishing mong different types of 

services and funding received fiom their districts. 

75 

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? 

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 3 1% of schools). In addition to these funding sources, 5 1 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 hm 

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 

Equitable pa!ticipation by private school students is statutorily requid. 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 

mjor 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 usell 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 hds 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. 

77 

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 foml 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 

78 

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 helpll, for example, in 

identifjmg 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. Gottfkedson et al. (2000) discuss findings fiom 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 

Gottfiedson 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 

79 

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. 

.- 

80 

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) ahalysis. 

Sampling 

The sample was drawn hm 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)." Stratifylng 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. (Pnvate 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. 

lo The sampled high schools include a large percentage of schools that differ ftom what one typically considers a high school (i.e., schools with 

either 9th to 12th grade or loth 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 

loth to 12th grade enrollments account for only 33 pent of high schools nationally.) In addition to these combined schools, the sampled high 

schools include a number of vocational and alternative schools. 

81 

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 0 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 NU 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 confm 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 

82 

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 tirne-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 timeconsuming 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 staf€ 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. 

83 

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 instruments" that identified all prevention activities 

in the sampled school. 

rn 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, (1 0) sources of hding, ( 1 1) obstacles to implementation, 

(12) characteristics of provider, and (1 3) biographical information. 

Teachers'* 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; 

I' 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 program 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. 

'* Teachers were only surveyed in middle and high schools. 

Students were only surveyed in middle and high schools. .~ . ~ 

84 

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 ~Micials'~ 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 fiom the teacher and student surveys. 

Surveying Elementary School Staff. The principal was the first contact at elementary 

schools. He or she was asked to confm 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 

l4 District officials were only surveyed in districts with one or more middle schools or high schools participating in the study. 

85 

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 NU grant had begun earlier.” 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 &om 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 

A mcmorandum of undmtanding between the National Institute of Justice (NU) and the US. Departmnt of Education (ED) specified that 

Westat. under contract to ED, and Gottfredson Associates (GA). the recipient of a gant from NU. 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 genclally 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. 

I5 

86 

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 record their names 

on the answer sheets. In addition, we implemented procedures to discourage efforts to link personal 

identifylng 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. 

87 

68 
Response Rates 

Disposition 

Complete 

Nonresponse 

Total sample 

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 . 

Number Percent 

886 69 

40 1 31 

1,287 100 

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

Schools 

All schools 

Number Percent 

Participate 678 53 

Total sample 1,287 100 

Refuse 609 47 

Schools participating in 

screener survey* 

Number Percent 

678 77 

208 23 

886 100 

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 

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 A4 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. 

88 

69 
Table A-3. Principal response rate 

Complete 

Nonresponse 

Total schools 

Disposltion 

634 72 

252 28 

886 100 

School 

Number I Percent of eligible schools* 

Dispositlon 

Completed 

Number Percent of eliglble program* 

3,691 52 

*Schools were eligible if they completed a screener survey form.. 

Nonresponse 

Total sampled 

Table A-4. Provider response rate 

3,4 13 48 

7,104 100 

I Provider 

Disposition 

Teachers 

Number I Percent of elieible teachers* 

Refusal 

Nonresponse 

*hgram were eligible if they completed a screener survey form. 

4,7 19 23 

1,470 7 

Reasons for provider nonresponse include the following: 

other 

Total teachers 

Coordinator never distributed the questionnaires; 

~ ~~~ 

746 3 

20,777 100 

Appropriate respondent was ill; and 

rn 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 

Comlete I 13.842 I 67 

70 
Most of the nonresponse was a result of questionnaires not being distributed to all teachers. 

Reasons for “other” include the following: 

DiSpQSitiQIl 

Complete 

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. 

Number Percent of eligible .students* 

17,181 73 

Table A-6. Student response rate 

Rehsal 

Parent refusal 

I Students 

~~ ~ 

762 3 

1,307 6 

Nonresponse 

Other 

2,254 10 

1,629 7 

Absent 

Total sampled 

1 416 I 2 

23,549 100 

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, Gottfiedson 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 85 
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. 

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. Hn some cases, reasons for discrepancies were noted; 

in other cases, replacement swqs 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 GoPfredson 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 forins 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, 

m Screener 2 school-level nonresponse adjusted weights-to describe activity 

characteristics, 
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. 

l6 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. - 

90 

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 loth 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 fiactions. 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 stratifymg students by either grade or gender; hence, these were critical 

values for the weighting process. In some cases, because of data loss from the perforakd 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 

91 

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 fiequencies); 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 fiom a given questionnaire. Many of these measures had been used in 

earlier studies or designed as part of instrument development by Gottfiedson Associates. Gottfiedson 

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 

-_ 

92 I 

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. 

93 

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 Gottfiedson 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, Gottfiedson, 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. Gottfiedson, Gottfredson, & Skroban (1998); D. C. Gotttiedson, Fink, 

Skroban, & Gottfiedson, 1997; G. D. Gottfiedson, Jones, & Gore (in press); and Jones, Gottfiedson, & 

Gottfiedson (1 997). 

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) fiequency of operation, (5) number of lessons or sessions, (6) 

94 

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 I Possible range of responses 

Level of use by school personnel I 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 

Best practices for methods 

Best practices for content 

Frequency of operation 

Number of lessons and sessions 

Duration 

Frequency of participation by students 

Frequency of participation by staff 

Ratio of providers to students in the 

school 

Proportion of students exposed or 

participating 

basis) 

Ranges from 0 to 100 percent* 

Ranges from 0 to 100 percent* 

Ranges fiom “1” (special occasions once or twice P year) to “3” 

(continually throughout the year) ’ 

This question had an open response category in which the respondent 

could write in the exact number of lessons or sessions 

Ranges from “1” (less than a day) to “7” (more than a full school year) 

Ranges from “1” (monthly or less often) to “6” (more than once a day) 

Ranges fiom “1” (monthly or less often) to “6” (more than once a day) 

100 (In(NJNs+l)), where Np= number of persons providing the service and 

N,= the numk of students in the school 

Generally, NJN,, where N,= number of students exposed or participating 

and N,= number of students in the school. For the category youth 

participation in school decision making, N,= disciplinary incidents 

handled by student court of peer mediation and N,= 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 cumculum, insbuction, 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 

cumculum, 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 anythng. 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 

95 

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-analyhc 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. - 

96 

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 [Tiemey et 

al., 19951). In developing the “adequacy” criteria for each dimension of quality and each program 

activity, Gary Gottfredson and Denise Gottfiedson, 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. Gottfiedson, 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 fiaction 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 fiom 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. Gottfiedson et al., 2000). 

97 

80 
Table B-2. Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for quality measures that have 

similar criteria across program or activity types 

Level of use by school personnel 

Best practice for methods 

Best practices for content 

Quality measures with common minimum 

criteria across program or activity types 

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" 

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 

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 

Minimum criteria required to 

be judged adequate 

98 

81 
Table B-3. Criteria used to assess adequacy or best practices for quality measures that have 

different criteria across program or activity types* 

Mentoring 

Tutoring 

Recreation, enrichment, leisure 

Recreation, enrichment, leisure 

Mentoring 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

Planning structure or management of change 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 

At least weekly 

At least weekly 

Servicedprograms for family members 

External personnel resources for classroom 

Improvements to instructional practices 

Behavioral programming or behavioral modeling 

Security and surveillance 

More than once per week 

Culture, climate or expectations 

Intergroup relations and school-community interaction 

Planning structure or management of change 

Security and surveillance 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

At least 2 to 3 times per month 

At least daily 

community interaction 

Security and surveillance 

Intergroup relations and school community interaction 

Youth participation in discipline 

Greater than or equal to 70% 

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. 

99 

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 item 

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; Gottfkedson, D.C., 2001; Gottfkedson, 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). 

i 100 
Table B-4. Measures of quality for school-wide discipline practices and cut points for assessing 

adequacy 

Measure 

Best practices for 

communication and 

documentation 

Best practices for 

range of appropriate 

responses to 

misconduct 

Best practices for 

range of appropriate 

responses to desirable 

conduct 

~~~ ~ 

Best practices for 

disciplinarian 

consistency 

Best practices fox 

predictable 

disciplinary 

decisionmaking 

Explanation 

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. 

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. 

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 foxmal recognition or praise. A 

higher percentage means that a greater variety of 

potential reinforcers are used. 

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) idare administering discipline with 

greater consistency. 

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. 

Possible 

range of 

responses 

0 to 100% 

0 to 100% 

0 to 100% 

0 to 100% 

1 to 5 

Cut point 

for 

adequacy 

70% 

70% 

~ 

70% 

70% 

4 

101 

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. (1 993). 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: 

2989 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. 

Gottfiedson, 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: W%at 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. 

Gottfiedson, D.C. (200 1). Delinquency and schools. New York Cambridge University Press. 

Gottfiedson, D. C., Fink, C. M., Skroban, S., & Gottfiedson, G. D. (1997). Making prevention work. In 

Weissberg, R. P., Gullotta, T. P., Hampton, R. L., & Adams, G. R. (eds.), Healthy children 2020: 

Establishingpreventive services. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Gottfiedson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Skroban, S. (1998) Can prevention work where it is needed 

most? Evaluation Review, 22, 3 15-340. 

Gottfiedson, 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. 

Gottfiedson, G.D., and Gottfiedson, D.C. (1985). Victimization in schools. New York: Plenum. 

Gottfiedson, 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: Gottfiedson 

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. 

102 

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 program. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (1998). Outcome measuresfiom 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., & Gottfkdson, 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, 275,1729-1 733. 

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 andpractice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Tierney, J. P., Grossman, 9. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a diflerence: An impact study of Big 

BrotherdBig Sisters. Philadelphia: PublicPrivate Ventures. 

103 

86 
A CLOSER LOOK AT DRUG AND 

VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTS IN AMERICAN 

SCHOOLS 

REPORT ON THE STUDY ON SCHOOL 

VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION 
A CLOSER LOOK AT 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: 

David Cantor 

Scott Crosse 

Carol A. Hagen 

Michael J. Mason 

Amy J. Siler 

Adrienne von Glatz 

Westat, Inc. 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

In affiliation with: 

Gottfredson Associates, Inc. 

3239 B 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 Sewice 

Alan L. Ginsburg 

Director 

Elementary and Secondary Education Division 

Ricky Takai 

Director 

May 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: Cantor, D., Crosse, S., Hagen, 

C.A., Mason, M.J., Siler, A.J., von Glatz, A. (2001). A Closer Look at Drug and Violence Prevention Eflorts 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 1-877433-7827 (1-8774-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 0, should call 8-800437-0833. 

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

This report is also available on the department’s web site at www.ed.rrov/offices/OUS/PES/eval.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) 205-81 13. 

105 
EXECUTIVE S ARY 

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

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

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

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

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

SDFSCA. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the study questions: 

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

by students and teachers, and ,how students and teachers perceive the safety of their 

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

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

implementation. These efforts include formal curricular programs as well as disciplinary 

practices and policies, and security measures. Observations on school climate are 

presented here. 

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

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

0 

106 

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

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

safe and unsafe schools. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from our surveys of principals, teachers, and students. 

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

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

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

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

and a sample of students. 

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

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

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

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

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

contrast characteristics that distinguish safe from unsafe schools. 

107 .. 

11 
Disorder in Schools 

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

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

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

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

they very rarely were attacked or threatened with a weapon. 

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

visited were predominantly fi.ee of serious violence, less serious incidents still could have contributed to 

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

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

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

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

team characterized their school as "unsafe." 

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

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

visits found that: 

0 

0 

Collection fonns vary widely among schools, 

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

Victims and offenders are rarely reported in systems. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

" As used. "serious crime" refers to crimes such as aggmvatcd assault, weapons violations. and robbery. 

108 

... 

111 
(incident, victim, and offender) seemed to be in place in most schools to support the unit-based collection 

system recommended by the task force. 

Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior 

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

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

climate. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

109 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

individual style across teachers and other staff. 

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

goals outlined by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI] (1 993) and Kelly et al. 

(1986). 

StaWstudent relationshbs. The majority of the sites reported good communication between 

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

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

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

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

noncollaborative, unapproachable, unengaged and intimidating. 

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

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

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

deal of emphasis on extracurricular aspects. 

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

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

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

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

, 

110, 

V 
serious infiactions. The administrator was responsible for assigning punishment and contacting parents. 

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

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

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

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

gave them a voice in management issues. 

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

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

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

Planning 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinguishing Middle Schools with Different Levels of Disorder 

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

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

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

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

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

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

111 

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

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

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

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

disorder schools were victims of such violent incidents. This range (1 1%) was exceeded by the range for 

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

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

schools, this analysis was restricted to middle schools. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

warranted. This is especially true for security devices. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

between teachers and administrators. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

112 

vii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ExECuTrn SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1 

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

Historical Context and Literature Review ........................................................ 1 

Study on School Violence and Prevention and Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

and Communities Act Program ........................................................................ 2 

Study Questions ............................................................................................... 3 

Overview of Study Design and Report Organization ....................................... 4 

METHODS ...................................................................................................... 6 

Intensive Level School Selection ..................................................................... 6 

Data Collection ................................................................................................. 6 

Strengths and Limitations ................................................................................ 7 

Analysis ............................................................................................................ 7 

DISORDER IN SCHOOLS ............................................................................. 9 

Methods ............................................................................................................ 9 

Disorder in the Schools .................................................................................... Perceptions of Safety and Disorder .................................................................. Incident Reporting and Monitoring in Schools ................................................ 

10 

16 

17 

EFFORTS TO PREVENT PROBLEM BEHAVIOR ...................................... 25 

Violence Prevention Actmhes ......................................................................... 25 

School Security ................................................................................................ 40 

School Discipline Practices and Policies ......................................................... 49 

School Climate ................................................................................................. 58 

... 

PLA."G ..................................................................................................... 65 

Characteristics of Planning Structures ............................................................. 66 

68 

Summary and Discussion ................................................................................. 70 

Factors Associated with Development of Planning Structures ........................ 

DISTINGUISHING MIDDLE SCHOOLS WITH DIFFERENT 

LEVEES OF DISORDER ................................................................................ 72 

Method ............................................................................................................. 72 

74 

What Makes a Difference? ............................................................................... 78 

References ........................................................................................................ 81 

Describing Middle Schools with Different Levels of Disorder ....................... 

APPENDIX A .................................................................................................. 83 

113 

viii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

List of Tables 

- Table Page 

4- 1 Prevention Activity Categories and Defmitions.. ............................................. 26 

4-2 School Wide Arrangements and Definitions .................................................... 28 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 

4- 1 Examples of Schools with good Student/Staff Relationships .......................... 59 

6- 1 Profiles of Low Disorder Middle Schools ........................................................ 74 

6-2 Profiles of High Disorder Middle Schools ....................................................... 76 

114 

ix 
A Closer Look at Drug and Violence Prevention 

Efforts in American Schools 

Report on the Study on School Violence and 

Prevention 

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 should be safe havens fiom violence. This report 

examines the status of school safety in a cross-section of 40 public secondary schools; it also assesses 

what schools are doing to promote safety and prevent problem behavior. 

In recent years, the murder of students in a Littleton, Colorado high school and in a half 

dozen other schools have led to a sense of great urgency to understand school violence and ensure school 

safety. These tragic events seized public attention, in part, because they occurred in settings that we 

usually associate with safety: schools in rural or suburban communities. As a result, many parents began 

to question the safety of their own children in their local schools. For example, seven months after the 

Columbine deaths, 60 percent of Americans indicated that school safety "womed them a great deal" 

(Brooks et al., 2000). Policy-makers and parents demanded action that could stem what they perceived as 

a crisis situation, in spite of the fact that, as most available data indicate, schools are relatively safe places. 

In the last decade, several studies have investigated the prevalence of school crime and some 

of the factors associated with it. For example, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice (2000) 

report that 50 school-associated violent deaths occurred nationally during the complete 1998-99 school 

1 is 1 
yea?, which is down hm the 60 school-associated violent deaths reported by Kaufman et al. (2000) for 

the previous school ye& (see also Stephens, 1999 and U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, 1999). 

Of the 60 school-associated deaths reported in the 1997-98 school year, 42 involved student homicides or 

suicides (Kaufinan et al, 2000). As a point of comparison, approximately 4,771 young people between 

the ages of 5-19 were victims of homicide or suicide in non-school settings during the 1997-98 school 

year (Kaufinan et al, 2000). Other studies that have investigated school crime 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); and School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (Chandler 

et al., 1998). For the most part, these studies have found that the more serious types of school crime (e.g., 

violence with a weapon) is relatively rare, though less serious types of crime (e.g., theft and physical 

fights without weapons) are much more prevalent. For example, Violence and Discipline Problems in 

U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97 (Heaviside et al, 1998) indicated that approximately 10 percent of public 

elementary and secondary schools reported one or more serious crimes (i.e., murder, rape or other type of 

sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight with a weapon, or robbery) to the police, while 57 percent 

of schools reported any incident of school crime. 

In response to concerns about school crime, researchers and school personnel have 

developed and implemented a wide variety of prevention and treatment interventions. Some of these 

interventions are geared towards individuals, potential victims or offenders; other interventions focus on 

the school environment, for example, seeking to increase “guardianship” in the schools. Some of these 

interventions have been evaluated under controlled conditions and produced encouraging outcomes. (See 

Gottfkedson et al., 2000.) However, little is known about the types and number of prevention efforts 

currently being implemented in schools. In addition, while we know that interventions are only as 

effective as they are well implemented, research on the implementation quality of these school-based 

interventions has been rare. 

The Study on School Violence and Prevention was developed to increase understanding of 

some of the issues surrounding school safety and prevention efforts as well as to meet congressional 

July 1.1998-June 30,1999. 

’ July 1,1997-June 30,1998. 

116 2 
reporting requirements linked to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) 

Program. As the largest school-based federal program directed at preventing student drug use and 

promoting school safety, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Program has been 

instrumental in funding school-based prevention efforts. This program, administered by the U.S. 

Department of Education (ED), provides funding to states, each of which has both a state education 

agency (SEA) program and a Governor’s program. The SEAS distribute almost all of the funds to local 

school districts; 70 percent of these funds go to school districts by formula (based on relative student 

enrollments), and the remaining 30 percent of funds go to districts that have the greatest needs for 

additional funds to implement prevention programs. The Governor’s programs award grants to 

community agencies and public and private nonprofit entities. The districts and other grantees support 

prevention activities at the school and community levels. 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Study on School Violence and Prevention has been guided by several study questions 

that emphasize issues critical to policy makers and school officials. These issues are the extent and nature! 

of problem behavior in schools; types and quality of prevention efforts underway in schools; planning and 

funding of prevention efforts; and factors and processes that contribute to school safety. The study 

questions are as follows. 

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

3 
0 What types of efforts are underway in schools to prevent problem behavior? 

0 How well are efforts to prevent problem behavior implemented? 

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

prevention options to improve school management 

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

prevention efforts? 

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

unsafe schools? 

Although the Study on School Violence and Prevention 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. 

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

analysis efforts. 

0 For the “national level” of the study, we conducted secondary analyses of the data 

collected for the RincipaVSchool Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence, which was 

sponsored by the National Center on Education Statistics (Heaviside et a1 1998); this 

survey collected infoxmation on school crime and violence prevention efforts fiom 

administrators in a probability sample of public elementary and secondary schools. 

0 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. 

0 The “intensive level” of the study drew on detailed quantitative and qualitative 

information collected hm 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 intensive level of 

the study. We will report on the national and intermediate levels of the study separately. 

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

as follows. 

0 Chapter 2 summarizes the methods for the intensive level study. 

118 4 
0 Chapter 3 presents findings on 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. This chapter also describes incident 

reporting systems. 

0 Chapter 4 discusses efforts used by schools to prevent problem behavior and the quality 

of their implementation. These efforts include formal curricular programs as well as 

disciplinary practices and policies, and security measures. The chapter also covers the 

school climate that we observed. 

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

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

0 Chapter 6 presents the results of efforts to compare schools that differ on the extent of 

problem behavior. These results allow us to consider the characteristics and processes 

that distinguish safe and unsafe schools. 

Appendix A describes the study methods in detail. 

119 5 
Methods 

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

purposive sample of 40 schools. In this chapter, we briefly describe the methods used in this study. We 

cover school selection, data collection, and analysis. We also discuss the strengths and limitations of QW 

methods. For a filler discussion of the study’s methodology, please refer to Appendix A. 

In selecting schools for the intensive level study, we identified schools that differed on 

school safety, but were similar on background characteristics associated with sa€ety. This approach was 

designed to permit us to answer the study question on the policy-relevant characteristics and processes 

that distinguish safe and unsafe schools. We then drew a purposive sample of 40 public secondmy schools 

(20 middle and 20 senior high schools). The criteria for selecting the schools included the following: 

o Instructional level - middle schools and senior high schools; 

Number of students enrollehmall and large schools; and 

Metropolitan sta-ban, suburban, and rural schools. 

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

schools in the intensive level study. The primary vehicle for collecting this infoxmation was ome round of 

three-day site visits to each of the schools. Site visitors made systematic observations; reviewed records 

on incidents of violence; and conducted in-depth interviews with district officials, principals, md school 

staff. With the assistance of the school coordinator, we also conducted surveys of all teachers and a 

sample of students. 

6 120 
The topics covered by this study overlapped with those covered by the intermediate level 

study. However, the intensive level study went into greater depth and drew fiom additional sources (e.g., 

police and school security staff). In addition, other topics that are difficult to capture well in surveys, such 

as local dynamics (e.g., youth gang activity) that contribute to school violence, were investigated in this 

intensive level study. 

Wherever possible, the data collection drew from extant instruments and design strategies. 

Survey items have built on an established research base to ensure the study's ability to measure 

implementation and school climate. Many questions were drawn fiom studies previously conducted in 

the areas of school safety and discipline, youth violence, victimization, and drug use. 

We conducted within-school analyses for the 40 individual schools as well as cross-school 

analyses. The site visitors conducted within-school analyses as they developed case study reports based 

primarily on the qualitative information that they collected on site. These reports conformed to a detailed 

report outline that has tied to the data collection instruments. The analysts combined information across 

sources to address topics in their reports. As needed, the site visitors or other project staff recontacted 

respondents to clarify information or to collect additional information. For a detailed discussion of 

analysis, please refer to Appendix A. 

The intensive level study is the first study in over 20 years to examine in detail what schools 

are doing to promote school safety. One of the greatest strengths of this study is that it combined 

quantitative and qualitative information. The quantitative information, mainly the student and teacher 

survey data, offered strong broad information that represented each school with fairly high precision. The 

qualitative information complemented the quantitative information by offering details and insights that 

are typically unavailable with surveys. 

Another strength of the study is that it captured a broad range of perspectives and topics 

linked to the research questions. At a given school, we collected information from over ten different 

sources. Each source offered a unique lens on complex school safety issues. 

121: 7 
A limitation of the intensive level study is that we are unable to generalize findings from it to 

other schools. The nonprobability selection of schools and sample sizes underlie this limitation. Another 

related limitation is that the assignment of schools to cells was imperfect. As mentioned, we based our 

measures of safety on survey data from a previous component of the study. Student survey data, one of 

those sources, were based on relatively small sample sizes that limited the precision of the measures. 

Hence, we found that-ing more precise measures based on larger samples of student-ome schools 

were misclassified on safety. Perhaps more importantly, despite our best efforts, a very large percentage 

of the schools included in the sample did not vary much along measures of disorder. This may be the 

result of the relatively high non-response rate associated with the intermediate study. The schools that 

complied with the survey requests tended to be safer, better managed schools. As a result, the site visits, 

which were based on the intermediate sample, did not include as wide a range of schools along the 

disorder dimension as would have been ideal for this type of analysis. 

A final limitation follows fiom our approach of having the site visitors conduct the withinschool analyses. While we gained strong summary reports that facilitated the cross-site analyses, we lost 

some of the detail that we potentially could have had in those analyses. In the cross-site analyses, we 

would have had stronger analyses had we relied on, for example, interview transcripts, rather than 

summary reports. With many different site visitors, we also introduced some “error” into the withinschool analyses that carried over to the cross-site analyses. 

122 8 
Disorder in Schools 

The purpose of this chapter is to address two questions: 

0 What type of disorder is most prevalent in the sampled schools? 

0 How do the sampled schools record and monitor disorder occurring in school? 

The first question elaborates on analysis reported by the survey data (Gottkdson et al., 

2000; Crosse et al., forthcoming). The intent of this chapter is to provide examples and descriptive 

information on the type of disorder that occurred in the sample schools, as well as providing some insight 

into how disorder may translate into levels of fear by the students and staff in the school. 

Addressing the second question should provide background on the types of systems sch~ools 

liave in place to monitor and evaluate the level of disorder in their schools. Recent initiatives by the U. S. 

Department of Education have encouraged districts and schools to begin recording and tracking incidents 

of disorder in a systematic way. This should provide the schools with a useful tool for monitoring 

potential problems and evaluating any interventions that are targeted to reduce disorder. It should also 

allow far more systematic collection of this type of data across schools for purposes of state and national 

reporting. 

This chapter is based on data from three different sources of information. Much of the 

discussion is based on data collected by the site visitors. This includes interviews with key persons on the 

staff, as well as direct observations of the functioning of the school. The second source of information is 

the surveys that were distributed to teachers and students in the school. As noted in Chapter 2, these 

surveys were identical to those that were used for the national analysis (Gottfkedson et al., 2000; Crosse et 

al., forthcoming) and include items on victimization in school, delinquency and perceptions of safety 

within the school. The third source is information abstracted by the site visitors fiom reports prepared by 

schools on incidents that occurred within the schools. 

123' 9 
Overall, the site visitors found that the vast majority of the schools have relatively low levels 

of serious crime4. This was borne out by the surveys of students and teachers. While fighting was 

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

the same school. Theft was much more common than robbery’. While teachers may have been verbally 

abused by students, they very rarely were attacked or threatened with a weapon. Similarly, data taken 

from the abstracts documenting crimes reported to the police found only two schools had called the police 

regarding a fight with a weapon, and no calls were made with regard to two robberies occuning in the 

schools. In this section, the prevalence of different types of incidents is described, along with site visitor 

observations in schools. 

Characterizing Disorder in Schools 

The survey data indicated that 6 percent of students reported they had been threatened with a 

knife or gun, and less than 1 percent of teachers reported having a weapon pulled on them. Seven percent 

of students claimed to have been physically robbed, or forced to hand over, items worth more than $1, 

and 6 percent of students were robbed of items worth less than $1. Three percent of teachers reported that 

they were physically attacked during the school year, and less than 1 percent were seriously hurt. Seven 

percent of students admitted hitting or threatening to hit a teacher or other adult at school, and 14 percent 

of students actually witnessed a teacher being physically attacked by a student at school. 

The predominant type of disorder found in the schools involved much less serious incidents. 

Fighting was found in every school, but infrequently resulted in serious injury, rarely involved weapons, 

and was unlikely to be identified as gang activity. Regarding drugs and alcohol, personnel in several 

schools reported having a problem with students smoking, drinking, or getting high in school; and a fair 

number of students reported easy access to, favorable attitudes toward, and personal use of alcohol and 

drugs. Perhaps the most widely cited types of disorder in the schools, however, involved student 

disruptive behavior in the classrooms and insubordination to teachers. Truancy, tardiness, and cutting 

class also were quite common in the schools. Property damage, such as vandalism and graffiti, occurred 

in most schools, but was rarely thought to be problematic. 

‘ As used in this chapter, “serious crime” refers to crimes such as aggravated assault, weapons violations, and robbery. 

’ Theft is the unlawful taking of property without violence or threat. Robbery is the unlawful taking of pmperty by violence or threat. 

124 10 
Below, we describe the types of crimes that were found in the schools and the reactions 

students and staff had when asked about their occurrence. 

Fighting. Student altercations occurred to some degree in every school. Based on 

interviews with staff and students, verified by incident reports, about onequarter of the schools in our 

sample (mostly middle schools) had frequent fighting, as much as several times a day; in other schools it 

occurred less fiequently, around once a month or so. Site visitors observed fights at a few schools, as 

well as the afiermath at one school in which the principal had sustained a broken finger from trying to 

break up a fight. Fights resulting in serious injuries were rarely reported. Across all schools studied, 

about one in three fights that the principal found out about were reported to police. 

Almost a quarter of students surveyed said that they had to “fight to protect themselves” at 

school, and 18 percent of students said that someone had threatened them with a beating at school. 

Fighting was the highest reported type of delinquent behavior in the surveys, with 38 percent of students 

admitting that they “hit or threatened to ht other students” in the last 12 months. 

As previously mentioned, fights rarely involved the use of weapons. This is not to say that 

weapons were absent from schools. Possession of a weapon, mostly knives, was cited by several school 

administrators to have occurred at least once in the past year or so. Hunting knives were popular in rural 

schools. These schools tended to have rules that permitted the possession of a knife shorter than one inch 

long. Only the school personnel in a few urban areas seemed concerned about weapons. In one of these 

schools, razor knives and mace were common, and in the other school, weapons were confiscated about 

six times a year. As students at one school described, knives usually were brought to school for 

protection, although a few brought them to show off. Less than 10 percent of students surveyed reported 

carrying a “hidden weapon other than a pocket knife.” (We were unable to discern the extent to which 

these weapons included guns.) The site visits indicated, however, that if weapons were present in the 

schools, they were rarely used to harm or threaten another person. 

Fights in our sample of schools were unlikely to be caused by gang activity. Although 

personnel and students from several schools admitted the presence of “gang-wannabes,” site visitors 

rarely saw any evidence of gang activity in the schools. Some findings pointed to gang dealings outside 

of school. Administrators from one urban school claimed to have five different gangs that caused trouble 

off campus. Ten percent of the students surveyed reported having been involved in gang fights, and 7 

percent of students reported belonging to a gang that engaged in “fighting, stealing, or selling drugs.” 

BB 125 ~- 
Similarly, interviews with school personnel and students rarely mentioned racial tension, 

especially as a motivator to fight. This is note worthy because almost half (16) of the schools in our 

sample had more than 25 percent of its students in a race/ethnic group (or groups) other than the majority 

race/ethnic group at the school. Only one school principal claimed that students fought due to differences 

among identifiable groups, which were mainly attributed to socioeconomic levels and where the students 

lived. 

Fighting was explained to most likely be the result of “petty” issues or gossip directly related 

to alleged activities of individuals, fiiendship groups, or cliques. Several school officials noted the rise of 

fighting among girls. As the Assistant Principal at one school described, fights often were brought upon 

because “she looked at me the wrong way” or “she was after my boyfriend." Students felt that fighting 

was prevalent at one mid-size, rural middle school, because some students came to school in the mornings 

angry and ready to fight; these students would fight students of other cliques (defined by race, family, 

socioeconomic level, and the place where they lived). One of the site visitors reported that, “There was a 

general attitude among the students that they had to fight to establish themselves, and that their parents 

encouraged that as a way of resolving conflicts. Students come from homes where fighting is a normative 

way of solving problems, and they therefore feel it should be okay in school.” 

Theft. Theft showed up in nearly half the schools that provided incident records, but was 

reported to be a problem in only a quarter of the schools. (Again, theft refers to unlawful taking of 

property without violence or threat.) Administrators who talked about this type of incident reported that 

most of the problems were minor theft, consisting of student possessions being taken from unlocked 

lockers or gym locker rooms. From the student surveys, 44 percent of students said that someone had 

stolen something worth less than $1, while 42 percent of the students said that things were stolen that 

were worth $1 or more. Teachers, too, reported being victims of theft, although in fewer numbers than 

the students who reported being victimized in this way. Twenty-one percent of teachers had personal 

property worth more than $10 stolen fiom them, while 11 percent had more valuable items stolen. 

Classroom Disruptions. All but a few schools in our study had data that supported some 

type of student disruptive behavior as a prevalent type of disorder in the school. Mostly, the disruptive 

behavior took place in the classroom and included such things as students talking, being loud or unruly, 

calling names, using profanity, engaging in roughhousing or “horseplay,” not remaining seated, refusing 

to follow directions, throwing things, or chewing gum. Similar types of disruptive behavior frequently 

were reported on the busses, too. Dress code violations were mentioned at a fair number of schools. 

Some schools were more serious about this rule than others. 

126 12 
More than three-fourths of the teachers surveyed said that they spent at least some time each 

day coping with disruptive student behavior, and 28 percent of teachers claimed that the disruptive 

behavior kept them from teaching a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of the time. Overall, however, 

teachers reported that they maintained a fair amount of classroom order. Generally, students paid 

attention in class, did not take things that didn’t belong to them, and seldom damaged property. From the 

survey, almost all teachers (96%) stated that students “almost always” or “often” did what the teachers 

asked. The main problem teachers faced was with students talking at inappropriate times. Almost half 

the teachers noted that this occurred “sometimes,” and 32 percent said that it happened “oh.” While 

students seldom tried to physically hurt, make threat to, or curse at others, 73 percent of teachers reported 

that students did tease one another. A majority of teachers reported that students were distracted by the 

misbehavior of others, but classroom activity rarely came to a stop because of discipline problems. 

Insubordination to Teachers. Another common type of disruptive student behavior 

involved insubordination. This involves students showing blatant disrespect for a teacher’s authority. 

Every school in our sample had reported incidents of this type, and many of the staff who were 

interviewed cited this as a prevalent problem in their schools. The severity of this type of incident varied 

among schools. In some of the more serious examples, students yelled at teachers, swore at them, and 

even harassed or threatened them. Many teachers and administrators suggested that students were 

becoming more disrespectful throughout the years and refusing to listen or remain under control. 

“Sassiness” was a term commonly used to describe the students’ behavior. One principal thought that, 

“Students are getting more rude each year,” and believed that it was because, in part, “there’s less parental 

backing each year.” 

Harassment, including sexual harassment or threatening behavior, against students and 

sometimes teachers, was reported in a few of the schools’ incident reports. Nearly 30 percent of students 

surveyed reported seeing a teacher threatened by a student. Very few teachers reported being physically 

attacked, but a fair number of teachers were threatened (1 8%) or received obscene remarks or gestures 

(39%) from a student. 

Truancy. Next to classroom disruptions and disrespect for authority, truancy-related 

incidents were another prevalent type of disorder, as found in nearly half the schools. These incidents 

included, in addition to being truant from school, skipping class OT coming late to class. In some cases, 

students would leave school or walk out of a class without permission. At one specific school, tardy 

incidents were estimated to represent 85 percent of all the problems at the school. In addition, some 

school personnel also complained that a majority of students failed to report to detention. Many schools 

had specific policies to deal with attendance and tardy violations. 

127 -- -- 

13 
Property Crimes. Property damage such as vandalism or graffiti did occur at the schools, 

as well, but was rarely mentioned as a prevalent type of disorder. Although site visitors observed 

property damage, it was not reported as a problem to the site visitors. Similarly, about 1 in 5 students 

admitted to destroying either school property (17%) or personal property not belonging to them (20%) in 

the last 12 months. 

Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drugs. School administrators, teachers, and students fiom 

several schools reported that tobacco was a major problem in their schools. Site visitors confirmed these 

reports by personal observations of some students smoking outside, as well as evidence from cigarette 

butts on school grounds and ashes in the bathrooms. 

Other drugs and/or alcohol were reported to be a prevalent problem in about one-fourth of 

the schools. When specified, the drug of choice most often was marijuana. At one school, site visitors 

observed a group of students smoking marijuana outside the school. At a few other schools, visitors 

witnessed or heard about numerous violations involving alcohol in school. In most of these schools with 

reported drug problems, however, site visitors did not witness any such disorder. The schools with drug 

and alcohol problems could not easily be distinguished from schools without these problems. In fact, at 

one school where administrators reported about 30 percent of its student population using or selling drugs 

(including within and outside of school), site visitors observed low levels of student disorder and only a 

few recorded incidents of dmg violations. 

From the student surveys, we learned that drugs and alcohol were available to students. The 

majority of students claimed that obtaining certain substances was “easy” or “very easy”: cigarettes 

(68%), alcohol (62%), and marijuana (51%). Regarding “other drugs,” 43 percent of students reported 

easy access to these. We are unable to discem, however, whether students thought that they could get 

these drugs within or outside the school. 

Most students reportedly kept most of their drug and alcohol activity outside of the school. 

Only 15 percent of the students admitted to going to school when they were drunk or high on some drugs. 

This supports observations by site visitors and personal accounts by staff and students that showed 

minimal disorder due to drug and alcohol activity in the schools. 

Site Visitor Descriptions 

The discussion above provides a picture of the types of incidents that occurred in the 

schools. Site visitors also conducted observations at the schools by walking the halls both during classes 

128 14 
and in between class changes. They also went into bathrooms, walked around the school campus, 

monitored student traffic as the school day started and ended, observed lunch periods, and looked into 

classrooms. The visitors were instructed to note any disorder among the students, such as rowdiness and 

high noise level, amount of loitering in the halls during classes, and other signs of misconduct such as 

smoking or fighting. 

In roughly one-third of the schools, site visitors noted some student disorder. They observed 

“stragglers” in the hallways during classes, running and pushing in the hallways and near busses, andor 

noisy cafeterias or classrooms. As previously noted, some site visitors observed students smoking outside 

(in one case they were smoking marijuana), and a few fights also were witnessed. In one particular 

school with a lot of student disorder, one site visitor observed, ‘‘While bedlam my be an exaggeration, 

children do run and yell between classes. This level of noise and motion increased dramatically during 

lunch and after school. The school gym, cafeteria and bus lines were chaotic, even when adults were 

present.” 

In about the same number of schools, however, site visitors observed very low levels of 

student disorder. They reported students moving about at a leisurely, orderly pace, with low levels of 

noise and no loitering in the halls. Students in these schools appeared to be on task in the classrooms. As 

one site visitor obserired, “Overall, we found the students polite, fiiendly, and orderly. No shoving or 

rough-housing was witnessed during the site visit.” A site visitor from a different school reported, “The 

students, observed during class changes and while boarding the buses at the end of school, were 

extremely orderly and noticeably polite to each other and to the adults monitoring the area.” 

Disorder was most likely to occur in areas without a lot of supervision or monitoring, such as 

bathrooms or areas outside the school. Lunch periods and other times when large numbers of students 

congregate without adequate adult supervision also were cited as places where disruption was more likely 

to occur. Several school administrators mentioned that students waited until after school to cause trouble. 

Bathrooms were most commonly cited as places for student disorder in the school, mainly due to 

smoking, along with a few examples of fights and vandalism. In the student surveys, bathrooms were the 

most common places in the school that students reported staying away from, cited by almost 15 percent of 

the students. Fifteen percent of teachers also reported that student bathrooms were not safe from 

vandalism, personal attacks (on students, teachers, and others), and theft. Isolated areas outside the 

school also were commonly used for fighting or smoking, and represented the next highest percentage of 

student response from the surveys (14%) regarding places they stay away from. Gym locker rooms 

without adult supervision provided opportunities for theft, and 13 percent of teachers thought that these 
areas were unsafe (for teachers, students, and others). Students skipped school fiom unsupervised student 

parking lots and vandalized cars. 

During lunch periods, large numbers of students were confined to one place with few adult 

monitors. This was a common time of the day for student disorder, particularly in regard to high noise 

level and rowdiness. According to site visitors at one school, “Lunch is very loud with lots of movement 

fiom table to table and fiom the cafeteria to the gym where lunch-goers play basketball and run around. 

Even though adults are present, no attempt was made to keep the noise level down. The kids were so loud 

we didn’t hear the belh teacher had to come outside to tell the students to come in.” Interviews with 

students and staff fiom other schools as well, showed that fighting was most likely to occur during 

lunchtime. 

Similarly, areas of bus arrivals and departures were potential sites for disorder. Site visitors 

at one school described the scene as “pandemonium,” citing examples of one student slapping someone 

and another student throwing pencils. Personnel fiom a few schools cited the majority of their student 

disorder occurring on the buses themselves. Again, these are areas with a lot of students and little adult 

supervision. 

Fear of disorder interferes with the leaming process. Even though the schools visited were 

predominantly fiee of serious violence, less serious incidents occurred that could contribute to 

apprehension about being in school, although on the whole, site visitors did not find this to be the case at 

the schools that they studied. At roughly two-thirds of the schools, site visitors unanimously described 

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

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

team characterized their school as “unsafe”. 

From the student surveys, most students reported feeling safe at school and in the 

surrounding community. Almost 57 percent of students reported feeling “almost always” safe while in 

the school building. Similarly, 64 percent of students were “almost never” afiaid that someone would 

hurt or bother them at school, and 72 percent were “almost never” afiaid on the way to or fiom school. 

However, as many as 12 percent of students reported avoiding certain places (e.g., restrooms) because of 

fear. As reported earlier in this section, however, about a quarter of students felt they had to fight to 

130 16 
protect themselves at school. A fair number of students also witnessed delinquent acts against teachers at 

school, including teachers being threatened by students (30%) and being attacked by students (14%). 

Thirteen percent of students reported “almost never” feeling safe. Those students that did 

report feeling unsafe at times were wary in school bathrooms, locker rooms, and isolated areas in and 

around the school. According to site visitors at one school, “students themselves feel the school isn’t 

safe. Besides worrying about an outside gunman breaching school security, a few focus group 

participants related that they’ve felt unsafe in the schools’ hallways, bathrooms, and classrooms where 

teachers have stepped away. Their apprehension appears to center on potential physical (pushing and 

shoving, being attacked) or emotional (namecalling, threats to fight) incidents. The kids also said they 

don’t feel safe in the hallways or bathrooms, where they themselves or friends have been pushed, shoved, 

or otherwise attacked.” 

Teachers had a slightly more mixed set of feelings about safety in the school. From the 

survey data, the majority (61%) of teachers felt very safe in their classrooms while teaching. However, 

less than half the teachers felt very safe in any other part of the school or grounds. Only about a quarter 

of teachers felt very safe in the restrooms used by students (25%) or in locker rooms or gyms (23%). 

According to one site visitor, “Most of the teachers think the school is safe, stating that the threat of 

violence isn’t their primary challenge, rather keeping order in the classroom is their biggest problem. One 

teacher did state that she felt physically threatened and has made a point to stay out of the hallways at 

lunch and during class changes, and does not stay after school at all. In her words, “I do my job and then 

I get out.” One teacher at another school commented that she had felt threatened because the doors were 

unlocked and anyone from the community could come in at any time. Finally, site visitors from another 

school mentioned that “teachers were also divided on whether they thought the school was safe or not 

(although even those who complained said it was not bad in their own classrooms).” 

An important aspect of managing disorder in school is the development of systems to 

monitor incidents. The discussion in this section provides a description of the types of monitoring 

systems the schools in the sample currently have in place and how these systems compare with the 

standards proposed by the state and federal government. 

13 1: 
Incident Records 

While most schools follow similar discipline procedures (See Chapter 4), they varied quite a 

bit in how they recorded and used incident data. A review of the systems that are in place in the schools 

included in the site visits found that: (a) collection forms vary widely between schools; (b) serious 

incidents usually are reported to the districtktate; (c) victims and offenders are rarely identified by name 

in the system; and (d) most schools review incident data informally rather than systematically. 

Collection Forms. Each school used its own standard referral form, developed locally 

either at the school or at the district level. These forms were used when students were referred to the 

central office for misbehavior. Most forms included a checklist of possible incidents and actions with 

additional space for describing them in detail. For example, checklists of incidents could include 

excessive talking, fighting, leaving class without permission, tardiness, use of profanity, substance abuse, 

failure to follow directions, and being unprepared for class. Actions might include in-school suspension, 

detention, out-of-school suspension, referral to a counselor, or conference with a parent. Actions that the 

teacher took before sending the student to the discipline office might include parent contact, meeting with 

the student, verbal warning, or revised seating arrangement. 

Several school administrators mentioned that they prefer to document each incident in detail, 

describing what happened and what steps were taken with the student, including “previous action” by the 

teacher. A few school principals mentioned that this documentation is related to the possibility that legal 

action might become necessary. For example, one principal said that he insists that the teachers describe 

the problem behavior in great detail, so that the incident reports “can be taken to court.” Another 

principal mentioned that he maintains very detailed written documentation of disciplinary action because 

of “potential legal action.” 

Besides noting the incident and action, other items commonly found in schools’ incident 

reporting forms included: 

0 Offender’s name, 

0 

0 Student’s grade, and 

0 Date of incident. 

Referring name (usually a teacher), 

Other items that were found in only a few schools were: 

0 Student’s race; 

0 Student’s gender; 

132 18 
0 Time of the incident; 

0 Location of the incident; 

o Names of other students involved, such as accomplices or witnesses; 

Previous action taken (a record of how the student was disciplined before being sent 

to the ofice); 

Parents notified; and 

Student comments. 

Reporting Incidents to the District. Most school administrators mentioned reporting only 

serious incidents to their districts. These data usually involved suspensions, and could be either in 

summary form or as a listing of all serious refmals. At several schools, serious incidents were kept track 

of separately from other referrals. However, in a lot of these schools, serious incidents were so rare that 

they readily stood out in administrators’ minds. As one school principal pointed out, “more serious 

incidents may not be recorded as these are vivid and rare and can easily by tracked by memory.” 

Simildy, serious infractions leading to expulsions were routinely made known to the 

districts. Most of these cases required district approval. Likewise, school district personnel were usually 

involved in alternative placement decisions, which kept them aware of serious incidents or repeat 

offenders. Regardless of how the district personnel received their information, school districts usually 

were aware of how many suspensions and expulsions occurred at each of their schools, and the reasons 

why these actions Were taken. 

Reporting Incidents to the Police. School administrators also mentioned reporting serious 

incidents to the local police. In some schools, only criminal offmses were reported, which usually 

involved the local police department anyway. In other schools, any serious offense was reported, such as 

theft, drug and alcohol offenses, and serious fights. One school principal pointed out that, by law, he 

must report all incidents involving weapons or drugs. In some schools, summary reports were provided 

to the officers who work with the schools. In another school, copies of its standard incident forms were 

sent to the School Resource Officer, who must then decide whether or not the incident warrants reporting 

to the police deparbne”f. 

Reporting Incidents to the State. Some school administrators also mentioned sending 

discipline information directly to their states. In one school, information was sent from its bus and 

teacher referrals to the central office and, at the end of the year, to the state. In another school, a 

Discipline Incident Summary on violent behaviors was sent to both the state and district, and at a third 

19 
school, a State School Behavior Report on suspensions and expulsions was sent to the district office and 

reported to the state. 

Other schools had incident data entered directly into statewide computer systems. For 

example, in one state, school personnel used a statewide information system that contains “a wealth of 

information on each student, including name, address, social security number, parent’s information, 

emergency infomtion, immunization record, academic information, and discipline records (type and 

date of incident and action taken).’’ Data fiom these records could be aggregated to the school, county, 

regional, and state levels. At another school, a computerized reporting system was used that sought to 

have all schools in the state networked with the state education agency (SEA); this would allow the SEA 

to obtain, at any time, discipline information for any school system in the state. 

From most schools, how incident data got to the state level was unclear. States are required, 

however, to collect data fiom their local education agencies (usually districts) regarding incidents in 

schools. These data must be submitted to Congress as part of performance reports for the Safe and Drug 

Free Schools and Communities Act. For the “State Education Agency Safe and Drug-Free Program 

Reporting,” states currently use a reporting fonn that asks, among other things, about the “frequency, 

seriousness, and incidence of violence in elementary and secondary schools.” 

Specifically, states are asked to report the number of: 

0 Incidents, 

0 

0 Offenders (students, non-students), and 

0 Weapon-related incidents. 

Also, as part of the Gun-Free Schools Act, states are asked to also report the number of: 

0 

Victims (students, school personnel, non-school personnel), 

Student expulsions for bringing a firearm to school (handgun, xifledshotguns, other 

Student expulsions shortened to less than one year on a case-bycase basis, and 

Expelled students referred to an alternative placement. 

fnm), 

0 

0 

School oficials generally report serious incidents to states, either directly or through their 

districts. This reporting procedure, however, is not standard across all schools and some are more 

efficient than others. Some schools utilized standard, computerized reporting methods, while others 

relied on hard copies or memory. Because of this variability, information is likely to be inaccurate. 

School officials rarely do anythmg with the information they collect on the victim andor 

offender, if such infomtion is collected at all. Often, names of students involved in the incident were 

134 20 
recorded on the referral forms. The incident was recorded in the offending student’s file. If need be, 

school administrators, especially those who track incident data electronically, could retrieve summary 

data on offenders. Victims, however, may be noted by hand on referral forms, but were rarely entered 

into computer systems, and even more rarely summarized into a report. 

In order to extract this information easily from the schools, states have asked for recommendations from a 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) forum for the best ways to collect and report incident 

data. Findings from the NCES task force, which included SEA officials, were published and 

disseminated to SEAs in July 1996. SEAs are responsible for distributing these recommendations to the 

district and school levels. Although a few schools had incident reporting forms developed by their 

districts (which could have adopted these recommendations), none of the schools that we visited 

mentioned anything about specific reporting recommendations from either their districts or states. 

The main finding from the NCES task force was the advice to track incident data through a 

unit recsrd system. This would avoid duplication while making sure that all the data was collected. 

Specifically, school administrators should document incidents using: 

0 

o 

8 

One incident record per incident, 

One or more student record(s) for every student involved, and 

Link the incident and student records by a unique identifier. 

For example, if a fight occurred between two students, an incident record would be made to document the 

“fight,” and two student records would be made for the two students involved. All three records (one 

incident and two students) would be linked by a unique identifier. Thus, when the state asks for the 

number of incidents, school officials would retrieve all incident records, sorted by the unique identifiers. 

When asked for the number of offenders or victims, school officials would retrieve all student records. 

Since students would be linked to specific incidents through the unique identifiers, questions about how 

many students were involved in fights, for example, could be answered. 

Cmently, school administrators appear to document an incident on a single form. From the 

example above, it would be noted on one referral form what happened (fight) and who was involved 

(names of students). If this information were entered into a computer database, it usually would be 

tracked by incident or student. Thus, with computer tracking systems, data could be retrieved involving 

one incident record per incident, and one or more student records for offending students. We did not 

observe, however, that these records were linked by unique identifiers. While obtaining total numbers of 

incidents and students involved per type of incident would be possible, these data would not be linked. A 

21 135- - --. 
single fight, for example, that occurred between two students may be listed under each student’s record. 

The NCES task force recommended other key concepts for schools’ reporting of incidents: 

Data collection should be organized around the school year (as opposed to the calendar 

year or fiscal year); 

All incidents should be reported that occurred on school grounds or school 

transportation, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day; 

The location of the incident should be included (if it happened during an O~~-CZUT~,IS, 

school-sponsored activity, it only should be reported if a student was involved); 

Students should be identified by only those enrolled in the district (a “non-student” 

would include a student fiom another district); 

Incident reports should include whether or not alcohol, drugs, weap~~ns were 

involved; 

Incident reports should include whether or not the incident was gang- QS- hate-related; 

Records should be kept on which incidents were reported to police; md 

If more than one offense occurred at the same time, only the most serious one ~hdd be 

recorded on the single incident form. 

The schools visited for this study had reporting systems that were consistent with many of 

these recommendations. School officials created records based on the school year, and some reported the 

location of the incidents. There appeared to be some confusion, however, about whether or n~t to rqmrt 

something, especially if it happed outside the school walls or school day. This conbion extended PO 

after-school and off-campus activities. Referrals usually noted whether alcohol, drugs, or weapons were 

involved, but did not always document whether police were called. None of the incident refml foms 

had a way of systematically recording whether or not the incident was gang- or hate-related, although this 

certainly could have been noted in the description of the incident. 

inconsistencies among the schools in how incidents were reported if more than one occurred at the same 

time. In some schools, more than one incident was listed on the same student record. 

Finally, there were 

No one from the site visit schools or districts mentioned anything about the state reporting 

forms or NCES reporting recommendations. Currently, states would appear to have a difficult time 

collecting all of the information that the NCES task force recommended. 

Monitoring and Reviewing Incident Data 

Disciplinary information fiom each school in our study usually was reviewed inf~mlly 

within the school. Principals and teachers usually were aware of the most prevalent types of disorder at 

their schools as well as which students were more likely to cause trouble. 

136 22 
In many schools, incident data were sorted by student. This provided an easy way to review 

which students were involved in different kinds of trouble. For example, teachers at one school looked at 

the referrals to see if any students were repeat offenders in order to decide the most appropriate 

punishment. Other school officials looked at a student’s history of misbehaving before deciding whether 

or not to send the student to an alternative school. As one school administrator said, “reports are filed 

alphabetically in each student’s file. The information accumulates until the principal or Dean of students 

feels that a student has engaged in too many misconduct behaviors. A more lasting solution is developed, 

such as sending the student to the local alternative high school.” 

Another reason that staff reviewed incident data was to monitor classroom management. 

Some teachers issued more referrals than others did, or different types of referrals, both of which could 

wmt attention from administrators. For example, at one school, the principal reviewed its incident 

information for internal tracking and as a way to audit teachers and students with large referrals. 

Besides looking at individual students or teachers, incident data was reviewed within the 

schools in order to notice trends. This kind of tracking, however, was more the exception than the rule. It 

was mostly done informally by teachers and administrators in the school. A few school officials 

mentioned that their districts compiled and provided trend data, or summary reports, to the school. By 

looking at trends in disorder, administrators could decide whether or not to create new or revise existing 

programs, rules or policies. For example, the principal at one school noticed an increase in student drug 

use. Based on this information, she considered bringing in a drug-sniffing dog to conduct random 

searches. A site visitor at another school reported that, “though no formal needs assessments are made, 

the administration examines the disciplinary reports to see if there are trends with particular students, 

offenses, or teachers. They then adjust procedures.according1y.” 

Only a few schools in our study had specific procedures in place to review incident data. At 

one school, the faculty senate consistently reviewed data by examining a printout listing all incidents at 

the end of the school year. Another school’s principal participated in a systematic review with his district 

by being involved in a district safety committee. The committee met monthly to review all accidents and 

incidents involving students and employees. They also reviewed reports of vandalism and destruction to 

school and district property and conducted walks through the school buildings to make sure everyhng 

appeared safe (e.g., no tom carpet, fire extinguishers charged, fire alarms and locks in working order). 

The committee would then formulate a plan based on any problems found and distribute a report to all 

schools regarding the nature of the problem and how it was being handled. In another district, two staff 

members in the central office coordinated and provided assistance to school staff on collecting data on 

-~ - 

. 137 23 
safety issues. They tracked incident reports and attendance, as well as health issues and community 

involvement. 

138 24 
Efforts to Prevent Problem Behavior 

This chapter addresses two questions: 

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

How well are efforts to prevent problem behavior implemented? 

Two previous reports for this project (Gottfiedson et al., 2000; Crosse et al., forthcoming) 

addressed each of these questions using information collected from a representative sample of schools, 

teachers, students and program providers. The goal of the present chapter is to get a better understanding 

of these results by providing a qualitative picture of what schools are doing to prevent problem behavior. 

This chapter is organized into 4 sections, including: (a) violence prevention activities; (b) 

school security; (c) school discipline practices and policies, and (d) school climate. 

The previous report analyzed violence prevention activities that were classified into 19 

different types. These are divided into two overall groups: prevention activities (Table 4-1) and schoolwide arrangements (Table 4-2). In this section, we amplify the results from the previous report for all of 

these activities except security and surveillance, which we discuss separately in the school security 

section of this report. 

139 25 
Table 4-1 

Prevention Activity Categories and Definitions 

Categories of School ActMties 

1) Prevention curriculum, instruction or training 

2) Counseling/social work/psychological/ 

therapeutic interventions 

3) Use of external personnel resources in 

classrooms 

4) Culture or climate change, norm change 

5) Behavioral or behavior modification 

interventions 

6) Recreational, enrichment, and leisure 

activities 

7) Improvements to classroom organization and 

management 

Definition 

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 extended duration. 

Provision of advice or guidance to remedy or 

prevent problems using identifiable 

techniques of psychology, counseling, or 

social work. 

Includes the use of parent or community 

volunteers, authority figures (e.g., police 

officers), classroom consultants, aides, or 

older students. 

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 nonns. 

Tracking student behavior, setting behavior 

goals, and feedback or punishment to decrease 

undesired behavior or rewards to increase 

desired behavior. 

Provision of or access to activities, play, 

amusement, or diversions; exploration outside 

the school; for fim or relaxation. 

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. 

140 26 
Table 4-1 (continued) 

Categories of School Activities 

8) Services to families 

9) Mentoring, tutoring, coaching, or 

apprenticeships 

10) Improvements to instructional practices 

11) Intergroup relations, interaction between 

school and community 

12) Youth regulating and responding to student 

conduct 

13) Planning structure or process 

Definition ~~ 

Outreach or service to families to improve 

their child management and supervision 

practices, or to provide other family services. 

Provision of one-on-one attention to students 

other than counseling or behavioral 

programming. 

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. 

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. 

~~ 

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). 

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. 

Application of procedures to discourage 

intruders from entering the school; watching 

entrances, hallways and school grounds; 

facilitating reporting of problem behavior; 

searching for weapons or drugs; removing 

barriers to observation or inspection; action to 

avert potential unsafe events. 

14 1 27 
Table 4-2 

School Wide Arrangements and Definitions 

I School Wide Arrangements 

1) Simple provision of information regarding the 

hannfblness of violence, drug use, or risky 

sexual behavior or about the availability of 

Senices 

2) Reorganization of grades, classes or school 

schedules 

3) Activities that influence the composition of the 

school’s population 

4) Treatment or prevention interventions for 

administration, faculty, or staff 

5) Architectural design or structural features of 

the school 

Definitions 

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. 

Includes 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 “teams” or “houses” or special gradeto-grade promotion criteria. 

Includes are 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. 

Includes prevention or treatment of alcohol, 

tobacco, or other drug use; anger or selfcontrol problems, or other health or mental 

health problems. 

Includes the use of fences, space, facilities, 

barricades, physical arrangements, or artwork. 

The previous analysis found that the diversity and quantity of activities reported by 

principals was extremely high. For example, on average, principals reported 9 of the 14 different 

prevention activity types listed in Table 4-1 (Gottfredson et al., 2000). The most commonly reported 

prevention activity type was prevention curriculum, instruction or training. Nationally, 76 percent of 

schools reported using this category. A substantial proportion of schools used “celebrity” programs, 

which are “off-the-shelf” or “cannedyy programs marketed to schools. A large percentage of schools also 

142 
reported school-wide arrangements, with the most common activity being simple provision of information 

(80% of schools). 

As part of the site visit, principals and other school personnel were asked about activities 

they considered important for preventing or reducing problem behavior in schools. The number of 

separate prevention activities reported by respondents to site visitors was less than would be expected 

from the national survey data. On average, 12 prevention activities per school were reported to site 

visitors. This compares to an average of 17 to 18 activities reported for schools nationally during the 

survey. 

At least some of the difference between the two results stems from the methods used to 

collect the information. To some extent, the difference also may be due to the site selection methods 

used--probability sampling versus purposive selection. During the survey, the principal was presented 

with a list of possible activities that could be used to prevent problem behavior. He/she was then asked to 

report on appropriate activity under each category. This contrasts to the procedures used during the site 

visit, which consisted of an in-person, open-ended interview, without specific prompts or cues about 

particular types of activities. The open-ended questions are most likely to elicit information that is 

prominent in the principal’s mind, especially as it ties into preventing violence within the school. The 

survey provided a more exhaustive set of cues to the respondent to assist in defining eligible activities. 

However, it may have also placed greater demand on the respondent to report any possible activity that 

might qualib as an activity to prevent violence. This suggests that respondents may have over-reported 

activities on the survey. 

The survey of program providers found that the quality of implementation of prevention 

activities was quite low. For each particular type of activity, the provider survey asked about specific 

practices with respect to the particular activity. The responses were then used to assess the extent that 

providers were following “best practices6.” Overall, this analysis found that only 57 percent of the 

prevention activities achieved adequate levels of implementation quality. That is, only 57 percent of the 

measures met criteria (developed by experts) for sufficient strength to achieve a reduction in problem 

behavior or an increase in school safety. 

Interestingly, adequacy ratings on the national survey varied by school level and location. 

The ratings tended to be highest in urban areas and lowest in rural areas. This is opposite to what one 

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

2000). 

143 29 
might expect, given that the national survey results indicate that urban areas tended to have lower levels 

of safety than suburban or rural areas. Based on those results, one might expect that schools that are the 

least safe would be the least able to implement programs in an effective way. Instead, the survey data 

suggest that program implementation is driven in part by the need to control problem behavior: schools 

that have greater safety concerns appear to attend more to the quality of program implementation than 

other schools. 

The site visit reports amplify this general pattern. As noted in the previous chapter, many of 

the schools visited were considered by staff and students to have relatively low levels of violence. This 

was also reflected in the interviews with many of the principals during the site visits. Principals did not 

report an overwhelming number of concerns with safety and, on the whole, did not attribute the safety of 

the school to particular types of prevention activities. 

The site visits were not designed to do an intensive process evaluation of particular activities 

in the school, so we have very little information on the content of the program (e.g., material covered in 

lesson plans; type of counseling strategies used) or the methods of implementing the activities. 

Nonetheless, we found great variability across the different types of programs with respect to basic 

quality criteria, including the existence of specific goals, the actual fiequency of participation of students 

in the activity and any tracking of outcomes relative to the initial goals of the activity. With a number of 

exceptions, the site visitors generally found a lack of information on these basic elements. One 

interpretation of this is that many of the schools that did not perceive themselves as having a safety 

problem also did not seem to feel a great need to ensure that the program was being implemented as 

initially planned. 

To illustrate the issues that came up during the site visits, we discuss four different types of 

programs: (a) youth regulation of and response to student conduct; (b) activities involving individual 

attention (such as mentoring, tutoring, or coaching.); (c) activities to change or maintain the culture or 

climate of the school, alter or maintain expectations for student behavior, or secure commitment to norms; 

and (d) implementation of counseling, social work, psychological or therapeutic activity. These program 

types were selected on the basis of having a sufficiently large number of schools in the site visit sample 

reporting them, as well as having the site visitor actually interview the provider for the activity. 

Youth Regulation of and Response to Student Conduct 

About half the visited schools had instituted some form of prevention activity that involved 

students in managing or responding to the conduct of their peers. The vast majority of such activities 

144 30 
were peer mediation programs. In 12 of these schools, the site visitor interviewed the program 

coordinators. The discussion below provides information on the peer mediation programs in these 12 

schools. The schools included in this group of 12 were evenly distributed across middle and high schools, 

along urbanicity and size. 

Participation in the program was voluntary in all cases but one. In that program, students 

were often given the choice between referral to the discipline office/suspension and participation in peer 

mediation. Typically, students who wanted the services of a mediator completed a request form located 

in a counselor’s office or in boxes placed in common areas throughout the school. Mediation sessions 

were held at a mutually agreed upon time during the school day. Students generally were excused from a 

class period to participate in a mediation session. Mediations adhered to a set of rules agreed upon in 

advance. If successful, mediation ended with some sort of written agreement between the disputants. 

All programs targeted the entire school population. For the most part, student mediators 

were drawn fiom the upper grade or grades of a school. The number of mediators per school ranged from 

10 to 46. The number of mediators was not related to the size of the school, except perhaps inversely. 

Two of the largest schools had the smallest numbers of mediators. 

In most schools, programs were coordinated by one adult staff member. No school had more 

than two staff members involved in running the program. The type of staff varied by school (e.g., 

counselor, teacher, security aide), and a minority of staff were actually compensated for running the 

program by means of a stipends. 

All mediators received training, generally a few days outside school. Training usually 

involved practice and role playing. Mediations were quite structured and closely followed the model 

conveyed during training. One program provided mediators with ongoing training and other activities 

throughout the year. Funding for the program was provided by the school district in all but two cases. 

Most of the districts used SDFSCA funds for this type of program. 

Overall, peer mediation programs in these schools were not particularly well implemented. 

Programs were not widely used by students (as far as site visitors could tell), had scanty monitoring and 

evaluation data and were not perceived as being very effective by students or staff. 

On the whole, these programs were not widely supported by the schools. Extreme examples 

of this are in two schools where the programs were not implemented at all. One never really started 

because of a lack of interest on the part of the student body and the other had operated in previous years 
but was not operating in 1998-99 because it did not have a faculty or staff sponsor. Similarly, only two 

schools provided an extra stipend for staff to assist with the activities. In the other schools the staff 

running the program picked the activity up as part of their normal duties. In one school, space was a clear 

issue. The principal had not allocated a private space for the program, which made conducting 

confidential sessions difficult. 

In most schools, the program was perceived as not well used or not well known. Programs 

maintained very limited data on the extent of use by students. Only five schools provided any numbers 

related to how manyhximfs used the program during the course of the school year. These consisted of 

numbers of mediations per year or per week rather than numbers of students. Three of the five schools 

provided actual counts of mediations, the others provided estimates. The range was 30 to 100 mediations 

per year. In the schools that provided actual counts, roughly 7, 9, and 22 percent of the student body 

participated in peer mediation during the past year. 

Programs also maintained very limited data for program monitoring and evaluation. To the 

extent that programs maintained any data at all, it was primarily process data-records of individual 

mediations and their resolutions. Two program made a practice of following up with participants after 

mediations. One school sought regular feedback from students and parents about the program. 

In the absence of evaluation data, indications of program effectiveness were anecdotal. 

Perceptions of effectiveness varied. Program coordinators and mediators tended to be the most positive 

about program potential and about the skills they had acquired. Other school staff and administrators had 

mixed reactions. They often felt that the program had limited uses or was not well implemented. 

Students tended to have the most negative perceptions. At one school, although student mediators were 

quite enthusiastic about their mediation pgratp1,~tht~ students questioned its effectiveness for example, 

these non-mediators reported that, rather than resolving differences, medication had the effect of moving 

unresolved disputes from school to other venues such as local resburant parking lob. 

Activities Involving Individual 

About one quarter of the visited schools had programs in place that focused on providing 

individual academic and social support to a subgroup of students. These included tutoring and mentoring 

programs, dropout prevention programs, career orientation programs, and family literacy programs. 

These did not include activities that provided one-on-one attention as a hction of counseling or 

psychological support. Interviews with program providers were obtained for 8 of the programs in 7 of 

these schools. 

146 32 
The programs were fairly evenly distributed between middle and high schools, large and 

small schools, and rural and urban schools. The programs were quite diverse but all provided extra 

academic or social support to students and all targeted at-risk students. Teachers and other school staff 

identified and referred students to such programs usually because of their grades, problem behavior, 

attendance, or combination of these problems. 

Goals of the programs tended to focus on individual students. They were phrased in terms of 

improving participants’ grades, social skills, attendance, and self esteem. One school had the stated goal 

of reducing the overall dropout rate. One program aimed for an “80 percent positive placement rate” (i.e., 

remaining in school, finding full-time employment, or entering post-secondary education). 

Providers usually worked with students in pullout settings during the school day, generally 

no longer than a class period 2 or 3 times per week. One program (a dropout prevention program) 

functioned as a class for participating students that met every day. Two programs met once a week after 

school for 1 to 2 hours. Most programs had between 15 and 40 participants. 

Quality of implementation is difficult to assess because of the lack of data maintained by the 

programs. The programs varied tremendously along a number of important dimensions correlated with 

implementation quality. Staffing ranged fiom a full-time coordinator with a staff of 9 teachers to a 

teacher or counselor coordinating the program in his or her spare time. Support ranged fiom two 

programs that did not receive any cash funding to several programs funded by the school district, state, or 

federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) grant. 

These programs were much better than their peer mediation counterparts at maintaining 

process information. Programs tended to maintain data such as attendance and activity logs. Grades, 

attendance, and persistence in school were tracked for individual students. One program also monitored 

the school-wide dropout rate. However, like the peer mediation program, efforts to evaluate the programs 

in any systematic way were minimal or non-existent. 

Staff and provider perceptions of the programs tended to be positive. Although teachers 

grumbled about pull-out programs, most school staff seemed to feel that the additional attention was 

helpful to participants. Two programs were in their first year and the consensus was that the programs 

showed promise but assessing effectiveness should wait until the programs had matured. 

From the site visits, the lack of resources, either inconsistent or declining participation of 

staff or shrinking funds, was cited as a major barrier to effective implementation. Only one program (an 

- 

147 33 
after-school family literacy program) planned to expand its outreach. Some programs lacked much 

intensity of service-either they did not meet very frequently or the amount of time per session was very 

limited. Some programs did not have adequate staff to provide much one-on-one contact with students. 

Activities to Change or Maintain the Culture or Climate of the School, Alter or 

Maintain Expectations for Student Behavior, or Secure Commitment to Norms 

We gathered infomation from program providers on 15 of these types of activities in 10 

schools. The programs were evenly split between middle and high schools. Eight of the program were 

in suburban schools, 5 were in urban schools, and 2 were in rural schools. Most of the schools had 

enrollments of over 500 students; 5 schools had enrollments over 1000 students. 

In the visited schools, these activities tended to be variations of three basic forms: student 

clubs, activity/discussion groups, and leadership classes. Student clubs often had antidrug or antiviolence themes. They attempted to engage students in positive alternatives to problem behavior and 

sponsored school-wide events and community service projects. The clubs recruited speakers on a variety 

of topics, sponsored field trips, and organized theme-based events for the school such as dances or “Just 

say no” week. Often these clubs required individual members to perform a set number of hours of 

community service or to initiate as a group one or two major community service projects per year. Often 

these clubs were affiliated with national organizations. 

Discussion or activity groups tended to focus on a specific group of students such as students 

having trouble in school or the lowest grade in a particular school. They often revolved around social 

adjustment of students such as easing the transition to middle school or high school. Two programs were 

elective leadership classes. Drawn from the upper grades of the schools, the students in these classes 

were expected to serve as role models for other students. In one high school, participants led discussions 

of teenage issues with younger students at the end of the school year. 

Seven of the programs were funded through SDFSCA or the school district, three received 

bds from the school, three received funds from local organizations, five relied substantially on 

hdraisers, three charged student dues, one was funded by a local grant, and one received funds from 

AmaiCorps. Cash funds paid for materials, activities, or staff time. In-kind resources consisted mostly 

of donated time. 

148 
Goals tended to focus on creating a drug or violence free environment, building self-esteem 

and leadership, improving student social interactions and decision-making, and easing the transition to 

middle school or high school. 

Students targeted by these activities varied. Most of the clubs were open to all. Some 

groups targeted at-risk students or students in a particular grade. Leadership classes targeted students in 

upper grades with higher grade point averages and teacher recommendations. One discussion group 

targeted females. These programs had between 20 and 100 participants depending upon the nature of the 

programProgram coordinators were generally counselors or teachers. Most were run by only one or 

two staff members. In one very large high school, 10 teachers instructed multiple sections of a leadership 

class. A couple of programs were staffed by non-school personnel such as AmeriCorps members. Most 

program coordinators had received no specialized training. Most providers operated these programs as 

part of their regular duties (counselors and leadership teachers) or as extra duty (teachers). A few were 

paid small stipends for coordinating the program. 

Assessing implementation of these programs is difficult because of the lack of systematic 

data. Some reached very few students and lacked much intensity of service. Most lacked the resources to 

expand. Most attempted to reach the broader school community through special events or mentoring 

relationships with other students; however, these programs did not measure school-wide effects. 

These programs maintained very little data. Classes monitored individual student grades and 

behavior, activity/discussion groups monitored individual student behavior and attitudes toward the 

program (one administered pre- and post-test questionnaires to participants). Student clubs monitored 

attendance and activities. No formal evaluations were planned or had been conducted. Perceptions of the 

programs were generally positive, but were based on anecdotal evidence of effectiveness for individual 

students. None of the schools measured any school-wide outcomes against program goals or activities. 

Counseling, Social Work, Psychological, or Therapeutic Activity 

Information about these types of programs was available from 27 of the 40 schools visited 

during the site visits. Generally, these programs were, at least fiom outset, one of the most highly 

structured and most strongly supported of the different programs reviewed by the site visitors. This 

should not be particularly surprising, since counseling is part of the everyday school activity. We 

149 35 
characterized these programs partly on the basis of the types of populations they serve. Approximately 30 

percent ofthe programs were universal and targeted an entire group of students (all students in a class, 

grade, school, or system). Approximately half of the programs were selected prevention whereby 

students were identified and referred by teachers, counselors, principals, juvenile justice, parents, and by 

self-referral. Most of these students were identified as having or being at risk of developing behavioral or 

academic problems. These students had not yet been fomlly assessed, only referred to some type of 

intervention. The indicatedprevention programs constituted 18 percent of the programs reviewed. These 

students were identified through assessment of test scores (lowest quartile on standardized tests), 

significant drop in grades, failing courses, substance abuse, truancy, or documented behavioral 

disruptions. 

Mental health specialists (counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, family 

therapists) accounted for about half of the staff, with teachers and administrators making up the 

remainder. About 10 percent of the programs utilized at least two different disciplines in addressing 

school violence and related issues. 

These programs seemed to have access to significant funds for support. The majority of 

program providers are supported by district funding for their position, meaning they receive funding from 

no other identifiable external source. Sources of funding for providers other than district funding were 

distributed fairly evenly. Roughly one-third of program were funded by SDFSCA, one-third was funded 

by state education departments or city and state agencies (other than state and local education agencies), 

and the last third did not specify a funding source for their programs. 

Written goals or mission statements were very common among the programs reviewed 

(83%). However, these goals varied greatly in their specificity and measurability, with some programs 

having very general and broad goals and others having highly specific and measurable goals. The 

remaining programs stated they did not have goals (4%), that they did not speci@ my gods (8%), or that 

they developed goals individually for each student (4%). 

Formal program evaluations were a part of approximately half of those reviewed, although 

not all of these evaluations included outcomes or long term tracking of outcomes. This was relatively 

high compared to other types of programs reviewed during the site visits. Approximately one-third of the 

programs did not have any evaluation or monitoring of effectiveness. Perceptions of the programs’ 

effectiveness were quite positive among providers, staff and students. Only a small percentage of schools 

were critical of the way the program operated or its effectiveness. 

150 36 
Exemplary Programs 

To illustrate some of the factors that seemed to lead to good implementation, two programs 

seemed particularly strong. Both of these are counseling programs. 

CharasUeristks off Ewempla~ Programs. We classified programs as exemplary programs 

based on the extent to which they possessed certain key characteristics. These characteristics are firmly 

grounded in the prevention research literature as being the “active ingredients” that are most likely to 

produce the desired effects. These key characteristics include the following: 

Large target populdationn. The two programs had very clear focus and addressed 

universal, selected, and indicated levels of prevention. Although the second program 

was focused on tobacco reduction, the development of personal self-management 

skills and general social skills are clearly seen as ‘cross-over’ skills that could reduce 

violence in the school setting. 

Highly trl~ed staffe The providers for the first program were highly trained with 

many providers having or working towards doctoral level training in mental health 

counseling or psychology. The second program had a registered nurse with specific 

and ongoing training in the implementation of the program. 

Written program maUedids. 

curriculum guides. 

interventions. 

provides ‘booster sessions’ to reinforce what has been taught earlier. 

Both of these programs utilized manuals and 

Both programs were structured in ways to deliver effective 

For example, one program has a stepdown ‘dosage’ model that 

Sigaifi‘nsannU mnomeUanpr srmpgorU. The significance of substantial funding is evident in 

the quality of both of these programs. A critical level of funding (SDFSCA or State 

Department of Health) provides the foundation for quality programs, high quality 

providers, and sophisticated evaluation components. 

EvduaUion and monitoring. The second program used a sophisticated evaluation 

protocol. This program has a significant history in being well researched and very 

well regarded in the prevention field. The first program had a less rigorous program, 

but strong as compared to the programs reviewed in other schools. The fvst program 

implemented process and outcome evaluative components that had multiple 

stakeholders participate in the evaluation processes. 

Integration ~UQ the s~h~d. Both programs are highly integrated into the school 

communities and have evolved from multiple evaluations of needs and resources. 

That is, the programs have a substantial history within the local setting, have been 

critically reviewed and adapted to cultural norms, are part of an ongoing feedback 

evaluation process, and are openly and actively promoted within the local settings. 

Program 1. The first program is in a relatively large middle school in an urban setting. The 

program is currently funded by the Safe and Drug Free School and Communities Act. The program was 

151 37 
initiated after consultation with the school district's Safe and Drug Free Schools Advisory Council, as 

prescribed by legislation. 

Program specialists were typically Masters degree level counselors, although my had 

Ph.D.'s or are enrolled in a doctorate program. The specialists provide individual, group, md family 

counseling. Some specialists focus on teen dating violence that includes presenting to students issues 

surrounding date rape and alternatives to violence. The specialists also conduct irashctional preventive 

interventions as well as assisting teachers in technical implementation of the curriculum. The chsulm 

allows for adaptation to specific school needs. 

The programs are evaluated at the district level. Surveys of a random sample are conducted 

that ask teachers, counselors, and administrators about their level of knowledge of the program in their 

school (who provides what programs; what was the modality, type, duration, intensity; target p~p~l~&i~@, 

opinions about the program, and benefits from having the program in their school. This ~QCXSS 

evaluation is self-imposed by the program. Program staff prepare quarterly suunm~es of activities 

conducted by the TRUST specialists. 

Program 2. The second prom is based in a small middle school in a ml setting. "he 

program is hded from a $50,000 grant from the state to reduce the use of tobacco by students. The 

program includes the teaching of prevention-related information, promoting antidrug n~m, teaaching 

drug refusal skills, and fostering the development of personal self-management skills md gmml social 

skills. The program has explicit performance objectives and timelines for each objective th~gh the 

year, with a review of the effectiveness of the program by the state legislature wcuning at end of 

years. 

The program consists of a twelve lesson curriculum conducted over 15 class @ads during 

the fmt year, 10 class periods the second year, and 5 class periods the third year. The pro 

designed for students attending middle or junior high school, with the fmt yew intended to be 

implemented in either 6' or 7* grade. The district, which created the overall program for the state pt 

application, hired the school nurse to implement the program in grades 6 through 8, a modified pro 

with grades 9 and 10, and chose to include life skills training as part of it, and also to sme in the thee 

elementary schools in the county. The total number of students served is 750. One major strength ofthe 

program is its clear objectives and perfoxmance hdicators for evaluation purposes. 

In September 1998, the school nurse began implementing the program in grades 6 though 8. 

She follows set lesson plans and uses the textbooks and materials associated with the pm 

152 
by Princeton Health Press, Inc. In the school, she is able to teach for 30 minutes every day in the 

homeroom period rather than only three times per week, which was the schedule in another middle school 

in the district. The nurse attended a two-day training program in October with other nurses and teachers 

from around the state so she could conduct and coordinate training for classroom teachers in the county as 

well. She attended a second training in February that afforded opportunities to exchange experiences and 

information with other nurses and teachers of the program in the state. The publisher of the program 

sponsored both training sessions. The funding for the program is fiom the state legislature’s settlement 

with the tobacco companies. 

The district chose the program because it has been rigorously evaluated and recognized by 

the American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychological Association (APA), and the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for its excellence as a prevention program. The district is 

monitoring the activities overall as outlined in the grant proposal, but the nurse documents every activity 

she implements as well as the number of students served and other details. Although she is not required 

to document activities, she is used to documenting her work as a nurse. Progress reports are completed in 

the middle of the program (January) and at the end of the school year to assess if the program is being 

implemented as planned. 

Evaluation of the program takes several fom. These include a pre- and post-program 

survey of the students designed by the nurse that also affords the opportunity for feedback and a formal 

evaluation measured by pre- and post-tests. 

Summary 

In summary, our review of 19 different types of programs found large variation across a 

number of characteristics important for effective violence prevention. Our findings amplified those of the 

analysis of the survey data (Gottfredson et al., 2000; Crosse et al., forthcoming) that many programs do 

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

fiequency of participation by students and monitoring and evaluation. These problems, we believe, 

reflect an overall view on the part of the schools that these programs do not generally have a critical role 

in preventing problem behavior in the school. In fact, many of these programs are implemented within 

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

153 .- 

39 
Unlike the activities reviewed in the previous section, school personnel viewed maintaining 

school security as the first line of defense against violence and other problem behavior. Security is 

ubiquitous across all schools and consists of different types of personnel to monitor student activity, as 

well as hardware. The previous analysis found that this type of prevention activity was implemented 

significantly better than a number of other prevention measures (Gottfiedson, et al., 2000). 

Schools use a variety of strategies and measures to promote safety for their students and 

staff. The most commonly used security effort involves monitoring students and the school building to 

ensure proper student behavior, as well as to keep outsiders away fiom the school. Several schools in our 

study also provide security by conducting drug and weapon searches, sometimes using metal detectors. 

Other schools may use protection measures such as developing emergency or crisis plans, or using 

classroom devices such as two-way intercoms, phones, or emergency buttons. Security may take the form 

of different organizational arrangements in some schools, such as block scheduling (See the section in this 

chapter on policies to monitor student movement), and the removal of disruptive students. Finally, some 

schools may use the architectural design of their buildings to promote security. 

Schools reported using an average of six security measures, strategies, or devices at their 

schools. About a third of the schools reported using 7 to 12 different ways to administer security. These 

schools tended to be urban schools, as well as large schools. 

This section elaborates on the security used in schools. The section is divided into three 

parts. The first describes the security provided by staff. The second section describes the use of law 

enforcement personnel and the relationship between the police and school. The third sections discusses 

security devices and strategies. 

School Security Staff 

A number of different types of security staff are used by schools. The most common are 

teachers and/or administrators. They are expected to assume these extra duties on top of their regular 

teaching or other responsibilities and are usually not compensated for the additional work. These 

individuals perform the most common type of security activity by monitoring student behavior in the 

halls, cafeterias, bathrooms, parking lots, bus stops and other areas of the school campus where disorder 

has the potential to arise. Monitoring high traffic areas is seen by many schools as a key prevention 

154 40 
strategy as this adult presence is designed to “discourage loitering and misbehavior.” While monitoring, 

staff may be expected to check hall passes, confront unauthorized persons on school grounds, escort 

school visitors to their destinations, verbally reprimand inappropriate student behavior, break up fights, 

issue tickets or citations, or escort disruptive students to the office. 

Some schools credit monitoring as an effective practice for preventing student disorder. 

Teachers and administrators at one school felt that monitoring “has been instrumental in preventing 

misbehavior.** Site visitors at another school reported that “we saw a few teachers in the hallways, and it 

seemed to be an effective practice for minimizing the amount of horseplay and running in the halls.” The 

teachers at a different school did not mind their monitoring roles and felt that it was “effective in 

preventing problems in and around the school.” This kind of practice also lends itself to the “proactive” 

philosophy of discipline on which several schools commented-monitoring situations and catching 

incidents before they escalate. 

Other schools did not treat their monitoring practices as seriously. Even with an adult 

presence during the cafeteria period at one school, site visitors observed much disorder. As they reported, 

“the principal stated that lunch was a good time for students to let off steam and thus he tolerated the 

disorder.” At the same school, teachers did not monitor the hallways during class changes, and site 

visitors observed a lot of yelling and pushing in the halls. At a different school, teachers were supposed 

to write tardy notes and check hall passes. Site visitors, however, observed that some teachers wefe 

grading papers in the hallways and ignoring students. Some students at another school complained that 

teachers who were supposed to be monitoring hallways spent more time talking to other teachers. The 

limited availability of teachers to cover monitoring duties caused problems at some schools. At one 

school, teacher absences were common and enough substitutes were not always found so that some 

teachers had to be pulled from hall duty to cover classes. 

A small number of schools mentioned having security “aides” that are responsible for 

monitoring or assisting with other aspects of security (e.g., locking doors and gates). Some schools rely 

on their school resource officers to provide additional assistance monitoring key problem areas. In 

addition, some schools have security guards (offduty police officers or guards fiom private companies) 

that were hired to provide daily security for their schools. One large urban school reported having over 

thuty security guards employed to provide security during regular school hours; however, this seems to 

be an exception rather than the rule. 

41 15-5 

- .- 
Law Enforcement Personnel 

The majority of schools we visited reported having some sort of relationship with police 

officers from their local police departments. The capacity in which these officers serve ranges from very 

informal to formal, and includes a variety of activities. Three major roles performed by police in local 

schools are: (a) security, (b) law enforcement, and (c) education. 

The most frequently reported capacity in which police officers serve in relation to schools is 

as some form of school security. Most often, police officers are present at school events such as football 

games or dances and serve to patrol areas prone to disorder. At a few of the schools, these police officers 

offer their assistance as a public courtesy. However, at a majority of schools, these officers are offduty 

police officers and compensated for their time monetarily or through fringe benefits (e.g., Eree tickets to 

all sports events). 

In addition to providing security at special school activities, some schools reported that local 

officers often “drop by” or regularly patrol school grounds or the surrounding areas. A number of the 

officers who visit the schools are the designated “School Resource Officers” (SRO) and regularly visit 

area schools. The responsibilities of SROs vary by school and may include providing security, advising 

school staff on safety issues, teaching prevention program activities, and promoting positive relationships 

between students and the local police. The salaries for these officers may come from the local police 

department; or at least partially, from the school district. Other officers simply “drop by” as a public 

courtesy and have no formal agreement with the schools. Still others are offduty police officers hired by 

school districts to act as security guards. Visiting police officers (on- and off-duty) often patrol halls, 

parking lots, and other areas that have a high risk for disorder. 

Police presence in schools is often part of a “community policing” program. As one site 

visitor noted, the objective of these school-based community-policing programs is to “decrease disruptive 

behavior by increasing officer visibility.” For example, one school site visitor explained, “by roaming the 

school and the property, the officer became known to the students and helped prevent disruptive behavior 

by writing trespass charges, smoking citations, and other charges.. .(making) it “unattractive” to hang out 

by the school. By taking care of little infractions, the bigger problems went away. The uniformed officer 

was a common sight at the school, visiting at least 2 to 3 evenings per week and 1 to 2 times during 

lunchtime. In addition, the officer was immediately available to react to disruptive behavior by writing 

citations and providing counseling.” 

156 

~ 

42 
The most formal relationship police officers have with local schools involves operating in a 

law enforcement capacity. Most schools reported calling the police to respond to incidents of disorder 

and criminal activity, including fighting, weapon possession and substance abuse. In response to 

disorder, the police may counsel students, issue citations, or make arrests. In addition, several schools 

reported that local police bring in police dogs to conduct drug and weapons searches. These searchers are 

usually conducted at random and occur twice a year. One school, however, reported that the local police 

use their school as a training ground for new K-9 officers and conduct searches more frequently (already 

4 times within the current school year). Most schools where these K-9 searches take place indicated that 

they feel this activity is an effective deterrent to students bringing drugs and/or weapons to school. 

Police also operate as educators in their local schools. Some police officers make 

presentations to students on the duties of police officers, the effects of drugs and alcohol, and the 

consequences of delinquent behavior. For example, officers at one school brought a pair of special 

goggles called Fatal Vision that “alters the wearer’s vision to approximate intoxication” to give students 

an idea of how alcohol can impair one’s ability to hction. 

In addition, some police officers offer in-services for teachers and administrators. Topics 

include how to identify certain drugs, and how to recognize substance abuse and gang symbols. For 

example, officers brought samples of drugs to one school for teachers and administrators to see and smell. 

The majority of the schools we visited reported positive relationships with their local police. 

These ranged fiom “good“ to “excellent.” For example, one site visitor reported, “the relationship 

between the police department and the school, as evident mainly by the relationship between the principal 

and the chief of police, is friendly and supportive. The principal and sheriff are friends, and two police 

officers are usually at major games. In such a small community, the police are well known and have a 

good relationship with the school.” Another site visitor reports, “the link between the school and the 

police is, of course, a direct one-as a result of the Deputy Sheriff assigned full-time to the school, and 

the working relationship is said to be excellent.” 

A few schools, however, reported having a less than positive relationship with their local 

police department. Characterizations of these relationships include descriptors such as “distant,” 

“strained,” and “hstrating.” For example, one site visitor reported, “the relationship between the police 

and the school is distant. The police do not routinely stop by, there are no SROs, and the police officer 

told us he never talks to the kids or the principal unless he’s called.” Another site visitor reported, “the 

relationship between the school and the local police department can best be described as strained. 

Communication between these two agencies seems to be minimal and the communication that does occur 

-- 157 43 
is through formal channels only. The police believe that the school administrators push problems, such as 

fights, off campus so that it is no longer their problem and the police have to deal with them. The school 

also complains that when incidents happen off campus, the police bring the students to them to discipline, 

when the school has no jurisdiction off campus." 

Security Devices and Strategies 

A number of security devices and strategies were found during the site visits. In this section, 

we discuss the most common ones found in the schools, including policies to monitor student movement, 

devices, searches and communication methds. 

Policies to Monitor Student Movement. This includes requiring students to have a pass, 

issued by a teacher or administrator, if they need to leave the classroom for any reason. This seemed to 

be inconsistently enforced at the schools that were visited. From the site visitors' observations, we did not 

always see school staf€(teachers, administrators, guards) ask students for hall passes. Several of the 

students we interviewed said that the staff showed favoritism by asking some students for passes and not 

others. The staff at some schools appeared to ask for a hall pass only if they did not know the student, or 

if the student seemed suspicious. 

Many schools also have a policy of requiring visitors to make themselves known to school 

staff. Most schools mandate that all visitors sign in at the main office. Some schools require visitors to 

"buzz in" through a locked main entrance. Most of the site visitors were not, however, asked to wear 

anythmg to show visitor status, and not all of them were asked to sign in at the main office. At several 

schools, however, school staff stopped the site visitors and asked who they were. The schools may have 

been more lax in their enforcement of the visitor policy because most of the school staff knew that site 

visitors would be coming. 

Some of the schools in our study, mostly high schools and large schools, require staff and/or 

students to wear ID badges. A few of these badges contain photo identification. This kind of policy often 

seemed to be mandated at the district level, in order to deter intruders. Schools varied in how well the 

policy was carried out. One school started its policy recently and it continued to be observed by all staff. 

Another school only required student identification at dances and sporting events. At one school, the 

policy was enforced mainly at the beginning of the school year, when staff did not know the students very 

well. Students stopped wearing their badges af€er the start of the year, and site visitors observed that at 

the time of the visit, few teachers and no administrators were wearing their badges. 

158 44 
The architectural design of the school also played a role in how students were monitored 

during the day. Some schools appeared to be designed with safety monitoring in mind. For example, one 

school’s design included a single driveway leading to parking lots in front and behind the school, one 

primary entrance where students and visitors must enter, a commons/cafeteria room at the front entrance 

that is very visible through the glass walls of the principal’s office, and wide corridors that branch off 

from the central commons that provide very few places that are not in clear view. A few other schools 

also used glass windows to monitor the cafeteria, parking lot, and gymnasium. 

Schools that had several buildings complained about their situations. Having students 

transfer between buildings for classes created a lot of student traffic and potential disorder. One school 

attributed its vast number of students loitering in the hallways during class time to the size of the school, 

and the fact that many students have to travel from building to building. Another school complained 

about students skipping gym class at the end of the day when it required walking to the ball field up the 

road. To combat this problem at one school, a staff member literally walked their middle school students 

to high school music classes. 

A handfiil’ of schools mentioned having fences surrounding their schools to prevent outsiders 

from coming in. Some of these fences displayed barbed wire. The amount of disorder in these schools 

did not seem to vary from schools without fences. No one at the school-students, teachers, or 

administrators-seemed to notice any effects from having a fence around their school. 

Another way to assist in monitoring student movement was through the school schedule. 

Various scheduling issues within a school may promote better orderliness. For example, block 

scheduling was cited by some schools as an efficient preventive strategy. Students remain in a fewer 

number of classes for longer periods of time, thus reducing the number of times spent transferring 

between classes and the possibilities for disruptions in the hallways. Several schools shortened time spent 

between classes for this reason, as well. Block scheduling also lengthens the amount of time each teacher 

spends with each class, promoting the chance for more interaction and greater familiarity with specific 

students. Grade level teams help with this, as well. For example, one school held team meetings three 

times per week in which teachers could work to resolve issues that might have arisen concerning their 

students, including discipline issues. 

Security Devices. Common devices used for monitoring include walkie-talkies, cell phones, 

video cameras and metal detectors. Walkie-talkies are usually given to principals and security staff as a 

way to communicate with one another regarding student safety, while a few schools use cell phones for 

the same reasons. These devices promote communication among staff and are less disruptive than an 

159 45 
intercom system. They are especially helpfbl in larger schools where tracking down staff may be more 

difficult. More than half the schools in our study reporting the use of walkie-talkies were large schools. 

The schools were predominantly urban, as well. 

Video cameras are used in schools to monitor the building as well as student behavior. One 

school talked about wanting to purchase a video camera for the computer room as a way to prevent theft. 

Several schools mentioned having one rotating camera on school busses, hidden by a camera box thus 

making students unaware of which box actually holds the camera on any given day. Other schools may 

use video cameras in the hallways. Most students as well as administrators said that video cameras are 

ineffective in preventing disorder. The cameras often are not equipped with tapes and rely, instead, on 

someone viewing the monitoring screen. This responsibility usually rests with the principal, who often 

may not be in his or her office, and most likely does not have time to sit and watch a video monitor. At 

one school, a camera was installed in the detention room. Students knew that no one consistently 

monitored the camera fiom the principal’s office, so they used their detention time for sleep or roaming 

the halls. Another school had monitors in the administrative offices, but site visitors observed that none 

were turned on. 

To help monitor school grounds, lighting systems are utilized, especially in parking lots. 

Many schools use alarm systems to protect the school at night and on weekends. 

Locks on doors are used as a way to control who is allowed in and out of the school. Every 

school that was visited mentioned locking their doors. Many schools locked the doors during the day. 

One school admitted that it did this because of problems with non-students entering the building. Some 

schools kept only the main entrance open, while a few required a buzz-in system. Some schools only 

locked doors after the end of the school day. Often, classes that were not in use got locked, as well. 

Observations at schools showed variatiok in how well these locks were employed. In some schools, 

many doors were not locked, some locks were broken, and other ways to get into the building were 

usually available. 

Some schools locked gates on driveways in order to prevent outsiders fiom entering. One 

school reported that it put locks on its driveway gates to prevent non-students from driving into the 

school, causing trouble, then quickly driving off. The strategy eliminated this specific type of incident. 

Metal detectors are also a device that was used in less than half of the schools. Metal 

detectors were more common in the large schools. More than half the schools in our study that used 

metal detectors had enrollments of more than 1000 students. Half of the schools, also, were located in 

160 46 
urban areas. One way to use these devices was to have a standing metal detector that is stationed at 

entrances. In one school where this was a practice, the detectors were placed in two spots (out of 17 

total), but were currently inoperable. One school reported that its metal detector was located in the door 

of the in-school suspension room. This school used to make students walk through the standing metal 

detector during random classroom spot checks, but the activity.was discontinued because parents told the 

principal that it violated the rights of the students. Another school mentioned having a standing detector 

that was used for games, but most schools used hand-held metal detector wands. 

Wands were mainly used for random searches. On occasion, they could be used to search 

individual students suspected of carrying concealed weapons. Many of the schools that used metal 

detectors did so because of district policy. Districts acquired the wands and mandated their use in the 

schools. Usually, schools were required to conduct random searches a set number of times per day or 

week. For example, one district acquired manual metal detectors when it was going through a particularly 

violent period several years ago. School oficials, however, have never used them because they felt no 

need to do so. Another school was supposed to conduct random searches several times a day, but the 

principal felt they caused more disruption than they were worth. His school currently uses the wands only 

occasionally during “tardy sweeps” for students without passes lingering in the halls after the late bell 

has rung. 

We observed some pressure, as well, to have metal detectors in the schools. As one assistant 

principal pointed out, they needed the metal detectors just to show the public that they have them. Some 

districts and schools reacted to crime elsewhere in the nation, wanting to make sure that such violent 

incidents did not happen in their own schools. One superintendent ordered metal detectors for his rural 

district afier coming from a large, urban school. The principal thought he was a “little paranoid” and has 

never used the wands in his school. He told a site visitor that if he suspected a student of having a 

weapon (like a knife), he would just bring the student to his ofice and tell him or her to hand it over. 

Searches. Searches were done in several schools that we visited. The purpose is typically to 

uncover hidden weapons or illegal drugs. The scheduling of the searches varied across schools. In some 

schools, they are routinely scheduled with staff receiving prior notification; in other schools, they are 

conducted on a random basis. They are performed by school personnel or local police forces. One school 

mentioned its relationship with a private security firm to conduct random searches using hand-held metal 

detectors. 

Several schools mentioned using drug-sniffing dogs for random drug searches. For example, 

the K-9 patrol conducts random drug and weapon searches at one school. As one site visitor described, 

161 47 
“No one at the school knows when the searches will take place. On the day of the search, staff and 

students are alerted and given the opportunity to dump any chug or weapon into the collection bins. 

Students do so anonymously md are n~t held accountable for whatever they drop off. If an illegal item is 

found during the search, however, the student will be prosecuted. The searches have yielded significant 

amounts of contraband, mostly marijuana.” 

Some middle schoo%s did not provide student lockers. Students were required to keep 

everything in their possession h~~ghout the day. ‘]This strategy aimed to deter hidden drugs and/or 

weapons. A few SC~QO~S did not even OW students to carry standard book bags, but instead would 

accept clear mesh bags. 

Co~uamicsaBioaa SUmtegies. Schools have implemented a number of strategies to 

communicate across their buildings in the case of an emergency or when situations arise within 

classrooms. Most schools had plm in place to respond to natural disasters such as fues, tornadoes, and 

earthquakes. These plans instruct students and staff what to do if such crises occur, such as specific 

routes to follow in case of fie, where to assemble if a tornado hits, or how to remain safe during an 

earthquake. In addition to plans for responding to natural disasters, a few schools have also developed 

ways to respond to other ~cho~l-~ide emergencies. At these schools, emergency codes are commonly 

used as a way to alert students ad staff to dangerous situations. For example, in one school, certain 

codes announced ova the intercom system would alert students to proceed immediately to a classroom. 

These have been used in the past when a student was killed in an accident on the way to school and when 

another student overdosed at SC~QO~. 

Another way to commicate ~thn the school is through classroom intercoms. About half 

the schools we visited used ~WQ-W~Y intercom mdor phones in the classrooms. These were 

implemented with safety and communication in mind. The front office can monitor classrooms and 

communicate with teachers better ’dm they could without these devices. One school stated that it used a 

two-way intercom and phones in classroom as a way to monitor the class when the teacher steps out. 

A few schools, mostly urban ones, implemented emergency buttons in the classrooms. With 

these devices, teachers can easily signal for help when disruption arises. For example, a site visitor 

described the procedure at one school, “Classroom teachers have an ‘emergency button’ in the classroom 

that connects to the main office. If the button is pushed, someone in the office will contact the classroom 

via an intercom and ask, ‘what’s the nature of the emergency.’ If the teacher requires assistance, a 

security officer will be sent to the classroom.” 

162 
As described above, schools used many different strategies and practices to maintain 

security. This was, in fact, the most common type of activity administrators reported as specifically set 

up to prevent disorder in the school. The most prevalent strategy used throughout the schools was various 

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

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

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

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

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

The implementation of many of these strategies was not found to be consistent. For 

example, site visitors observed a number of times when hall monitors were not consistently enforcing 

rules and procedures (e.g., use of hall passes). Several site visitors found locks, intended to keep people 

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

All schools had similar discipline practices and policies. Rules are commonly developed by 

school districts and used by every school within the district. Almost every school mentioned having 

student handbooks, which were provided to all students at the beginning of the school year. Individual 

schools usually have discretion in revising the handbooks, and most do adapt the rules to fit their 

particular situations and discipline management styles. Many schools discuss the handbooks as they are 

given to the students, and several require student and parent signatures. 

The site visitors felt that students knew most of their school rules, mainly through word of 

mouth and observation. Students simply paid attention throughout their years of schooling. When asked 

in the focus groups, most students said that they knew the rules and that they have not changed from 

when they first began attending school. Many commented that they were “common sense.” 

In most of the schools, teachers were encouraged to handle discipline problems on their own 

inside the classroom, unless the incident was serious enough to warrant more attention. As one school 

summed their school-wide strategy, “If you (the teacher) can deal with the disorder in your classroom, 

then deal with it. If you need assistance or if violence erupts, call (the security officer) and the fiont 

office immediately.” Or as another respondent pointed out, “the administration encourages the teachers to 

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 

163 - 

49 
deal with these types of problems (general misbehavior and horseplay) in the classroom so as not to bring 

every little problem to the attention of the office staff.” 

When incidents do occur and discipline action is taken, teachers often are encouraged to 

follow through with phone calls to the student’s parents. Whether or not this happens seems to depend 

upon the relationship between the teachers and parents, as well as the school’s discipline policy. Other 

teachers prefer not to handle student misbehavior on their own. They would rather remove the disruptive 

students fiom their classrooms so that they might teach rather than constantly act as a disciplinarian. In 

schools with larger discipline offices and procedures in place to systematically handle individual cases, 

teachers may be more willing, and even encouraged, to send students to the office. For example, in one 

school, a type of detainment classroom is set aside to hold students until a discipline administrator is 

ready to meet with them. 

Consequences of Violating or Complying with Rules 

Consequences associated with rules almost exclusively involved some sort of punishment for 

violating rules rather than rewards for complying with the rules. The consequences associated with 

breaking the rules were most often detemined by school district staff. Administrators within the schools 

could change or adapt them as they saw fit. The type of consequence administered depended upon the 

incident. School officials usually had a great deal of flexibility in deciding the consequence for a 

particular incident, although certain serious incidents dictated specific consequences. The schools had in 

place a wide array of consequences, mainly involving either some kind of focused attention on the 

student, a process of removing and containing the student, or outside involvement fiom parents or law 

officials. 

For initial infractions or minor rule violations, students were given warnings. Sometimes, 

teachers or administrators would hold personal conferences with the student, to talk about their behavior 

and deal with problems before they got out of hand. Removing student privileges was often the first line 

of defense that schools used for minor offenses. Examples might include revoking a student’s break, offcampus lunch, or driving privileges. Students in vocational education programs may be dropped from the 

program. 

Schools try to routinely involve parents in discipline matters concerning their children. In 

some schools, teachers are encouraged to call parents with every infraction. Other schools routinely call 

parents when students are absent fiom school. Some schools send written notices home regarding 

discipline actions. Parents are almost always involved with student suspensions, and are often required to 

164 50 
attend a conference with school administrators. Parent contact is also required for matters of truancy, and 

may involve attending a school board meeting. At one school, parents are asked to accompany their child 

to school for a day when the student misbehaves. At another school, parents must sign their children into 

school after an “overnight suspension.*’ Whether these helped deter future misbehavior or not is unclear. 

Detention. This strategy involves containing students in a supervised setting for a set period 

of time in which they are required to work and study silently. It differs from in-school suspensions 

because it operates outside of the normal school day, usually before school, after school, or for a block of 

time on Saturdays. The exception is lunchtime detention, offered at a few of the schools in our study. 

Teachers usually have the authority to assign this type of punishment themselves. It is commonly given 

to students for minor classroom offenses such as being tardy or disruptive, and often is used as an 

automatic response for certain infiactions, such as reaching a set number of tardies or unexcused 

absences. It also almost always precedes more serious consequences such as suspensions. Saturday 

school detentions, especially, are used as the last step before an out-of-school suspension is issued. 

The idea behind this strategy is to remove some of the free time of students and make afterschool or weekend transportation inconvenient. The principal and others at one school seemed to think 

detention was an effective deterrent because “the kids don’t like being kept after school or on Saturdays.*’ 

At another school, students told the site visitors that they’d rather take corporal punishment than waste a 

Saturday or figure out alternative transportation after school. Parents are often inconvenienced by this 

type of consequence, as well. According to students at one school, parents often complained about 

detention and transportation and thought that, “If the school assigns detention, they should provide 

transportation.” 

While staff members at several schools thought that detention was an effective strategy due 

to the inconvenience factor, teachers from other schools did not share those beliefs. At one school, 

detention was considered to be an ineffective deterrent to misbehavior because attendance was 

unenforced and students did not have to do their own work if they did attend. According to most schools 

employing this type of consequence, the major drawback is finding the staff to monitor the detention 

rooms. Many school districts cannot afford to pay for it. 

, 

Corporal Punishment. This approach was used in a number of schools that were visited, 

mainly in southem schools. Certain rules govern its use: paddling must be administered with an approved 

instrument (often referred to as the “Board of Education”) on the student’s buttocks and cannot exceed 

three “pops,*’ “swats,” or “licks” per day; it must be done by the principal or assistant principal, in the 

presence of another professional and out of the view of students; and parents must sign a release form 

51 
authorizing its use. h some schools, a waiver must be received from the district. Parents and the 

community seem to support it. According to the principal in one school, parents think that corporal 

punishment should be administered sooner, harder, and more often. In some schools, teachers paddled 

the students, but mostly the punishment came from the principal. Corporal punishment could be 

administered for any infraction. Students were usually given the choice of paddling over another form of 

consequence. Many students, when given the choice, preferred to be paddled rather than receive another 

consequence such as detention. At one school, the students told site visitors that they would rather “take 

the swats than waste a Saturday or figure out alternative transportation after school.” In another school, 

students preferred two or three licks by their coach to running laps. 

Some administrators believed co~opal punishment was effective. At one school, a site 

visitor noted, “the principals themselves are not in favor of corporal punishment, but have resorted to it 

because of problems getting parents involved in resolving disciplinary issues.” Administrators at another 

school use the paddle when they feel it is necessary to “straighten out a kid.” A diffmt principal joked 

that he would need to take disability for his shoulder if Re continued to paddle students as frequently as he 

was (284 times in one year). On the other side of the debate, some teachers at one school did not believe 

it works to “fight fwe with fipe.” An assistant principal cautioned that this punishment is not effective 

with angry students, and admitted its ineffectiveness with repeat offenders. At this school, site visitors 

concluded that, “it appears that swats are not effective because students do not take them seriously. The 

guidance counselor said she witnessed a ‘swatting’ while we were visiting and the youth openly laughed 

as he was struck” 

Suspension. Another common type of consequence, found in every school, is suspension. 

With this, students are suspended from normal school activities and must serve their sentence either inschool or out-of-school. Qut-of-school suspensions were reserved for serious offenses, such as fighting 

or drugs, and could automatically be assigned, usually for a period of 3 to 10 days. Most schools 

preferred in-school suspensions, however, because students were removed from their classes and nonnal 

school activities but remained in school md not at home watching television or roaming the streets. Also, 

funding and school performance indexes use daily attendance information, which is affected by students 

serving out-of-school suspensions. 

Like detention, some schools find staffing the in-school suspension rooms difficult. A new 

person must be hired, or teachers or administrators could proctor the room during free periods. In some 

schools, however, a video monitor substitutes for an actual person. As suspected, this type of 

consequence is not taken seriously at these schools. For example, at one school, students serving an in166 52 
school suspension had to stay in one room with a video camera for supervision. They were supposed to 

work on homework, but no one monitored the camera, so they used the time to sleep or walk the halls. 

Schools vary quite a bit in how in-school suspensions are canied out. Depending on the 

infraction and school policy, some students may serve anywhere from a lunch period to several days. 

While serving time, students are supposed to be working on class assignments. A lot of the schools 

reported that students waste time in the suspension room. Being bored may serve as the deterrent. In 

addition to working on class assignments, students may also work on behavior adjustments. For example, 

at one school, students must participate in 45 minutes of conflict resolution; at another school, students 

must, in addition to completing school assignments, copy the school rules, a discipline packet, and the 

County Code of Conduct. 

Many schools viewed in-school suspensions as a positive way to deal with student 

misbehavior. It removes students who cause disruptions and benefits disruptive students, as well, by 

keeping them at school in a structured learning environment, as opposed to serving out-of-school 

suspensions. As one school, staff pointed out, “the intent of the program is to keep the students at school 

in a confined manner, while allowing them to do school work so they don’t get behind. The philosophy 

behind the program is that if one cannot act responsibly in school, one will suffer the consequences of 

having all their rights and privileges taken away, including the ability to talk to others and to move 

freely.” 

Alternative Schooling. Another type of consequence is to completely remove the student 

from their home school and place them in alternative schooling. With this, students are sent to another 

school to continue their education for a set period of time. These alternative schools usually are run by 

the district and are used as a last resort before expulsion. Altemative schooling is a way to reach students 

when conventional schooling does not work. It may take the form of a separate school during the day, 

night school, or home schooling. This strategy is often provided for students who had committed more 

serious infractions, or for repeat offenders for whom other types of consequences did not help. Students 

with special needs-such as pregnant teenagers, troubled youth, academically challenged students, or 

those with attendance problems-also could be sent to an alternative school. 

Alternative schools accommodate a smaller number of students, usually no more than 15 to 

20. Students are sent to the school for a set number of weeks, usually six, and at the end of the term, 

students are reevaluated and may be sent back to the home school on probation. Activities at alternative 

schools vary between districts. Mostly, students are expected to work on regular classroom assignments 

in order to keep up or catch up to their peers. At some alternative schools, students are required to work 

167 53 
on their own, individualized tutoring is provided at others, and some alternative schools may also provide 

some kind of behavior modification training. Students are given individual attention and are expected to 

adhere to strict rules. 

Many school officials with alternative schooling in their districts thought that this was an 

effective strategy for maintaining order within their schools. Many view this as a last effort to reform 

students, before expulsion or dropping out. While many students drop out of school fiom these programs, 

the majority of students do return to their home schools. Both the staff and community police officer 

spoke highly of one center in their district, with the officer quoting, “this is the best thing that ever came 

to (our community).” Students miss socializing with their friends; and the alternative school in this 

district has a military-style structure. Parents are inconvenienced by having to provide transportation, as 

well. In this district, few students return to the alternative school after being sent back to their home 

schools. 

The biggest complaint regarding this strategy is the lack of staff available to monitor the 

schools. One school thought it was ineffective because it was too small and had a long waiting list. 

Transfer. Some schools may transfer disruptive students to another school in the district. 

This is known at one school as “opportunity transfers.” The idea behind this is to remove the student 

from his or her fiiends and give an opportunity for a fresh start in a different school. This strategy often is 

used to break up gangs. For example, students at one school noticed the formation of a gang and school 

officials acted quickly by transferring the ring-leaders out of the school. Of course, schools that send 

disruptive students away also need to deal with the disruptive students that other schools send their way. 

As some teachers and students in one school pointed out, “the students who transfer in from other area 

schools have much more serious problems than the students (our school) ships out. (We) also feel that the 

problem is not really solved, it is just dumped on another school. Furthermore, students lose continuity 

because they fall out of touch with (our) teachers [who] they may have developed positive relationships 

with.” 

Expulsion. The most serious consequence a school can administer to students is expulsion. 

This completely removes the student fiom the public school system, often for a semester or longer, even 

permanently. This occurs infiequently and usually is reserved for serious offenses, numerous repeat 

offenders, or as part of a zero tolerance policy’ involving weapons, drugs, or assault. The process of 

’ “Zero tolerance” policies imply that a school has predetermined consequences for the violation of certain school policies. The majority of the 

schools we visited reported that they had some sort of “zero tolerance” policy. The most common “zero tolerance” policies established 

automatic suspension or expulsion for students who engage in certain activities. The most common behaviors covered by “zero tolerance” 

policies included fighting, use or possession of drugs, and possession of a gun or other weapon. 

168 54 
expelling a student from school always involves the district and must follow certain legal guidelines. 

Students usually have the chance to appeal the decision. 

Rewards. As noted above, a few schools did mention that they try to promote good 

behavior through the use of rewards rather than punishment. Citizenship and attendance awards are 

commonly given to students to encourage these behaviors. Site visitors from one school reported that 

“extensive rewarding is used to boost the morale of students and teachers.” This school had a student of 

the month, awards at each grade level, and an awards banquet. One program at the school provided 

rewards such as 5 minutes early release to lunch, food at local restaurants, and T-shirts. Teachers, also, 

may provide rewards within their classrooms in the form of extra points. 

Other programs rewarded students for giving information on school crime. One school 

offkred monetary rewards for information in solving a crime. Another school incorporated this practice 

with its “Caught Being Good” program, which gives students prizes for telling on their peers. The 

program uses sponsors to buy various prizes. If a student gives a tip to the principal or assistant principal 

that leads to the capture of another student doing something wrong, the informant can choose a prize. The 

site visitor at that school reported that, “The assistant principal felt that this was working to help reduce 

fighting in the school.” 

Consistency of Rule Enforcement 

The two keys to effective discipline practices are communicating the rules clearly to all 

students and consistently enforcing the rules. As noted, the schools visited seemed to do an adequate job 

communicating the rules to all students. Actually getting a good measure of how consistently rules are 

enforced is difficult from the site visits, since this depends on reports fiom a relatively small number of 

persons in the school. Keeping this caveat in mind, site visitors reported that many schools did not seem 

to be consistently enforcing the rules. This last result overlaps with the conclusions from the national 

survey, which found schools generally did not consistently enforce rules across situations and students 

(Gottfkdson, et al, 2000). The site visitors found that consistency of rule enforcement was the exception 

rather than the rule across schools. 

Many of the inconsistencies seemed to be related to the seriousness of the offense. Several 

schools indicated that serious offences were more likely to be met with consistent enforcement. For 

instance, one site visitor at a large high school indicated that ‘‘rules involving violence or drugs are strictly 

enforced and carry severe penalties” whereas rules involving minor offences such as “no gum chewing in 

class is only enforced by certain teachers.” A site visitor at a large suburban middle school noted, “while 

169 55 
smaller infractions such as dress code violations are enforced inconsistently, serious violations are dealt 

with fmly by school administration.” 

Consistency in rule enforcement, although less common generally, was reported to exist in 

several schools. In one suburban middle school, a site visitor concluded, “teachers and administration 

consistently enforce school rules and policies.” At a different middle school, a site visitor summarized 

that “the principal and counselor follow these consequences strictly. Students and teachers both felt that 

rules were enforced very consistently. They were unaware of any favoritism in the school, and students 

said they liked the fact that the principal did not “play favorites” and gave the same consequences to any 

student breaking rules, regardless of whether or not that student was a star athlete or class clown.” 

Many students and some teachers specified “favoritism” as the source of rule enforcement 

inconsistencies. For example, one site visitor reported, “the teachers in the discussion group felt that 

certain students received special treatment from the administration, such as athletes. Some students felt 

that the “preps” or richer students received preferential treatment because they were better liked by the 

principal than other students. Another site visitor at a large suburban high school noted that students “as 

well as the teachers in the teacher discussion group, felt that the teachers and administration are not 

consistent in how they handle similar situations with different students and that perhaps there was some 

favoritism among those students who fiequent the discipline office and have gotten to know the staff 

better and among those students who are athletes.” A third site visitor at a large rural high school 

mentioned that, “it seems that the principal shows favoritism to students who have prominent parents.” 

Another explanation for inconsistencies was variation in discidine stvles across teachers and 

administrators. For example, as related by one site visitor, ‘‘the students felt that some teachers are 

stricter than others are and take offenses-even minor ones-more seriously and give out greater 

punishments.” Another site visitor at a large urban high school stated that “the major problem with 

discipline at the school was inconsistencies between assistant principals. Students, teachers and 

administrators all stated that the two assistant principals handle discipline issues very differently. One 

assistant principal adheres to the student handbook discipline rules, while the other ‘negotiates’ with each 

student, so that the student receives a smaller penalty in comparison.” 

How problems are handled in the classroom varies from teacher to teacher. Some teachers 

yell, some threaten with extra homework or a lower grade, and some try to keep students on task to avoid 

any free time for acting out. As one site visitor reported from her school, “all of the teachers we spoke to 

talked about keeping ahead of incidents and trying to prevent them by talking to students ahead of time, 

keeping students on-task, establishing routines, and maximizing the amount of time that the teacher 

170 
controls the classroom.” At the same school, however, a recent incident involved a teacher pushing a 

child over a chair. At the time of the site visit, the teacher was under investigation. Obviously, at that 

school, as in many of the schools we visited, classroom management practices varied widely. 

Site visitors did observe some variability in the schools regarding what the teachers and 

administrators are expected to handle. As one site visitor observed, “there is a slight struggle between the 

administrators wanting teachers to handle more incidents themselves, and teachers wanting administrators 

to handle lower level cases.” Administrators sometimes express annoyance that teachers do not handle 

more discipline problems on their own, and that they refuse to take responsibility for disorder in their 

classrooms, let alone in the rest of the school. Administrators complained at one school that teachers did 

not enforce the rules consistently, and let students out of class early. The teachers disagreed, however, 

claiming that they handle most disorder problems within their classrooms themselves and that only a very 

few teachers write up students. At another school, the principal admitted that he handles discipline 

referrals differently depending on the teacher and student involved. If a teacher writes up students for 

“every little thing,” it is not taken quite as seriously as with a teacher who has good control of the class 

and writes up a student as a last resort. 

A third common explanation for inconsistency was princiDal Dersonalitv or management 

@. For instance, a site reporter at one large urban high school recounted that, “the principal is very 

supportive when it comes to programs, but not so supportive when it comes to matters of discipline. The 

principal forces many problems back to teachers to deal with, problems that would be handled by the 

principal in other schools.” A site visitor at a different school illustrates another example: “according to 

the principal, the administration is committed to setting an appropriate tone and being very clear about the 

rules. However, the teachers described the principal as having ‘no vertebra,’ as being ‘weak,’ and feel the 

rules are very unclear. The students also feel that he is soft on discipline and avoids dealing with 

incidents when possible.” 

Summary 

We found considerable overlap in discipline procedures across schools. The rules were 

generally guided by the school district and involved varying levels of punishment as the offenses became 

more serious. Very few rewards were structured into the procedures. Schools seemed to have few 

problems with communicating the rules to all students. However, we found some evidence that rules are 

not consistently enforced across students. How common inconsistent enforcement was across relatively 

minor and serious infractions is unclear. Many of these inconsistencies may stem from the general 

process of letting teachers handle many of the infractions within the classroom. As noted by a number of I ’ I. 

-1 71 57 
administrators, teachers do vary on how they deal with disorder problems. Much of the inconsistency 

reported by students may be related to these differences in individual style across teachers and other staff. 

An important correlate of the level of school disorder is the climate of the school. For 

purposes of this report, we have adopted a definition of climate fiom two sources (OERI, 1993; Kelly, et 

al, 1986). The essential components of OUT school climate model are: (a) stafflstudent relationships, (b) 

goals, (c) rules and procedures, and (d) facilities and environment.* In the remainder of this chapter we 

discuss our findings on these components. 

StaffEtudent Relationships 

The majority of the sites reported good communication between all parties (teachers, 

administrators, parents, and students). In some cases, the sites produced contradictory messages 

regarding relations. For example, a site that reported limited communication regarding management 

issues also reported high levels of comfort with all parties at the school. A site that reported disrespect 

toward teachers also reported a family atmosphere between some teachers and students. These two 

examples portray the complicated and sometimes mixed communication patterns that are documented by 

site visitors. However, these examples appear to be the exception to the rule. Schools were assessed 

overall very positively in regards to teacher-student, teacher-administration, and student-student 

relationships. The two areas that consistently appeared to be the weakest links in the communication 

chain were parent-school and community-school relations. Even within the strongest examples we found 

in overall relationships, these two areas were lacking. Exhibit 4-1 provides examples of schools that 

exhibited very strong relationships. 

* These components consist oE 

Stafflstudent re IationshiDs: teacher-student relationships, student-peer relationships, teachex-administnitor relationships, parent-school 

relationships, and community-school relationships; 

w: student academic orientation, khaviml values. and school reputation; 

Rules and ~rocedures: instructional management. administration, and guidance; and 

Facilities and en vinmment : level of cleanliness. supplies. space, and community environment. 

172 58 
Exhibit 4-1 

Examples of Schools with Good StudenUStaff Relationships 

One middle school that provides an example of good student/staff relationships appears to 

begin with this positive climate predicated on the principal’s communication style. At this 

particular school, the principal is described as collaborative and welcoming with teachers and 

administrators. He is described as genuinely liking the students and is supportive of them. 

Students in tum, report feelings of respect for the principal. The students appear to treat each other 

with respect and treat the teachers with respect as well. Teachers believe that the administration is 

“on the same page’’ with them-implying clear and consistent communication patterns are the 

norm. The teachers report their enjoyment of working at this school and that they treat the students 

“as if the students are their own and expect them to behave accordingly.” Communication with 

parents appears to be “of great importance at the middle school, “and procedures are in place to 

involve parents when issues arise with students. 

A high school setting highlights the importance of creating and maintaining open lines of 

communication. In this example, teachers and students reported positively on the communication 

between teachers, students and administration. This positive communication appears to reflect the 

commitment of the teachers to the school and the students. The teachers report being supported by 

the administration and that decision-making is handled collaboratively. According to students and 

teachers, relationships with students are positive. Students feel comfortable talking to teachers 

about problems. Based on our observations, the interactions between administrators and students 

were relaxed and friendly. 

Both of these examples leave something to be desired in the parent-school relationships and 

the community-school relationships. Administrators appear to be trying to involve the parents and the 

Community through guest speakers and having parents work as greeters in the schools. Links with the 

community generally are through parents and this appears to be the primary format that most schools take 

in engaging the surrounding community into the life of the schools. 

These impressions from the site visitors seem to support the quantitative survey data 

collected during the site visits. As noted in the introduction, these surveys were administered 

concurrently to teachers and students. They included questions on school morale, which was rated very 

high. Similarly, the students who completed the survey rated their relations with other students as very 

good, indicating overall positive relations. 

An example of poor relationships in a high school setting begins with teachers reporting that 

they don’t have the support of their administration. Further, the teachers report that the administration 

does not value their input and, therefore, the administration does not have “buy-in” with the teachers on 

policy issues. The level of communication between teachers and the administration was reported to be 

not very good. Students also reported not being treated with respect and that classes were too big. Parent 
involvement at the high school level is notoriously low. The relationship between the school and the 

local police department can be best described as strained. Communication between these two agencies 

seems to be minimal, and that communication is through formal channels only. 

These impressions from the site visitors are supported from the survey data collected during 

the site visits, which indicate that teachers rated their school morale as very low. Similarly, the students 

who completed the survey rated their relations with other students as poor, indicating generally poor 

relations at this particular school. 

0 

8 

When looking at school climate through the lens of relationships, a trend was observed that 

cut across school levels as well those strong and weak examples of school relations. This trend was the 

active engagement of the principal into the ‘life-flow’ of the school. That is, we often observed highly 

visible, communicative, and engaging principals working at schools that had some of the strongest 

climate relations. These principals were observed in the cafeteria with students, talking with staff and 

teachers informally, and generally engaged in the on-going, daily activities of the schools, or the lifeflow. These principals were also described by teachers as collaborative, supportive, open to ideas and 

input, and “on the same page.” Students often described these principals as caring, approachable, and 

fair. Conversely, principals in some of the schools with the least healthy relations were ofien distant, 

narrowly focused, and even absent. These principals were often described as non-collaborative, 

unapproachable, unengaged, and intimidating by teachers and students. Principals’ communicative style 

within the school culture appears to penneate the entire system to some degree, and this can facilitate 

healthhl or harmful relations. 

Goals and Mission 

The second component of climate examined is the school’s overall sense of purpose and 

mission. This includes the academic orientation of staff and students, behavioral values, and the general 

reputation for academics and safety. The visited schools fell into four general types. The first type of 

school tended to be characterized by a strong focus on academics on the part of students and staff. They 

tended to have a good academic reputation relative to other schools in the community and above average 

performance on standardized tests. Examples include a small middle school in a large city. It is a magnet 

school where the students are admitted on the basis of academic performance. Most go on to magnet high 

schools. Although physically unassuming and somewhat dreary, the school supported numerous 

computers and had recently been the cited in a newspaper article for its use of technology. Another rural 

school had recently gone from worst to first academically in the district and was “woring hard to become 

a superior academic setting.” These schools tended to be relatively small. 

174 
The second type of school focused primarily on its academic mission but was struggling to 

improve performance. Although these schools were often large and located in neighborhoods with 

economic or social problems, they managed to keep academics in the forefiont. One large suburban high 

school had a generally poor reputation but was viewed by students and staff as “one of the best kept 

secrets in the district.” Students were generally serious about learning and teachers took their roles 

seriously. Neighborhood gangs viewed the school as neutral territory. Although surrounded by a chain 

link fence, the school gave the impression of being an oasis in the surrounding community. 

The third type of school was characterized by wide variation in academic reputation and 

performance, but was notable for a strong emphasis on controlling student behavior and maintaining 

discipline. Some were in communities where students or parents did not place high value on education. 

Some were in communities where order and respect for authority were important. Others struggled to 

maintain order in large schools with diverse populations. In one rural middle school, the “emphasis is 

rather more on behavior than academics.” The school had a reputation as strict and controlling and 

seemed to fear disorder more than it had experienced disorder. The school day was structured to limit 

opportunities for students to act out in any way. Another rural high school in a “conservative and old 

fashioned” community also placed considerable emphasis on discipline. ‘Teachers [said] that if there was 

as much attention to the curriculum and instruction as there is to behavior, the school could solve some of 

its real problems-student apathy toward studies, parental apathy, truancy, and tardiness.” One urban 

high school with a good academic reputation had made improvements in discipline and security over the 

past few years. However, students “felt the administration was preoccupied with discipline and focused 

more on rules related to the dress code than those concerning safety or education.” Staff pointed out ‘‘that 

there are more administrative staff assigned to handling discipline than there are handling academic 

issues.” 

The fourth type tended to place a great deal of emphasis on extra-cunicular aspects of 

school. Their reputations were often defined by their sports teams. They tended to be in communities 

where the social aspects of schools were as important as the academic aspects. In one low achieving rural 

high school, teachers felt that students and the community were not committed to education. Few 

students went on to post-secondary education and sports were important. Similarly, in another rural high 

school, teachers felt that “students are not very interested in learning and many come to class just to 

socialize with their fiends.” The school supported a very successful football team. One suburban high 

school was characterized by students and staff as lacking diversity and as being, “a throw-back to the 

195O’s, focusing on pep rallies ...[ and] sports.” The emphasis on academics was not strong. Both 
students and staff reported that the school had a reputation for extra-curricular activities, and students 

reported having a reputation as “stuck-up snobs.” 

Rules and Procedures 

Another aspect of school climate is the school’s approach to rules and school management. 

This includes the fairness and consistency of enforcement of rules, instructional management, and 

principal leadership. Procedures for enforcing rules and dealing with discipline issues me described in 

another section. In this section, we discuss some overlapping themes and approaches that contribute to 

school climate. 

Although classroom teachers had the primary responsibility for discipline in all cases, 

schools fell into two general types. In the first type, teachers tended to deal with all but the most serious 

discipline issues within the classroom, including setting punishments (such as detentions) and calling 

parents if necessary. Administrators dealt only with the most serious or intractable problems. In many 

cases, these schools were small or did not have the resources to allocate administrators to deal with 

discipline hll time. In the second type, teachers tended to deal with small infractions within the 

classroom and then refer students to an administrator for repeated or more serious infractions. The 

administrator(s) (usually an assistant principal or dean) was responsible for assigning punishment and 

contacting parents. These schools tended to be larger or have a larger administrative staff. 

School approaches to disorder and discipline ranged fiom proactive to reactive. Schools 

with proactive approaches tended to enforce rules more strictly and deal with smll incidents quickly 

before they escalated. Reactive schools dealt with situations and incidents as they happened. Proactive 

schools tended to have a strategy for managing the school day and dealing with discipline. This strategy 

could either be explicitly stated or just a shared understanding among administrators and teachers. 

No matter what the approach toward discipline in the study schools, consistency of rule 

enforcement emerged as an important issue especially among students in our focus groups. Both middle 

and high school students were quick to note real or perceived inconsistency in the enforcement of rules. 

This included variation among teachers in their tolerance for classroom disorder, variation among 

administrators, selective enforcement of rules, and variation in enforcement by type of student (e.g., good 

students, athletes, or students with prominent parents). Perceptions of inconsistent enforcement were 

widespread among students and less so among teachers and adrmnistrators. This highlights the difficulty 

of maintaining a balance between enforcing rules consistently and maintaining the flexibility to deal with 

students as individuals. 

176 62 
Another theme that emerged was the importance of principal leadership in setting the overall 

tone in a school regarding discipline and enforcement of rules. Principals varied in their involvement 

with school management and discipline. Some took a “hands-on” approach and were involved in the daytoday application of discipline. They were often a frequent presence around the school building and 

encouraged teachers to be a presence outside the classroom as well. Others left discipline to teachers and 

other administrators. Whatever the level of direct involvement in discipline and management, school staff 

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

gave them a voice in management issues. 

Facilities and 

Site visitors observed the condition of the school buildings and grounds, looking for signs of 

graffiti, litter, vandalism, and disrepair. Most of the schools were reported to be clean, both inside and 

out. If graffiti appeared, it was usually painted over by the next day. If litter was present, usually only a 

small amount was observed on the school grounds or in the bathrooms, although several schools did 

report areas littered with cigarette butts outside the school. Vandalism was rarely seen, but a few site 

visitors did observe bathrooms without stall doors or supplies. 

Regarding the condition of the school buildings, some variety was shown in the schools in 

this study. Some schools were new or recently renovated, while others showed their age with lealq roofs 

and crumbling architecture. A few schools had broken windows, and site visitors at one school did not 

observe any fire extinguishers at the site. 

No trends emerged in the amount of physical disorder and instructional level (high or middle 

school), but schools did show some trends in terms of urbanicity and size. Urban schools were more 

likely to have disorderly appearances, and small schools, along with rural and suburban schools, were 

more likely to be clean and in good condition. 

The community environments sometimes contrasted with the school ecologies. For 

example, the surrounding neighborhood of a large urban middle school is rundown with boarded-up and 

abandoned houses scattered throughout the area. A large public housing project that has a very poor 

reputation in this large city is situated next to the middle school. Counter to what one might expect of the 

school’s physical environment, it boasts large colorful murals outside as well as inside. Colorful banners 

with positive and motivational messages hang in the halls of this school. Pictures of famous African 

Americans fill bulletin boards in the hallways. Very little graffiti exists and fresh paint is apparent. 

177 63 
These positive environmental conditions create a “safe haven” for these students, most of whom live in 

environmentally stressful situations. 

These positive environmental conditions at schools may foster stronger school attachment, 

which has been linked to reduced school disorder and is a protective factor for youth (Hawkins, Catalano, 

and Miller, 1992). That is, students for whom school attachment is high have more at stake-more to 

lose-by misbehaving in school than students with low school attachment. Schools with high levels of 

school attachment among students, hence, are more likely to have lower levels of disorder and higher 

levels of safety than schools with low levels of school attachment. 

178 64 
Planning .I 

.. An important part of managing and controlling disorder in a school is the use of planning to 

assess needs and make decisions on appropriate actions. To this end, this chapter addresses the question: 

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

school prevention options to improve school management? 

Analysis of national survey data (Gottfredson, et al., 2000; Crosse, et al., forthcoming) found 

that 57 percent of schools seem to use sound planning structures when deciding on what types of 

prevention measures to use. These analyses also found that planning structures were much more common 

at the school level. That is, prevention programs and activities were stronger on a school-wide, rather 

than on a program-specific basis. 

In this chapter, we elaborate on these results by examining the planning processes used by 

six schools that were found, in the aforementioned survey, to have sound planning processes. The goal is 

to try to characterize more specifically how these schools operate, how planning relates to specific 

prevention activities and some of the reasons these particular schools seem to be more successful in the 

planning process. 

The first section describes the methods of sample selection and data collection. The next 

section describes the characteristics of the planning structures or processes that these schools have 

implemented, including their functions, outcomes and level perceived of success. In the third section, 

similar patterns across schools are described. In the final section we summarize the results and draw out 

some general conclusions about the methods used by these schools for planning prevention activities. 

- 

65 179 
The study team developed a general definition of planning, which is as follows. 

The application of a school management structure or process to reduce 

problem behavior in schools. Sound planning entails the use of information in 

the ongoing systematic (a) assessment of needs, (b) development of goals and 

objective, (c) selection of prevention activities, and (d) evaluation of those 

activities. 

For our examination of planning, we selected a purposive sample of six secondary schools 

that reported sound planning practices related to prevention in the national survey and conducted 

telephone interviews with a staff member in each school. (These six schools are in addition to the schools 

that we visited.) The six schools selected included three high schools, two middle schools and one 

combination middle school and high school. Two of each of the schools were urban, suburban and rural 

respectively. Their populations ranged fiom 690 students to 1,600 students. In regard to the nature of the 

schools’ curricula, three of the schools were “specialty” schools (such as magnet or technical schools), 

and three of the schools were nonspecialty schools. 

The kinds of school-level ~lanning structures or processes implemented varied across 

schools. The schools reported having leadership/administrative teams (principal and vice-principals), 

safety committees, discipline committees, school advisory councils or site-based management teams and a 

few miscellaneous committees initiated to deal with specific safety or discipline issues. Regardless of the 

variability between schools, all of the schools reported at least one school-level planning structure that 

addresses the prevention or reduction of problem behavior. 

The main functions of the majority of the planning structures are to assess school needs, to 

develop goals based on needs and objectives to meet these goals. This may or may not result in the 

selection and implementation of prevention activities. Some of these planning structures are specifically 

focused on school safety. As such, these safety-focused planning structures are primarily concerned with 

issues such as fire safety, evacuation procedures, and how to prevent outside intruders who might pose a 

threat to the school. Substance abuse and delinquency prevention do not appear to be the current main 

focus for most of these schools, although the respondents acknowledge that their planning structures 

would address these issues if the need presented itself. 

Several commonalties were noted across school-level planning structures. In particular, four 

main themes emerged regarding the characteristics of school-level planning structures. One theme was 

180 66 
that prevention was not the main focus of the school-level planning. Although all of the schools reported 

having planning structures that deal with prevention programs, this does not appear to be the primary 

function of most of these structures. The main function of the majority of the planning structures is the 

ongoing assessment of school needs and the development of goals and objectives to address these needs. 

Other functions include: (a) review of safety and security procedures; (b) development of the School 

Improvement Plan; (c) discussion of current school issues; (d) evaluation of school services; (e) 

organization of campus activities; (0 review and revision of school rules and polices; and, (g) in the case 

of the administrative teams, overall management of the school. 

A related theme was, when a “prevention program” concern did exist, school-level physical 

safety and security was more likely to be stressed than individual-level activities (e.g., curricula designed 

to build resistance skills). The focus on physical safety could be a reaction to recent publicity involving 

school shooting-ne respondent noted that the “media hype” contributed to several safety reforms 

initiated in that school. As a result, most safety-oriented committees focus on security and safety issues 

such as crisis management related to natural disasters and outside intruders. Other prevention issues (e.g., 

preventing student substance abuse or other problem behavior) are incorporated into ,the goals “to the 

extent it’s considered a need.” Most of the schools do not recognize this as a current need but asserted 

that any district policies on the issue were being implemented (usually education). For example, when 

asked about the extent to which school-level planning structures focus on substance abuse issues, one 

respondent reported, “to the point of making sure we have adequate education on it. It hasn’t been a big 

problem in the past, so it’s just something we have to be made aware of and make sure we keep the 

students educated.” 

A third characteristic of the structure was membership diversity. Most of the schools 

reported that their planning structures not only included administrators, but also teachers, students, 

parents andor community members. 

A fourth characteristic is using multiple sources of input when making final decisions. For 

the most part, the selection or discontinuation of prevention activities is a process involving a variety of 

concerned individuals. In most cases, selection or discontinuation involves input from a variety of outside 

resources (e.g., research, solicitors, resource centers, and consultants) as well as from members of the 

school and surrounding community (e.g., students, parents, teachers, administrators, and community 

members). Even in those cases where the principal makes the final decisions, input is solicited and 

considered fiom a variety of sources. 

18 il 67 
When asked about the outcomes of these planning structures, respondents were remarkably 

similar in the nature of their responses. Rather than noting specific programs or activities, most of the 

respondents expressed the major outcomes of these structures in terms of perceptions. Most noted 

increased perceptions of safety on the part of students, parents and teachers. As stated by one respondent, 

“our kids feel safer. Parents think their kids are in a safa environment and I feel everyone is in a win-win 

situation from it (the implementation of a planning structure).” 

For the most part, the respondents reported that most students, faculty, parents and 

community members appear to be pleased with the outcomes of these planning structures. Several of the 

respondents noted that school community members were satisfied because they see these planning 

structures as an avenue to express their concerns and suggestions for improvement. For example, one 

respondent reported, “I think they (the school community) are very much satisfied because they know that 

if they have any concerns, they can address them here.. .they are a vital part (of the planning process) so 

they feel good.” Not surprisingly, the majority of the school-level planning structures rely on the 

members of the school community and surrounding community as either members of or advisors to these 

planning structures. 

Across these six schools several themes emerged that seemed related to their success. 

Freedom. Most schools stated that their districts give them the freedom to develop and 

select their own prevention activities as long as they are not in conflict with any district policies. Some 

mentioned that requests for money often invite more district involvement. One respondent reported, “the 

school sites are left to a great degree to what they need to do.. .typically, we’re free to choose our own 

(activities).” This conclusion is important when considered in relation to the finding from the national 

survey that programs implemented by school personnel, rather than those mandated by an outside entity, 

tended to be better implemented (Gottfiedson, et al., 2000). 

Budget. Surprisingly, budget constraints were not listed as major factors affecting the 

implementation of prevention activities. However, all respondents noted that increased finding could 

provide additional opportunities currently not available due to budget constraints. 

Formation of Structure. Three reasons were reported as factors leading to the fonnation of 

school-level planning structures. A few respondents made reference to recent media coverage of 

182 68 
incidents of school violence (“media hype”) as a factor contributing to the perceived need for prevention 

planning. Other respondents noted a state or district mandate as a catalyst for the formation of these 

planning structures. Still others reported that the development of their planning structures was related to 

safety concerns (or assessed needs to improve safety) which may or may not have been based on real 

incidents of violence that were occurring on these school campuses. 

Level of Safety. All six respondents reported that their schools were safe and noted that 

incidents of disorder were few and most were of a minor nature. Serious threats of violence or other 

safety issues were reported as few and far between and considered the exception rather than the rule. 

Principal Management Style. All of the respondents indicated a similar management style 

of their principals. Although these principals tend to delegate a great deal to their vice-principals, most of 

the respondents reported that their principal was well informed and in touch with the climate of the 

school. Most of the principals had very little daily contact with students and teachers, but were still open 

to suggestions from all members of the school community with regard to prevention issues. 

Non-Quantitative Outcomes. Most of the schools do not look at quantitative outcomes, 

noting size and level of safety of the school as contributing factors to their approach. As one respondent 

noted, “to have a quantitative goal in a school of 1600 kids (is unreasonable). ..and they (the goals) are 

event-driven. It’s driven by the kids, not by any (quantitative outcome). ..You’re sort of in a reactionary 

mode, so everything is a prevention and, of course, we react when we need to.” 

Meeting Frequency. Our content analysis revealed that most of these planning structures 

meet regularly. Some meet as frequently as once per week and a few meet as infiequently as once per 

school year. A few meet only when the need arises. 

Needs Assessments. All of the schools have planning structures that conduct needs 

assessments of some form or another. These range from reviews of school data (number of incident 

reports) and informal discussions with interested parties to lengthy surveys involving students, faculty, 

and/or parents. In turn, these assessments are used by the planning structures to develop goals and 

objectives, and contribute to the selection and development of prevention activities. These planning 

structures ensure that prevention activities are evaluated and that goals and objectives are adjusted in 

order to meet changes in need. 

183 69 
This chapter has described the process by which some of those strongest in school-level 

planning engage in sound planning practices. Although the kinds of planning structures that have been 

implemented may vary across these six schools, similarities between these structures and between the 

schools themselves are evident. All six schools have ongoing school-level planning structures that assess 

the needs of the schools and develop goals and objectives to meet these needs. In addition, when 

appropriate, these structures select prevention activities and evaluate those activities on a regular basis. In 

general, we found that the manner in which these planning structures operate is consistent with sound 

planning as defined by our study team. 

Aside from these similarities in process, these planning structures also demonstrated similar 

structural characteristics. All the respondents reported that their school’s planning structures address 

prevention, but indicated that prevention was not the main hction of the structure. When prevention is 

addressed, security and safety, rather than the substance abuse or delinquency prevention seem to be the 

main focus. In addition, these structures have diverse membership and consult a variety of resources 

when selecting or discontinuing prevention activities. 

As for similarities between these planning-strong schools, these schools tend to be allowed 

by the district fiee to select their own prevention activities and are not burdened by budget constraints. 

These structures formed as a response to disorder (a result of incidents of violence within the school or 

incidents reported in other schools), or as a result of a state or district mandate. In addition, these schools 

are perceived as safe and exhibit similar styles of principal management. Furthermore, respondents noted 

a lack of emphasis on quantitative outcomes. 

This chapter does not attempt to make generalizations about the extent to which all schools 

practice sound planning. However, it does describe the extent to which those schools identified as 

strongest in the area of school-level planning are using sound planning and information on school 

prevention options to improve school management. All six schools have ongoing planning structures that 

assess the needs of the schools and develop goals and objectives to meet these needs. When appropriate, 

these structures select prevention activities and evaluate those activities on a regular basis. 

In summary, the extent to which schools use sound planning and information on prevention 

options to improve school management is related to the level of a perceived need to do so. In the case of 

the six schools selected for this portion of the study, each of them has at least one school-level planning 

184 
structure that regularly assesses (through formal or informal need assessments) the need for reduction or 

prevention of problem behavior. If a need is uncovered, the schools (through these school-level planning 

structures) further engage in sound planning and use of information on prevention options. 

71 1 8s 
istinguishing Middle Schools with Different 

Levels of Disorder 

In this chapter, we address the study question on characteristics and processes that 

distinguish safe and unsafe schools. We identified a limited number of schools based on a measure of 

disorder that enabled us to may schools on a continuum fiom high to low disorder. Drawing on all of the 

fimdings fiom the previous chapters, we compared these two sets of schools to identify policy-relevant 

differences. Although the study method limits the extent to which we can assert causal relationships, 

these differences suggest approaches that policy-makers and school personnel may wish to pursue to 

increase school safety. 

The analysis discussed in this chapter is restricted to middle schools. This was done because 

ofthe limited variation in safety across the high schools in the sample. 

In answering the study question on characteristics and processes that distinguish schools 

with different levels of disorder, we relied heavily on the quantitative information gathered fiom the 

surveys of students and teachers at the intermediate level. Several measures of school crime were created. 

The measure that we used to distinguish schools was the percent of students reporting that they were the 

victim of a serious crime (threatened with a weapon or robbed) in school during the current school year. 

We recognize that the schools in our groups represent different points along a continuum. 

We conducted analyses across all schools. Separately for the middle schools and senior high 

schools, we identified the three schools with highest percentages on this measure and the three schools 

with the lowest percentages. -7 

186 72 
Analysts then sought to identie any characteristics or processes that differentiated schools in the two 

groups. The characteristics and processes on which we compared the schools are covered in Chapters 4 

and 5 of this report: 

School characteristics: size, urbanicity, student demographics; 

Community characteristics: crime and safety in surrounding community, risk factors for 

violence (poverty, unemployment, single parent, mobility, age, race); 

Programs: number, type, and quality of programs and strategies used to prevent 

violence and other problem behavior; 

Security: security staff, police involvement, and security devices; 

Discipline: procedures to administer, record, and report disciplinary action; types of 

disciplinary actions, zero tolerance policies, and rules; and consistency of rule 

enforcement; 

Climate: stamstudent relationships, goals, rules and procedures, physical environment; 

and 

We also performed a similar analysis within the original selection cells that, based on the 

intensive level study data, yielded a sufficiently large difference between schools on the disorder measure. 

This analysis allowed us to control for some of the background Characteristics that may affect disorder. 

Again, we sought to identie any characteristics or processes that differentiated schools in the two groups. 

As mentioned in Chapter 2, as a whole, the 40 schools in our sample tended to have 

relatively low levels of disorder. In addition, middle schools tended to have higher levels of disorder than 

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

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

disorder schools were victims of such violent incidents. This range (1 1%) was exceeded by the range for 

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

experienced one or more violent incidents. 

Because of the small variation in our sample across high schools, the results described in the 

remainder of the chapter are restricted to middle schools. For high schools, we decided against 

comparing and contrasting schools with “high” and “low” levels of disorder because clearly 

distinguishing among schools on school safety was impossible. 

187 73 
We present overall findings by levels of disorder. h exhibits, we provide more detailed 

information on specific schools. 

Low Disorder Schools 

Although these schools varied considerably along a number of characteristics, they shared 

some important principles in their operation and atmosphere. They had a clear consistent approach to 

maintaining order and discipline. They did not merely react to problem behavior, they worked to ensure 

that problem behavior did not occur or that small problems did not escalate. In these schools, teachers 

and administrators had internalized this ethos and seemed to feel that maintaining order was a shared 

responsibility. School staff conveyed clear expectations for behavior to students that went beyond 

publicizing rules. 

0 The schools all had strong principals. Their leadership styles differed but they were 

clear leaders and were active and involved in the life of the school. 

School staff, especially teachers, viewed themselves as working on a team. Teachers 

supported each other and all shed a sense of academic mission. 

Whether required to or not, teachers were actively involved in maintaining order both 

inside and outside the clasmom. Teachers monitored hallways between classes, shared 

lunch duty, and were generally observant. 

Relationships among students, teachers, and administrators were generally positive and 

characterized by respect and collegiality. In the one case where relations between 

teachers and the principal were strained, other factors compensated for the problem such 

as collegiality among the teachers, good relationships with the students, and the strong 

academic mission of the school. 

0 

0 

Profiles of Law Disorder Middle Ssbsopls 

School A 

School and communitv characteristics: This is a small magnet school in an urban area. It has an enrollment of about 

200, almost all of whom are African American. About 20 percent qualify for fiee or reduced price lunch. Enrollment 

is competitive. Students come fiom a wide area of the city and itre accepted based on grades and test scores. The 

school is located in an urban neighborhood with demtely high levels of unemployment and poverty. 

Roerams: The school participates in a gang prevention program, which is district-wide. Some students are involved 

(on a voluntary basis) in suppoddiscussion groups for boys and girls that deal with issues of growing up and 

adolescence. School A has block scheduling and no hells. 

Security: The school employs no security devices save for walkie-talkies. All doors except the main entrance are 

locked. No specific staff are responsible for security, but teachers and administrators keep on the lookout for intruders. 

The school also participates in a citywide “safe corridors” program, which uses parent volunteers to watch students as 

they make their way to and fiom city bus stops before and after school. 

188 74 
DisciDline: No administrative staff are responsible for discipline. Teachers are expected to handle most issues in the 

classroom. In addition to handbooks and assemblies, many rules are posted throughout the school. Everyone is aware of 

the rules and students feel that they are mostly reasonable. 

Climate: The school is very academically oriented and students are highly motivated. Relationships between the 

students and the teachers and counselor are very positive. Students get along well with one another and teachers are 

collegial and feel they are part of a team. The principal is a strong leader, but some teachers chafe at her rather 

authoritarian style. 

Disorder: Disorder is extremely low with only minor incidents. School staff are more concerned with neighborhood 

disorder than disorder within the school. Cars are occasionally vandalized and a student was recently in an altercation 

with someone from a neighborhood middle school. 

School B 

School and community characteristics: School B is a suburban school with an enrollment of about 900. Students are 

mostly white with about 30 percent qualifying for free or reduced price lunches. The school reflects its surrounding 

Prom: The school has a building-level SDFSCA coordinator. The prevention programming consists mostly of 

classroom presentations and special days devoted to presentations. The school offers an anti-peer pressure club that 

sponsors various school-wide activities. Troubled students can be referred to a district program for delinquent youth. 

Security: A video camera (inoperative at the time of our site visit) is installed near a public phone and camera boxes 

(but not necessarily cameras) have been installed on all school buses. The school has log books for signing in and out of 

classrooms and staff wear ID badges. The school also has a security plan in case of a serious incident. 

Discidine: Rules are clear and generally understood. Teachers are expected to handle most discipline issues within the 

classroom including documentation and calling parents. Standards for behavior are high and communication with 

parents is good. The school attempts to nip problem behavior in the bud. It also uses in-school suspension. 

Climate: School B is a friendly, supportive environment. Relationships among staff, students, and administration are 

good. The principal is a strong leader. Turnover among teachers is very low. 

Disorder: Disorder consists mostly of tardiness and “disrespect.” Most roughhousing occurs on school buses. Staff 

maintain a constant presence in the hallways. The building is old, but clean and well maintained, although school staff 

reported that the back doors are outdated and in need of replacement. 

School C 

School and communitv characteristics: School C is rural with about 300 students. A little over three-quarters are white 

and about 40 percent quallfy for fiee or reduced price lunch. The school is located in a small racially segregated 

Prom: The school has two mentoring programs, one that pairs gifted and talented students with those having 

difficulty and one that uses high school mentors. Grade levels are physically separated and the school employs block 

scheduling. The school has a crisis prevention team. 

Securitv: The school is equipped with motion detector alarms, and each classroom has a 2-way PA system. 

Administrators have walkie-talkies. Doors are locked during the day and staff monitor hallways and the lunch room 

Discidine: School C has clear rules and a strict dress code. Students generally feel the rules are common sense. Both 

teachers and administrators are responsible for discipline issues. The school uses corporal punishment and in-school 

suspension. The district has an alternative school. 

Climate: The school and community are small-everyone knows everyone. Relationships within the school are 

generally good. The school was described as “conservative but caring.” The principal is a strong and authoritarian 

leader who garners respect from staff and students. Teachers work in a team atmosphere. Students and teachers hold a 

strong respect for authority in the school. The building is newly renovated. Students do well on the state tests. 

Disorder: Disorder is low. Most problems revolve around tardiness. Rules are strict, well known, and enforced. 

community. 

community. 

189 75 
High Disorder Schools 

These three schools also varied considerably along a number of characteristics. In addition, 

two had clearly improved greatly in recent years. Nevertheless, they shared at least some of the same 

types of problems. These schools lacked a clear approach to discipline (or staff had not yet internalized 

the approach). Some had strict rules, but they did not convey clear behavioral expectations. 

Staff in these schools tended not to function as a team. Communication between teachers 

and administrators was sometimes poor. A sense of shared responsibility was relatively weak. An 

example of this was the school where teachers and the campus police pointed fingers at each other over 

betweenclasses monitoring. Similarly, teacher involvement in discipline outside the classroom tended to 

be inconsistent. 

Perhaps because of the problems mentioned above, students in these schools have more 

opportunities to get into trouble than students in low disorder schools. 

Exhibit 6-2 

Profrles of High Disorder Middle Schools 

Sehool D 

School and community characteristics: School D is a large school in an urban area. It enrolls a little over 1000 

students, the majority of whom are &om low-income families. A little over 50 percent are Hispanic and about 40 

percent are African American. Students are bused in from many problem neighborhoods. 

Program: The school has a peer support group for at-risk students. It is a district-wide program, It also offers 

tutoring, mentoring, and counseling to at-risk students. School D has instituted professional development dealing 

with classroom management as well as common planning time for teachers. The school uses in-school suspension. 

Security: Search wands (hand held metal detectors) are mandated but rarely used. The campus is surrounded by a 

fence with locked gates; however, the fence has gaps through which anyone can pass. Administrators have walkietalkies and classrooms have intercoms that may or may not work. The school employs a campus police officer. 

Discioline: Teachers and administrators are responsible for enforcing discipline. The school has general rules and a 

code of conduct. Rules are posted. The school monitors incidents through individual records as well as a database 

of referrals. The district allows troublesome students to be transferred to other schools. The school has recently 

instituted school uniforms. 

Climate: The school is working on changing its reputation, which used to be terrible. It has a new principal who 

has instituted new policies and hired many new teachers. The school also has a new focus on academics. 

Relationships are improving but tension and finger pointing continues between the campus police and teachers 

regarding laxness in monitoring students between classes. 

Disorder: Disorder has decreased recently with the new principal and new policies. Most disorder involves 

roughhousing, fighting, and theft. Recent serious incidents included an attempted rape’ and a student who brought a 

gun to school. Disorder is more likely in the lunch area and in bushes outside the school. 

The principal voiced his suspicion that the incident being investigated was a consensual encounter between two students. 

190 76 
School E 

School and community characteristics: School E is a small rural school with about 200 students. Almost 70 

percent are Afiican American and about 80 percent qualify for fiee or reduced price lunch. The community is 

poor and agricultural. It has few activities or outlets for youth and is experiencing an increasing drug problem. 

PrOElWllS : The school participates in a drug abuse resistance program (although the instructor, a police officer, 

was described as not reliable). A peer mediation program was not being implemented during the year of the 

study because of lack of staff time. The school also uses a character-focused curriculum and has a family 

literacy program that deals with academic and social problems of students. 

Security: Doors are locked, and the school plans to install motion detectors in computer labs. Staff use a oneway intercom. The school has emergency plans for tornadoes and nuclear accidents. 

Discidine: Rules are posted and are well known. Some of the many rules are ignored. Teachers are responsible 

for discipline but can send students to the principal. The school uses corporal punishment and has access to an 

alternative school. 

Climate: Rules are fairly strict and staff are involved in students’ lives in and out of school. The principal is 

active and involved but sends inconsistent messages to students regarding behavior (for example by paddling and 

then hugging students). The building is shabby and run down 

Disorder: Some students felt fighting was a problem. The most common problems were foot traffic across 

school grounds by outsiders (school campus not fenced), and boys throwing rocks and dirt clods. 

School F 

School and communiw characteristics: School F is in an urban area. It enrolls about 900 students, about 80 

percent of whom qualify for fiee or reduced price lunch and about 60 percent are identified as at-risk; 

approximately 54 percent of the students are Afiican American. The surrounding community (which is the 

catchment area) is a very poor neighborhood characterized by high unemployment and drug activity. 

PrOaJams : The school has a building SDFSCA coordinator. Prevention programming consists of classroom 

presentations and activities throughout the year. The school also offers an athletic club designed to foster 

positive behavior. Students who have serious problems can be referred to a behavior modification program. 

Security: Staff have walkie-talkies and classrooms are equipped with emergency buttons. 

DisciDline: Rules are published and posted. Teachers are the primary enforcers of discipline. The school has 

instituted corporal punishment, in-school suspension, and school uniforms. Block scheduling limits the time 

students spend at lockers. Teachers are required to monitor hallways but many do not. 

Climate: The school has serious academic problems and a relatively new administration. The principal is also 

principal of the feeder high school so is not much of a presence at School F; an assistant principal is largely 

responsible for school discipline. Relationships between teachers and students are generally good, but teachers 

did not exhibit much evidence of caring. Communication problems exist between teachers and the 

administration. The school lacks a cohesive team atmosphere. 

Disorder: Disorder has decreased with the new administration. Most disruptions occur in the classroom. 

Teachers feel students have few social skills. Not much fighting occurs on campus; students fight after school 

instead. The most recent serious incident at the school involved a student who was caught with codeine in his 

possession. 

191 77 
We examined the domains that guided our review of the high and low disorder schools to 

identi6 whether they made a difference in overall school safety and order and if so how. 

School and Community Characteristics 

Although we focused on policy-relevant factors, community characteristics such as poverty, 

unemployment, and exposure to violence clearly affected the general safety and levels of disorder in the 

schools we visited. With one exception, the high disorder schools served students from communities 

where the risk factors for disorder were higher and the low disorder schools served students in 

communities with fewer risk factors. The one exception was a magnet school with competitive 

admissions and a low level of disorder that happened to be located in a neighborhood with higher risk 

factors. 

Census data indicate that the low disorder schools in our study are located in more affluent 

locations. For example, the census tract surrounding the high disorder schools is more than twice as 

likely to have individuals on public assistance and twice as likely to have families living within the census 

poverty classification. 

Research indicates that in neighborhoods plagued by problems of high unemployment and 

poverty, children are more likely to be taught to be violent by exhortation, witness violent acts, and have 

role models who do not adequately control their anger (Prothrow-Stith, 1991; Wilson, 1995). Because 

youth violence occurs within a context, understanding the ecological settings is of critical importance 

when describing school violence. 

Programs 

The number and types of prevention programs and activities did not seem to be related to 

school safety and disorder. We also saw no evidence that prevention programming made a difference, but 

this was primarily because so few of the schools evaluated the effectiveness of their programs. We found 

anecdotal evidence that the quality of program implementation and the appropriateness of a program for 

the specific needs of a school made a difference in its effectiveness for individual students or groups of 

students. 

192 78 
Schools that were ranked as low disorder schools had less prevention programming than 

schools that were rated as high disorder. Our hypothesis about this difference is that schools increase 

programming based on level of need. Hence, the low disorder schools do not allocate their resources 

towards these preventive programs, as their problems do not warrant these measures. The low disorder 

schools were more likely (3:l) to use architectural changes (fencing, lighting, windows, opening up 

hallways and gathering areas) than were the high disorder schools. This approach is more systemic and 

expensive, and it may be related to financial resources and overall school climate. 

Security 

Appropriateness was key to school security measures. Having security devices, personnel, 

and strategies that were adequate to the situation of a school made all the difference. For example, the 

low disorder schools had few security measures but they did not need more and they consistently applied 

those that were in place. The high disorder schools reported three times as many security interventions 

(emergency buttons for teachers, walkie-talkies, police presence) as the low disorder schools. However, 

these security measures were sometimes incompletely implemented-for example, intercoms that did not 

work or a fence with gaps. 

Discipline 

Specific discipline structures within schools (e.g., specific staff responsible for in-school 

suspension versus out-of-school suspension) were less important than clear expectations for behavior and 

a general respect for school rules. The low disorder sdhools had a variety of discipline structures but all 

set clear expectations for student behavior. High disorder schools were twice as likely to report being 

inconsistent in their discipline procedures compared with low disorder schools. 

The approaches toward handling various problematic behaviors varied. For example, high 

disorder schools reported much more use of “zero tolerance” policies as compared with low disorder 

schools (5: 1). (See the section in Chapter 4 on the consequences of violating or complying with rules.) 

School Climate 

School climate was assessed along the dimensions of relationships, goals, rules, and 

environment. We found subtle differences between low and high disorder schools regarding 

relationships. Generally, both types of schools had good relationships reported between students, 

teachers, administration, and community members. However, more communication problems (strained 

relationships, unclear messages) were found in the high disorder schools. Regarding the goals of the both 

193 79 
types of schools, students reported feeling safe more oh at the low disorder schools than at the high 

disorder schools. Relating to the rules of the schools, the high disorder schools reported a lack of 

consistency of leadership more oh than did the low disorder schools. Finally, regarding the physical 

environments of these schools, the high disorder schools were consistently described as older, in more 

disrepair, dirty, highly secured; and residing in neighborhoods described as poor, with high 

unemployment, and with drug, prostitution and gang activity. The low disorder schools (except for 

School A, which is a magnet school) were consistently described as clean, new, and located in areas of 

low crime, with resources such as new computer facilities often cited as examples. 

As discussed earlier, the factors that seemed to most affect school safety and disorder were 

related to school climate and management. These include: 

Clear, consistent, proactive approach to maintaining discipline; 

Strong, active, and involved principals; 

Sense of teamwork and shared responsibility among staff; 

Active involvement of teachers in maintaining order in and out of the classroom; and 

Positive relationships characterized by respect, collegiality, and open communication. 

194 80 
References 

Brooks, K., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2000). School house hype: Two years later. Washington, DC: 

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1993). Violence-related attitudes and behaviors of high 

school students New York City, 1992-1 993. 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 (SS-5). 

Chandler, K.A., Chapman, C.D., Rand, M.R., & Taylor, B.M. (1998). Students’ reports of school crime: 

1989 and 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. 

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

Study ofDelinquency Prevention in Schools. Final Report for the National Institute of Justice, 

US. Department of Justice, Grant # 96-MU-MU-008. Ellicot City, MD: Gottfiedson Associates, 

Inc . 

Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R.F., & Miller, J. Y. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug 

problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. 

Psychological Bulletin 112 (l), 64-105. 

Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence.and discipline problems in U.S. 

public schools: 1996-97. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S.P., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Fleury, J.K., Chandler, K.A., Rand, M.R., 

Klause, P., & Planty, M.G. (2000). Indicators of School Crime and Safety (NCES 2001-017MCJ184176). Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. 

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

Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. 

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

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

Prothrow-Stith, D. (1991). Deadly consequences. New York, NY: Harper and Collins. 

Stephens, R.D. (1999). School associated violent deaths. Westlake Village, CA: The National School 

Safety Center. 

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. (1999). 1999 Annual Report on School Safety. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. 

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. (2000). 2000 Annual Report on School Safety. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. 

195 81 
Wilson, W. (1995). Jobless ghettos and the social outcomes of youngsters. In P. Mom, 6. Elder, and K. 

Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context (pp. 527-544). Washington, DC: American 

Psychological Association. 

196 
APPENDIX A 

Methods 

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

purposive sample of 40 schools. In this chapter, we briefly describe the methods used in this study. We 

cover school selection, data collection, and analysis. We also discuss the strengths and limitations of our 

methods. 

In selecting schools for the intensive level study, we sought to identify schools that differed 

on school safety, but that were similar on background characteristics including number of students 

enrolled and metropolitan status of the area in which the school was located. This approach was designed 

to permit us to answer the study question on the policy-relevant characteristics and processes that 

distinguish safe and unsafe schools; it also ensured that the schools would vary on safety and 

characteristics, which would make for richer descriptions. 

We drew a purposive sample of schools, with the objective of including 40 schools (20 

middle and 20 senior high schools) in the intensive level study. All of these schools were among the over 

230 intermediate level study schools that achieved relatively high levels of participation in the student and 

teacher surveys conducted in 1998. We limited our selection to public secondary schools. The criteria 

for selecting the schools included the following: 

Instructional level - middle schools and senior high schools; 

Number of students enrolled.Smal1 and large schools; and 

0 Metropolitan status-urban, suburban, and rural schools. 

The result was a 12~ell matrix: two levels of instructional level by two levels of size by three levels of 

metropolitan status. In addition, we included a thixteemth cell for vocational education schools. 

After categorizing each of the schools fiom the intermediate level study into these cells, we 

ranked them within cells according to their safety. We developed and combined several measures of 

safety based on the results of the principal, teacher, and student surveys--far example, on teacher and 

student victimization-conducted as part of the intexmediate level study. 

197 83 
Since we intended to contrast comparable schools that differed on safety, we sought to match 

relatively safe schools and relatively unsafe schools within each cell. The matching variables included 

school poverty (e.g., based on percentage of students eligible for the Free or Reduced-Price Lunch 

Program), student race/ethnicity, and measures of social disadvantage within the communities 

immediately surrounding the schools (e.g., percent of single parent households and percent of households 

under the poverty level in the census tract). Based on previous experience we expected a 75 percent 

response rate at the school level. We purposively selected four primary candidates (two safe and two 

unsafe), and two back up candidates (one safe and one unsafe) fiom each cell. In three of the senior high 

cells, after applying the selection criteria, we had only three primary candidates. We also selected two 

primary vocational schools and 1 back up. 

We attempted to recruit all primary candidates. Initial efforts were successful with 19 of the 

24 middle school candidates-at least three in each cell. However, one middle school had to withdraw its 

offer to Participate as we were preparing for data collection activities. We contacted two back up schools 

in the affected cells, and both agreed to participate for a total of 20 middle schools. We were able to 

reach our recruitment goals in four of the six senior high school cells. Two of the primary candidates in 

one cell were unable to participate. We recruited our back up candidate. In addition, two of the schools 

in another cell were unable to participate. Because our original sampling efforts had not identified any 

back up candidates for that cell, we reexamined all of the previously unselected candidate schools. Of 

those candidates, we selected and recruited the two schools with the most similar background 

characteristics. The reasons for school nonparticipation include the unavailability of school staff to 

coordinate data collection efforts and competing school activities (e.g., state testing and building 

construction). 

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

schools in the intensive level study. The primary vehicle for collecting this information was one round of 

threeday site visits to each of the schools. After successfully recruiting schools, project staff coordinated 

closely with a school staff person at each school (school coordinator) who was responsible for identifymg 

appropriate information sources, scheduling appointments, and making other arrangements. While at a 

school, a senior site visitor and a junior site visitor made systematic observations; reviewed records on 

incidents of violence; and conducted in-depth interviews with district officials, principals, and school 

198 84 
staff. With the assistance of the school coordinator, we also conducted surveys of all teachers and a 

sample of students. 

The topics covered by the intensive level study overlapped with those covered by the 

intermediate level-but in somewhat greater depth and from additional sources (e.g., police and school 

security staff)-and other topics that are difficult to capture well in surveys, such as local dynamics (e.g., 

youth gang activity) that contribute to school violence, and the development of community and school 

prevention strategies that are intended to change these dynamics. The information sources are as follows. 

Interviews with the school principal, program providers, head of security/facilities, 

district administrator for school safety issues, and police oficer for schooYcommunity 

relations; 

Focus groups with students who have and have not been victims of school violence; lo 

Survey of all teachers and a sample of students; 

Information fiom school and police records; and 

0 Site observation forms. 

Wherever possible, the data collection drew fiom extant instruments and design strategies. 

Survey items have built on an established research base to ensure the study’s ability to measure 

implementation and school climate. Many questions were drawn fiom studies previously conducted in 

the areas of school safety and discipline, and youth violence, victimization, and drug use. These studies 

include the Safe Schools Study, Monitoring the Future, the National Household Education Survey, and 

the Schools and Staffing Survey. We discuss each of the data sources and instruments used. 

In-depth Interview and Focus Group Guides. These instruments covered different, but 

overlapping, topics. In all, the data collected describes violence prevention efforts, evaluation efforts 

related to violence prevention projects, and school climate. For example, interviews with program 

providers covered the following topics: (a) interviewee background, role, and activities in the program; 

(b) history of, and initial impetus for, the program, including how it was started and who was involved; 

(c) organization, staffing, and funding of the program; (d) degree, level, and type of collaboration among 

the school, police, and community; (e) strategies and approaches to the program design and perceived 

successes of different activities; (f) barriers to implementing the program and what was done to overcome 

them; and (g) assessment of strengths, weaknesses and overall quality of the program. We selected 

lo We carefully selected students who had been victims of school violence, based on consultations with school mental health staff. No students 

who had experienced severe or traumatizing events were selected for these focus groups. We obtained parental permission for the participants. 

199 85 
program providers to interview based on the five or so activities that school coordinators identified as the 

most important ones for preventing or reducing problem behavior in their schools. 

Teacher and Student Surveys. These surveys collected information fiom all the teachers 

and a sample of students in each school on their experience with violence prevention efforts and with 

school disorder. The information 'on teacher- and student-reported school disorder provided valuable 

infmtion on how school characteristics may be related to the selection and implementation of 

prevention efforts. At each school, we drew a stratified random sample of approximately 400 students; 

the strata were defined by grade levels and gender. At schools that had fewer than 400 students, exactly 

400 students, or slightly more than 400 students, we surveyed all students. We obtained passive parental 

consent for student participation in the surveys. Following study procedures that guaranteed 

confidentiality (as approved by the Westat Institutional Review Board), school staff surveyed the students 

in intact classrooms. 

The self-administered questionnaire for teachers focused on school safety, victimization, 

school climate, and level of implementation of prevention programming. It collected infomation in the 

following areas: (a) background inf'tion, including years of teaching and years teaching in this 

school; (b) amount of in-service training in classroom management, instructional methods, and prevention 

of problem behavior in the past two years; (c) student behavim in class; (d) personal safety; (e) school 

climate, including the relationships between administratcm and teachers, how these teachers perceive 

administrators and the rest of the teaching staff, and ability of staff to collaborate and work together 

towards shared goals and objectives; and (f) infomtion on the school's programs and practices to 

prevent problem behavior or to increase school safety or orderliness. 

The self-administered questiormaire for students covered the following topics: (a) 

demographic information; (b) educational plans and efforts; (c) school safety; (d) victimization; (e) 

students' access to, and experiences with, drug use, violence, and other delinquent behavior; (f) school 

climate, including fairness of rules and their enforcement; (g) correlates of problem behavior, such as 

"risk and protective factors;" and (h) participation in prevention programming activities. 

Abstract Forms. These forms recorded data on criminal and noncriminal disorder fiom 

school and police records. Data were collected for each serious incident reported. This included, for 

example, location of the incident within the school, day and time of day the incident occurred, and 

situations that led up to the event. A school record abstract form also collected enrollment information, 

student characteristics, staff information, instructional information, and discipline data. 

200 86 
Observation Form. This form recorded signs of disorder on the school campus and in the 

surrounding community. It also captured information on the physical security of the school, including 

how well lit the parking lot is; presence of adults on school grounds, in hallways, and in other nonclassroom areas before, afier, and between class periods; and whether or not students loiter on these 

grounds during the time that school is in session. In addition, the form described aspects of classroom 

management, such as the extent to which students were “on task.” 

, 

We conducted within-school analyses for the 40 individual schools as well as cross-school 

analyses. The site visitors conducted within-school analyses as they developed case study reports based 

primarily on the qualitative information that they collected on site. These reports conformed to a detailed 

report outline that has tied to the data collection instruments. The analysts combined information across 

sources to address topics in their reports. As needed, the site visitors or other project staff recontacted 

respondents to clarify information or to collect additional information. 

In addition, we processed the quantitative data collected for each of the schools. These data 

included the student and teacher survey data, and incident report data and other data collected on the 

abstract forms. The quantitative data typically were unavailable to the site visitors while they were 

preparing their reports. We used them in the cross-site analyses. 

The cross-site analyses involved iterative combing of the case study reports and quantitative 

data. The analysts typically reviewed the available information within the context of answering a specific 

study question. For example, the analysts assigned to the question on types of prevention efforts focused 

on the parts of reports that dealt with this topic. Although they collected some information on practically 

all prevention activities within a given school, the analysts tended to rely most on the information on the 

limited number of activities that they collected in interviews with program providers. (As mentioned, 

these interviews were on activities that the school coordinators nominated as the most important ones for 

preventing or reducing problem behavior in their schools.) 

In the iterative review of the qualitative information, the analysts sought to identify themes 

and pattems of findings. They typically created electronic spreadsheets based on information extracted 

fiom the case study reports. This approach permitted the analysts to reduce the information to a 

manageable level for the purposes of review. Although the analyses were largely descriptive, some of 

... 

I201 87 
them compared schools that differed on some important characteristic, such as the extent to which they 

relied on police officers or other personnel for security. 

In answering the study question on characteristics and processes that distinguish safe and 

unsafe schools, we relied heavily on the quantitative information to categorize schools on safety. We 

developed several measures of school crime from the student and teacher survey results. The measure 

that we used to distinguish safe and unsafe schools was percent of students reporting that they were the 

victim of a serious crime (threatened with a weapon or robbed) in school during the current school year. 

With the safety measure in hand, we conducted analyses across all schools. Separately for 

the middle schools and senior high schools, we identified the three schools with highest percentages on 

this measure and the three schools with the lowest percentages. Analysts then sought to identify any 

characteristics or processes that differentiated schools in the two groups. 

We also planned to perform a similar analysis within the original selection cells, based on 

the intensive level study data. This analysis would have allowed us to control for some of the background 

characteristics that may affect school safety. However, because we found that the differences in school 

safety between schools within cells were relatively small (typically less than lo%), we decided that the 

analysis would yield little useful information. 

The intensive level study is the first study in over 20 years to examine in detail what schools 

are doing to promote school safety. One of the greatest strengths of this study is that it combined 

quantitative and qualitative information. The quantitative information, mainly the student and teacher 

survey data, offered strong broad information that represented each school with fairly high precision. The 

qualitative infomation complemented the quantitative information by offering details and insights that 

are typically unavailable with surveys. 

Another strength of the study is that it captured a broad range of perspectives and topics 

linked to the study questions. At a given school, we collected information fiom over ten different 

sources. Each source offered a unique lens on complex school safety issues. 

A limitation of the intensive level study is that we are unable to generalize findings from it to 

other schools. The nonprobability selection of schools and sample sizes underlie this limitation. Another 

202 
related limitation is that the assignment of schools to cells was imperfect. As mentioned, we based our 

measures of safety on survey data fiom a previous component of the study. Student survey data, one of 

those sources, were based on relatively small sample sizes that limited the precision of the measures. 

Hence, we found that-using more precise measures based on larger samples of-students--some schools 

were misclassified on safety. Perhaps more importantly, despite our best efforts, a very large percentage 

of the schools included in the sample did not vary much along measures of disorder. This may be the 

result of the relatively high non-response rate associated with the intermediate study. The schools that 

complied with the survey requests tended to be safer better-managed schools. As a result, the site visits, 

which were based on the intermediate sample, did not include as wide a range of schools along the 

disorder dimension as would have been ideal for this type of analysis. 

A final limitation follows fiom our approach of having the site visitors conduct the withinschool analyses. While we gained strong summary reports that facilitated the cross-site analyses, we lost 

some of the detail that we potemtially could have had in those analyses. In the cross-site analyses, we 

would have had stronger analyses had we relied on, for example, interview transcripts, rather than 

summary reports. With many different site visitors, we also inevitably introduced some error into the 

within-school analyses that carried over to the cross-site analyses. 

89 
SCHOOL CRIME PATTERNS: 

A NATIONAL 2 PROFILE OF U.S . PUBLIC HIGH 

SCHOOLS USING RATES OF CRIME 

REPORTED TO POLICE 

REPORT ON THE STUDY ON SCHOOL 

VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION 

204 
SCHOOL CRIME PATTERNS: 

A NATIONAL PROFILE OF U.S. PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS 

USING RATES OF CRIME REPORTED TO POLICE 

REPORT ON THE STUDY ON 

SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Education 

Contract No. EA96055001 

Prepared by: 

David Cantor 

Mareena McKinley Wright 

Westat 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

In affiliation with: 

Gottfiedson Associates, Inc. 

3239 B 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: Cantor, D. and Wright, M. M. 

(2001). School Crime Patterns: A National Profile of U.S. Public High Schools Using Rates of Crime Reported 

to Police. Report on the Study of 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 €or the deaf (TDD) or 

a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 8-800-437-0833. 

To order online, point your Internet browser to www.ed.gov/Dubs/edDubs.html. 

This report is also available on the department’s web site at www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/eval.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) 205-81 13. 
School Crime Patterns: 

A National Profile of U.S. Public High Schools Using Rates of Crime Reported to 

Police Report on the Study on School Violence and Prevention 

Summary 

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

data from a U.S. Department of Education survey of school principals that asked about the 

number and types of crimes they reported to police for the 1996-97 school year. The analysis 

shows that violence is clustered within a relatively small percentage of locations, with about 60 

percent of the violence occurring in 4 percent of the schools. This is about four times higher 

than would be expected based on national rates of crime. 

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

Four patterns emerge from this grouping: 1) No Crime, 2) Isolated Crime, 3) Moderate Crime 

and 4) Violent Crime. High schools in each group are described in terms of their student 

population characteristics, community characteristics, and school violence prevention efforts. 

The results indicate that the characteristics (size, location, socio-economic make-up) 

of high-violence schools differ markedly from the other schools. High schools with the highest 

levels of violence tended to be located in urban areas and have a high percentage of minority 

students, compared to high schools that reported no crime to the police. They also tended to be 

located in areas with high social disadvantage and residential mobility. It should be noted, 

however, that a relatively large minority of the schools in the Violent Crime group were located 

in rural areas (36%), so that the image of school violence being solely restricted to central cities 

is not accurate. 

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

schools that experience a high level of serious violence also reported high use of prevention 

measures and programs that were specifically aimed at controlling violence. Schools in the 

Violent Crime group appeared to put more emphasis on programs geared toward changing 

individual behavior, such as behavioral modification or other types of individual attention. This 

contrasted with high schools in the other three crime groups, which tended to place a higher 

priority on prevention instruction or counselors within the school. 

207 ._ - ..~ -

1 
Similarly, the Violent Crime group was more likely than the other groups to adopt a 

variety of security measures to reduce risk of crimes, particularly random metal detectors, used 

by about one-third of the Violent Crime group (compared to 10% or less in the other groups). 

The crime groups also differed in their use of law enforcement and security personnel. The 

schools in the Violent Crime group were more likely to use this as a measure to control disorder 

than were schools with lower levels of crime. 

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

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

using many of the programdactivities). A follow-up question is whether these programs are 

effective at reducing violence. The current analysis did not allow for assessment of whether 

programs were implemented in an effective way and/or significantly reduced the mount of 

violence in the school. 

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

and type of crime problems that schools are experiencing. Also, future evaluation of prevention 

methods should put some emphasis on schools experiencing the most severe problems. 

Comparing these schools to those with a similar profile but lower levels of disorder would be 

especially useful. This would provide an efficient and cost-effective way to better understand 

how to significantly reduce crime in the nation’s high schools. 

208 

ii 
Contents 

.. 

ChaDter Paae 

SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... i 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 

WHAT PROPORTION OF HIGH SCHOOLS HAVE HIGH RATES OF VIOLENCE? ........................... 2 

CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH SCHOOLS WITH HIGH RATES OF VIOLENT CRIME ...................... 6 

3.1 SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS DISTINGUISHING SCHOOLS WITHIN CRIME GROUPS ..................................... 8 

3.2 SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND OTHER PROBLEMS ............................................................................................ 10 

3.3 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS ASOCIATED WITH CRIME PA~ERNS .................................................... 12 

ARE THE METHODS TO CONTROL SCHOOL DISORDER RELATED TO THE LEVEL 

OF VIOLENCE? .................................................................................................................................... 13 

4.1 PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 14 

4.2 SECURITY S~TEGI Es ................................................................................................................................ 18 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 20 

List of Appendixes 

Amendix 

A IDENTIFYING SCHOOLS BY CRIMES RATES .................................................................................. 24 

209 . 

*iii 
Contents (continued) 

List of Tables 

- Table Paae 

Table 1. Observed and Expected Distribution of U.S. Public High Schools According 

to the Number of Crimes Reported to Police, by Type of Crime" ........................................... 4 

Table 2. Observed and Expected Distribution of Crime Incidents in U.S. Public High Schools 

According to the Number of Crimes Reported to Police, by Type of Crime' ......................... 5 

Table 3. Population and Rate of Crimes Reported to the Police in U.S. Public High Schools by 

School Crime Pattern (standard error in parentheses) .............................................................. 7 

Table 4. School, Student and Community Characteristics in U.S. Public High Schools, by Crime 

Group (standard error in parentheses) ...................................................................................... 9 

Table 5. School Disorder Composite Scores and Crime Patterns in U.S. Public High Schools 

(standard error in parentheses) ............................................................................................... 11 

Table 6. Community Characteristics and School Crime Patterns in U.S. Public High Schools 

(standard error in parentheses) ............................................................................................... 13 

Table 7. Percent of U.S. Public High Schools Reporting Use of Programs to Prevent Violence, 

by Type of Program and Crime Group (standard error in parenthesis) .................................. 16 

Table 8. Rank of Use of Different Program to Prevent Violence within each Crime Group 

for U.S Public High Schools .................................................................................................. 17 

Table 9. Descriptions of Security Devices and Strategies Implemented in U.S. Public High 

Schools, by Crime Group (standard error in parenthesis) ...................................................... 20 

Table A-1 . Co-Occurrence of Rates of Crimes Reported to the Police for Serious Violence, Attach 

Without a Weapon, and Property Crime Among U.S. Public High Schools ......................... 25 

Table A-2. Co-Occurrence of Rates of Crimes Reported to the Police for Attach Without a 

Weapon and Property Crime Among U.S. Public High Schools ........................................... 26 

210 

iv 
1. Introduction 

The Departments of Education and Justice report that schools are safe and secure 

learning environments (Kaufman, et al, 2000). Students are about 3 times less likely to be a 

victim of a violent crime at school than while away from school. Homicide also occurs rarely in 

schools. Of child homicides in 1997, less than one percent occurred in a school. Most school 

crime is, in fact, theft or fighting without weapons. 

This overall low rate of crime and victimization in schools is somewhat deceiving. 

Crime is not randomly distributed across schools. For example, schools located in communities 

with high crime rates are more likely to experience crime than are schools in safer communities 

(Gottfiedson and Gottfiedson, 1985). Beyond this basic observation, however, very little is 

known about the number and nature of schools that experience high levels of violence. Few 

studies have attempted to characterize schools on the basis of the amount of violence that occurs. 

The purpose of this report, which focuses on high schools, is to address this issue by 

asking three basic questions: 

What proportion of high schools have high rates of violence? 

What are the characteristics of high schools with high rates of violent crime? 

Are the methods to control disorder related to the level of violence? 

Identifying high schools with particular types of violence problems should provide more specific 

guidance on how to effectively target resources to school prevention efforts. 1 

To address these questions, this report describes analysis of the Principal-School 

Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence (P-SDSSV). This survey, sponsored by the U.S. 

' Data are available on elementary and middle schools as well as high schools, but this report focuses only on high 

schools. Elementary schools overall have reported crime rates that are too low to make an analysis of their data 

worthwhile. Although an initial analysis of the middle school data revealed different crime patterns from high 

schools, further study indicated that it would not be feasible to analyze the middle school data separately. 

Combining data across educational levels (e.g., by combining middle and high schools) was not pursued, since 

such an analysis would have mixed too heterogeneous a set of populations and school policies (e.g., 12 year olds 

and 18 year olds) to allow for useful conclusions. For these reasons, this report concentrates on high schools, 

where violence reported to police is higher than for the other educational levels (US Department of Education, 

1998). 

2111 .-I 1 
Department of Education, asked principals to indicate the number and types of crimes reported to 

the police for the 1996-1997 school year.2 Crime types included: 

a Serious violence, including murder, suicide, robbery, rape, and assaults or 

fights with weapons? 

Fighting or physical attack without weapons; and 

Property crimes, including vandalism and petty theft. 

These three types of crimes were analyzed to identify and describe high schools with high levels 

of vi~lermce.~ The next section provides estimates of the extent to which violence is 

dkprogortionatelly concentrated in a small subset of schools. The third section describes the 

characteristics ofthis subset of schools with high levels of violence. The fourth section discusses 

the relationship between community characteristics and levels of school violence. The fifth 

section discusses the prevention programs used by different types of schools. The final section 

of the report smahizes the results and discusses the limitations of the study. 

2. What Proportion of High Schools Have High Rates of Violence? 

Previous analysis of the P-SDSSV revealed that about one in five high schools 

reported any serious violent crime (e.g., fights with weapons, robbery) during the 1996-1997 

school year. While this statistic gives a global indication of the prevalence of these crimes, it is 

difficult to judge from these data whether certain schools are disproportionately more likely to 

have high levels of violence. As long as the rate of violence in schools is greater than zero, one 

would expect at least some schools to have some violence. Is one in five schools more than 

would be expected, given the overall level of violence in the country? In this section we present 

analysis that assesses whether one in five schools represents any clustering of incidents within 

particularly violent schools or whether violence is distributed evenly across schools in the U.S. 

There are important implications if violence is clustered within a small number of 

schools. There may be specific problems in these schools that lead to high levels of serious 

problem behavior. Issues that arise in these environments may not resemble those in schools 

with lower rates of crimes. Similarly, there may be unique remedies needed to solve these 

These crimes did not necessarily involve students or school personnel as either victims or perpetrators. 

Schools participating in the survey did not report any murders or suicides. 

The P-SDSSV had a sample size of 441 high schools. 

212 2 
problems. The types of prevention programs and/or activities that are needed to reduce the 

violent behavior might have to be tailored to these particular environments. 

Data provided in Table 1 provides estimates that measure the extent that violence is 

clustered within certain schools. These data compare the observed and expected number of high 

schools that reported a specified number of crimes to the p01ice.~ As this comparison reveals, if 

serious violent crime had been evenly distributed across all schools, one would expect that about 

45 percent of schools (100% - 55% = 45%) would have reported having this type of crime. 

Instead, only about 20 percent (100% - 80% = 20%) of high schools included in the P-SDSSV 

reported this type of crime. In other words, less than half as many schools experienced serious 

violent crime as expected. About four times as many schools experienced five or more serious 

violent incidents as would be expected if crime were evenly distributed across all schools. 

Similar disparities appear for the other two types of crimes. For attacks without a 

weapon, approximately 55 percent of the schools reported at least one incident. This was 

considerably lower than the 88 percent that would have been expected if these incidents were 

evenly distributed across all schools. For property crime, 67 percent of the schools reported at 

least one crime, while around 90 percent would have been expected to report this type of crime if 

it were evenly distributed across schools. 

Table 2 displays an alternative way of looking at the distribution of crime incidents 

reported to police. This comparison is limited to schools that reported at least one crime. As can 

be seen, about 60 percent of the violence reported on the P-SDSSV occurred within the small 

number of schools that reported at least five violent crimes, more than seven times higher than 

expected if crime were evenly distributed across schools (7.8% expected). Similarly, about 14 

times more schools than expected reported 26 or more attacks Without a weapon (43.4% 

observed versus 2.7% expected). And nearly 42 percent of schools reported 26 or more property 

crimes, almost 7 times as many as expected based on school size alone. 

This analysis provides evidence that for many schools serious violence is not a 

problem. Only a small percentage of schools seemed to have reported this type of crime. It also 

indicates, however, that for a small percentage of schools violence is extremely high. 

The expected distribution was computed by assuming that the number of serious violent crimes was distributed as 

a Poisson distribution, with a rate equal to the average for the U.S. population of high school students. 
Table 1. Observed and Expected Distribution of U.S. Public High Schools According to the 

Number of Crimes Reported to Police, by Type of Crime' 

I Percent of Schools 

1 Observed I Expected 

Schools Reporting: I Serious Violence* 

No crime 

1 crime 

2 crimes 

3 crimes 

4 crimes 

5 or more crimes 

80.0 

10.0 

2.4 

2 .o 

1.3 

4.3 

55.0 

26.0 

11.4 

4.7 

1.9 

1.1 

1 Attack Without a Weapon 

No crime 

1 crime 

2 crimes 

3 - 5 crimes 

6 - 10 crimes 

11 - 15 crimes 

16 - 20 crimes 

21 - 25 crimes 

26 or more crimes 

45.3 

8.1 

8.6 

12.2 

10.4 

7.3 

2.1 

1.5 

4.5 

1- Propert 

No crime 

1 crime 

2 crimes 

3 - 5 crimes 

6 - 10 crimes 

11 - 15 crimes 

16 - 20 crimes 

21 - 25 crimes 

26 or more crimes 

33.7 

10.6 

7.2 

18.2 

12.9 

6.9 

2.4 

2.4 

5.4 

11.7 

12.2 

10.5 

24.4 

23.5 

11.1 

4.4 

1.6 

.7 

Crime* 

10.4 

11.2 

9.8 

23.1 

23.7 

12.3 

5.6 

2.2 

1.4 

gource: Principal-School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence 

Expected distributions assume that crime is evenly distributed across schools. This distribution was computed assuming crime was distributed as a Poisson distribution with a rate equal to the average for the U.S. population of 

high school students. 

Serious violence includes: murder, sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight with a weapon and robbery. 

Schools participating in the survey did not report any murders or suicides. Propertv crime includes theMarceny 

(stealing without confrontation) and destruction of school property. 

Crimes reported to the police did not necessarily involve students or school personnel as either victims or 

perpetrators. 

214 4 
Table2. Observed and Expected Distribution of Crime Incidents in U.S. Public High Schools 

According to the Number of Crimes Reported to Police, by Type of Crime+ 

' Nocrime 

l 2crimes 

1 crime 

3 - 5 crimes 

6 - 10 crimes 

11 - 15 crimes 

16 - 20 crimes 

21 - 25 crimes 

26 or more crimes 

I Percent of Total Incidents 

n/a 

1.6 

2.2 

10.7 

14.8 

13.3 

6.9 

8.6 

41.8 

I Observed I Expected 

n/a 

1.7 

3 .O 

13.9 

28.1 

24.0 

15.1 

7.9 

6.3 

Schools Reporting: I Serious Violence* 

No crime 

1 crime 

2 crimes 

3 crimes 

4 crimes 

5 or more crimes 

n/a 

15.2 

7.2 

9.3 

8.1 

60.2 

da 

34.1 

29.7 

18.5 

9.8 

7.8 

Attack With 

n/a 

1.3 

4.3 

8.4 

14.6 

16.6 

6.8 

6.0 

43.4 

~~ ~~ 

iut a Weapon 

n/a 

2.1 

3.6 

16.4 

31.3 

24.1 

13.4 

6.3 

2.7 

No crime 

1 crime 

2 crimes 

3 - 5 crimes 

6 - 10 crimes 

11 - 15 crimes 

16 - 20 crimes 

21 - 25 crimes 

26 or more crimes ~ 

gource: Principal-School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence 

high school students. 

Expected distributions assume that crime is evenly distributed across schools. This distribution was computed 

assuming crime was distributed as a Poisson distribution with a rate equal to the average for the U.S. population of 

Serious violence includes: murder, sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight with a weapon and robbery. 

Schools participating in the survey did not report any murders or suicides. Propertv crime includes theMarceny 

(stealing without confrontation) and destruction of school property. 

Crimes reported to the police did not necessarily involve students or school personnel as either victims or 

perpetrators. 

i 215' 

5 
3. Characteristics of High Schools with High Rates of Violent Crime 

In this section, the characteristics of schools with high levels of violent crime are 

described. The characteristics that are examined include: 

School characteristics-Location (urbdrural), size, percent minority, and 

percent receiving fiee or reduced-price school lunch; 

m School discidine and other Droblemdomposite indices of drug problems, 

disorderly behavior, and tardiness. 

Community characteristics-Composite indices of urban affluence, social 

disorganization, and residential mobility, based on Census data. 

In order to describe schools by these characteristics, high schools were classified into 

four groups according to the types of crimes reported to the police. The methods used to identify 

these groups are discussed in Appendix A. The four groups of schools were defined as: 

Violent Crime-Schools with a high level of serious violent crime or schools with a 

moderate level of serious violent crime a high level of attacks without a weapon. 

Moderate Crime-Schools not in group 1 above, but with a high level of either attacks 

without a weapon or property crime. 

Isolated Crime-Schools not in groups 1 or 2, but with a moderate level of some type 

of crime. 

No Crime-Schools with no incidents reported to police of any type of crime. 

Table 3 displays the number and percent of schools in each group. The Violent 

Crime group included 5.6 percent of high schools in the or about one in 18 schools. The 

Moderate Crime group included 18.1 percent of the schools. The most common pattern, the 

Isolated Crime group, characterized nearly 53 percent of high schools. About 25 percent of high 

schools were in the No Crime group. 

The size of each group is, in part, a fimction of the cut-points used to define each of the three crime types (see 

Appendix A). Setting the thresholds for each “high” group with a lower crime rate would naturally expand the 

serious violent and reduce the size of the low crime group. 

6 

216 6 
Table3. Population and Rate of Crimes Reported to the Police in U.S. Public High SchnsoBs by 

School Crime Pattern (standard error in parentheses) 

I Crime No 

Crime Pattern Group* 

I I 

Isolated Moderate Violent Crime 

Crime Crime 

Serious violence +t 

Attacks without a weapon 

Property crimes 

Number of Schools 

Percent of Schools 

0.0 

(0.0) 

0.0 

(0.0) 

0.0 

3,625 8,157 2,790 1 18.1 1. 

I 23.5 1 52.8 

.35 I .20 

868 

5.6 

5.9 

-- 

(0.0) 

Source: Principal-School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence 

+ Serious violence includes: murder, sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight with a weapon and robbery. 

Schools participating in the survey did not report any murders or suicides. Prouertv crime includes themarceny 

(stealing without confrontation) and destruction of school property. 

++Violent Crime - High level of serious violent crime reported to the police or schools with moderate levels of 

serious violent crime reported to the police and a high level of less serious violent crime reported to the police. 

Moderate Crime - Not in violent crime group, but with a high level of either less serious violent crime reported to 

the police or property crime reported to the police. Isolated Crime - Schools not in either violent or moderate 

crime, but with a moderate level of some type of crime reported to the police. No Crime - No incident reported to 

the police of any type of crime. Crimes reported to the police did not necessarily involve students or school 

personnel as either victims or perpetrators. 

As can be seen from the crime rates for each group, the Violent Crime group has 

relatively high rates of all types of crimes. It has the most violence, with the highest rates of 

serious violence and attacks without a weapon. It also has high rates of property crime. The 

Moderate Crime group is distinguished by relatively high rates of attacks without a weapon and 

property crime rates. The Isolated Crime group has relatively low rates of all three types of 

crimes. It does have a slightly higher rate of serious violence than the Moderate Crime group. 

However, the rate for both of these groups is extremely low relative to the Violent Crime Group. 

In the remaining sections, the characteristics of the crime groups are described in 

more detail. Small sample sizes limited the detail with which the data could be analyzed and 

discussed. The smallest group is the Violent Crime Group, which is based on 33 high schools. 

The analysis largely accounts for this by computing the standard errors for each estimate and 

conducting statistical significance tests. Nonetheless, since some of the analysis focuses on a 

7 
relatively small group of schools, the most detailed tabulations for this group should be viewed 

with some caution. 

3.1 School Characteristics Distinguishing Schools Within Crime Groups 

The P-SDSSV collected a number of characteristics about the schools in the survey. 

These data are displayed in Table 4, including comparisons on enrollment, percentage of 

minority students, the ,type of location (central city vs. fiingekown vs. rural), region of the 

country and percentage of students that are eligible for free and reduced-price school lunch. 

Schools in the Violent Crime group are very different from schools in the No Crime 

group. The schools in the Violent Crime group are larger (averaging 1,060 students), located in 

urban areas (28%) and have a high percentage of minority students (mean of 40% per school). 

While the Violent Crime group does have the largest component of urban schools (28.5%), about 

one-third of this group is located in rural (36%) and another third in fiingeltown areas (35.5%). 

Therefore, problems related to serious violence in schools do not seem to be isolated to the 

central city. 

This profile is in contrast to the schools in the No Crime group, which are, on 

average, much smaller (370 students per school), more likely to be located in rural areas (62%) 

and have a low percentage of minority students (mean of 12% per school). Surprisingly, these 

two groups of schools do not differ by the percentage of students that are eligible for fiee and 

reduced-price school lunch. 

The differences between the Violent Crime group and the other two groups (i.e., 

Isolated and Moderate groups) are more complex. The schools in the Violent Crime group tend 

to be more urban and have a higher percentage of minority populations than schools in the other 

two groups. Contrary to expectations, these data do not show a strong relationship of crime 

group with school size and, to some extent, urbanicity. It is the case that the schools in the 

Violent Crime group are the largest. They are much larger, on average, than those schools in the 

Moderate Crime group (1,060 vs. 562). However, they are only slightly larger than the schools 

in the Isolated Crime group (1,060 vs. 930). 

218 8 
Table 4. School, Student and Community Characteristics in U.S. Public High Schools, by, Crime 

Group (standard error in parentheses) 

Average Number of Students 

Enrolled per school 

Average Percent Minority 

students per school 

Average Percent Eligible for 

Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 

per school 

School Location 

(% of schools in crime group) 

Rural 

Urban FringelTown 

Urban 

Region 

(% of schools in crime group) 

Northeast 

West 

Central 

Southeast 

No 

Crime 

3 70 

(42) 

12.3 

(2.3) 

21.2 

(2.2) 

62.1 

30.4 

7.5 

(4.7) 

(5 .O) 

(1.9) 

12.8 

24.2 

41.2 

21.8 

(4.8) 

(6.0) 

(7.2) 

(5 .O) 

Crime Pattern Grow 

Isolated 

Crime 

930 

(39) 

26.7 

(2.1) 

22.0 

(1.6) 

L 

Moderate 

Crime 

562 

(55) 

29.6 

(5.2) 

25.9 

(4.3) 

41.6 

43.2 

15.2 

(6.0) 

(5.6) 

(3.4) 

11.7 

41.4 

27.3 

19.6 

(3.9) 

(7.2) 

(6.7) 

(5.5) 

Violent Crime 

1,060 

(146) 

40.3 

(5.4) 

1 20.0 

(4.2) 

36.0 

(10.4) 

35.5 

(9.1) 

28.5 

(6.9) 

23.7 

(9.0) 

33.5 

(9.7) 

19.1 

(8.2) 

23.6 

(8.0) 

Source: Principal-School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence 

Violent Crime - High level of serious violent crime reported to the police or schools with moderate levels of serious 

violent crime reported to the police and a high level of less serious violent crime reported to the police. Moderate 

Crime - Not in violent crime group, but with a high level of either less serious violent crime reported to the police or 

property crime reported to the police. Isolated Crime - Schools not in either violent or moderate crime, but with a 

moderate level of some type of crime reported to the police. No Crime - No incident reported to the police of any 

type of crime. 

Crimes reported to the police did not necessarily involve students or school personnel as either victims or 

perpetrators. 

More striking is the fact that the schools in the Isolated Crime group are both less 

likely to be in a rural area (30.1% vs. 41.6%) and are larger, on average, than the schools in the 

Moderate Crime group (930 vs. 562). One would have expected the opposite, since the 

Moderate Crime group has, on average, higher crime rates than the Isolated Crime group.. This is 

inconsistent with the idea that larger, non-rural schools have higher levels of disorder. 

' 219 _-- 9 
3.2 School Discipline and Other Problems 

School crime reported to the police is not only a function of the amount of disorder 

in the school, but also of the school’s policies and informal practices for reporting crimes to the 

police. Thus, police reports may not provide the best measure of violence or disorder in schools. 

In addition, many crimes may never come to the attention of the principal. By profiling schools 

with police-reported crime, therefore, the analysis may be distorting the types of problems that 

are occurring within the school. 

To address this issue, the analysis examined an alternative measure of problem 

behavior within the school. This utilized a set of items fiom the P-SDSSV on school discipline 

and other problems. Principals were asked to rate a set of 16 issues on whether each was a 

problem for their school. These included items about student behavior, drugs, fighting, gangs, 

racial tensions and problems with teachers. 

A factor analysis was conducted using these 16 items. Based on the factor loadings 

of the items, three composite indices of problem behavior were created, including: 

w Disorderly behavior; 

tardiness; and 

w Drug-related issues. 

The composite scores were scaled to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. 

A positive value on a composite score indicates that the school reported higher-than-average 

problems, while a negative value indicates lower than average reported problems. Table 5 

displays the average composite disorder scores for each crime group. 

The differences across these groups mirror the prevalence of crime within the four 

groups of schools. The biggest contrasts involve the Violent and No Crime groups. There are 

very large differences on all three of the problem composite scores (Drugs, disorder, and 

Tardiness) for these two groups. The No Crime group is also much different fiom the Isolated 

and Moderate groups on all three indicators. There are smaller, but still significant, differences 

among the Violent and IsolatedModerate groups that mirror their crime pattern. In particular, 

the Violent Crime group is significantly different fiom the other two on the three types of 

problems. The only exception is that the difference between the Violent and Moderate Crime 

group for drugs is not statistically significant, although it is in the direction one would expect. 

220 10 
There are no differences between the Isolated and Moderate groups. These two 

groups are similar with respect to what principals report about the types of problems in their 

schools. 

Disorder Composite+ 

Dw!s 

The consistency of principal reports of problems and the school's classification into 

one of the four crime groups is evidence that both are measuring, to some degree, the same 

phenomena. 

Crime Pattern Group++ 

wean Composite Score for Schools in that Group) 

No Crime Isolated Crime Moderate Crime Violent Crime 

-.56 .04 .12 .37 

(.15) I (-06) 

Fighting 

Tardiness 

(.14) (. 18) 

The principal's report, while subjectively based, does seem to be grounded in behaviors observed 

in the school, as evidenced by the correlation of these reports with the crime groupings. 

Conversely, this correlation is also evidence that the crime groupings, which are based on 

incidents reported to the police, are indicative of behaviors the principal is observing. The major 

exception to this is the comparisons between the Isolated and Moderate Crime groups. In this 

case, the perceptions of the principal do not entirely correspond with what has been reported to 

the police. 

'221 ' 11 
3.3 Community Characteristics Associated with Crime Patterns 

To explore whether community characteristics such as poverty, racial composition, 

mobility, or average educational level were associated with school crime patterns, Census data 

for the school’s zip code were added to the data set. As possible correlates of community-level 

crime, the specific variables chosen for this purpose were based on a previous analysis of 

community characteristics and school crime (Gottfiedson and Gottfiedson, 1985). 

A total of 15 variables were drawn from the Census file. To summarize these items, 

a factor analysis was conducted. This resulted in three dimensions describing the make-up of the 

zip codes: 

Urban hi& income-Median family income, percent of population living in an 

urban area, percent with a college degree, and percent of those in managerial or 

professional occupations. 

Social Disadvantage-Percent of households that were female-headed, percent 

receiving public assistance, percent of population reporting race as black, 

percent divorced and percent unemployed. 

Residential mobility-Percent of housing units that are owner occupied, and 

households in the same unit between 1985 and 1990. 

Based on the factor loadings, composite scales were created for each of these 

dimensions. The scales were created to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. A 

positive value should be interpreted as high on each of the above dimensions (e.g., high 

residential mobility, high social disadvantage). A negative value should be interpreted as low on 

each of the above dimension. Table 6 compares the mean composite scores for schools in the 

crime pattern groups. 

As with the results above, the largest differences are between the No Crime and 

Violent Crime groups. The former are less likely to be in urban high income communities, more 

likely to have low levels of social disadvantage, and more likely to have low residential mobility. 

No significant differences were found between the three groups of schools that experience at 

least some crime (Isolated, Moderate and Violent). 

The power of the community characteristics, therefore, seems to be in distinguishing 

between schools with very low and very high crime rates. The community characteristics do not 

distinguish among the Isolated, Moderate and Violent Crime groups. This could reflect the 

complex relationship between communities and school disorder. Previous analyses have used 

222 12 
relatively small units, such as blocks or Census Tracts, to measure the immediate geographic 

area of the school. The areas used for matching in the present analysis (i.e., zip codes) may be 

too large. In addition, the school's zip code does not necessarily relate to the neighborhoods in 

which the students are living. With busing, magnet schools, and other special programs, the 

"catchment area" of schools may not coincide with the geographic area covered by the zip code. 

Finally, 1990 Census data was used, so communities may have changed by the time of the survey 

(1 996-1 997 school year). 

Community Characteristic I No Crime 

Composite+ 

Table6. Community Characteristics and School Crime Patterns in U.S. Public High Schools 

(standard error in parentheses) 

Isolated Crime Moderate Crime Violent Crime 

I I Crime Pattern Group+ 

(.14) 

(Mean Composite Score for Schools in that Group) 

I I I 

(-07) (-15) (. 15) 

Urban high income 

Social disadvantage 

Residential mobility 

This complexity is also reflected in the finding that the Violent Crime Group has a 

positive score on "urban high income" dimension. One would not normally expect violent crime 

to be located in aMuent areas. For example, the Violent Crime Group has a high score on the 

"social disadvantage" composite. It should be noted that the score for the Violent Crime Group 

is not statistically different from zero. Nonetheless, the positive value for the Violent Crime 

223 13 
Group for the "urban high income" composite may also reflect the urban nature of these 

communities when compared to rural areas, which are more likely to be in the No Crime Group. 

4. Are the Methods to Control School Disorder Related to the Level of 

Violence? 

In this section, we discuss whether high schools in the four crime groups differ by 

the methods they used to prevent violence. We first discuss the use of specific violence 

prevention activities and programs. We next discuss whether schools in different crime groups 

have implemented different security practices. 

4.1 Prevention Programs and Activities 

The P-SDSSV asked principals to report whether their schools conducted specific 

programs or activities intended to prevent or reduce school violence. The list of program types 

was developed as part of another effort concerned with documenting and evaluating these 

activities (Gottfiedson, et al., 2000). 

The programs included on the P-SDSSV were: 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for students; 

Behavioral programming or behavior modification for students; 

Counseling, social work, psychological or therapeutic activity for students; 

Other activities involving individual attention for students (e.g., tutoring, 

mentoring); 

Recreational, enrichment, or leisure activities for students; 

Student involvement in resolving student conduct problems (e.g., conflict 

resolution, student court); 

Training, supervision, or technical assistance in classroom management for 

teachers; 

Review, revision, or monitoring of school wide discipline practices and 

procedures; 

Community or parent involvement in school violence prevention programs or 

efforts; and 

224 14 
Reorganization of school, grades, or schedules (e.g., “houses” or “teams” of 

students. 

Across all high schools, the most common prevention activity in 1996-97 was 

reviewing or monitoring school wide discipline (62% of schools). The least common activity 

was reorganization of schools, grades, or schedules (25%). On average, ‘high schools reported 

implementing 3.2 violence prevention activities during 1996-97. 

Table 7 compares crime groups by the use of each prevention activity. Some 

prevention programs or activities were very unlikely to be used across all crime groups. These 

included school reorganization efforts, community or parent involvement in violence prevention, 

and student involvement in resolving student conduct problems. Likewise, other activities were 

used frequently regardless of crime pattern. These included review, revision, and monitoring 

school disciplinary practices, and counseling or therapeutic activities for students. 

The No Crime group was the least likely to have used any of the activity types. In 

contrast, the Violent Crime group was most likely to use seven of the ten activities. The higher 

use of some activities by this group may reflect these schools’ greater need to control violence 

and other types of disorder. These schools may respond by instituting more programs to try to 

reduce the problem. 

225 15 
Table 7. Percent of U.S. Public High Schools Reporting Use of Programs to Prevent Violence, by 

Type of Program and Crime Group (standard error in parenthesis) 

Type of Program 

Review, revision, or monitoring of school-wide 

discipline practices and procedures 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for 

students 

Counseling, social work, psychological or therapeutic 

activity for students 

Other activities involving individual attention for 

students (e.g., tutoring) 

Training, supervision, or technical assistance in 

classroom management for teachers 

Recreational, enrichment, or leisure activities for 

students 

Behavioral programming or behavior modification 

Student involvement in resolving student contact 

problems (e.g., conflict resolution, student court) 

Community or parent involvement in school violence 

prevention 

Reorganization of school, grades, or schedules 

(e.a., “house” or “teams” of students) 

ource: Principal-School Disciplinarian Survey on School Vic 

(pwc 

No 

Crime 

49.0 

(6.2) 

49.2 

(7.1) 

46.6 

(6.4) 

45.1 

(6.4) 

40.0 

(6.3) 

37.1 

(6.8) 

36.2 

(6.4) 

27.1 

(6.0) 

19.4 

(5.3) 

16.1 

(5.0) 

:me 

Crime Pattern Group+ 

it of Schools in Crime C 

Crime 

67.5 

(3.1) 

60.3 

(3.1) 

64.1 

(4.0) 

63.1 

(3 -2) 

50.8 

(3.6) 

46.9 

(3.6) 

57.3 

(3 4 

47.3 

(3.1) 

39.3 

(2.9) 

26.3 

58.0 

(6.3) 

57.3 

(7.9) 

64.2 

(6.6) 

54.5 

(6.6) 

41.6 

(6.6) 

44.2 

(6.7) 

44.8 

(7.2) 

39.2 

(6.5) 

39.9 

(6.7) 

24.9 

(2.9) I (5.6) 

oup) 

Violent 

Crime 

69.0 

(9.3) 

58.1 

(10.7) 

60.4 

(10.8) 

74.9 

(8.7) 

67.6 

(9.5) 

60.8 

(9.8) 

73.0 

(9.0) 

51.5 

(10.1) 

39.9 

(1 0.4) 

44.8 

(11.1) 

+ Violent Crime - High level of serious viblent crime reported to the police or schools with moderate levels of 

serious violent crime reported to the police and a high level of less serious violent crime reported to the police. 

Moderate Crime - Not in violent crime group, but with a high level of either less serious violent Crime reported 

to the police or property crime reported to the police. Isolated Crime - Schools not in either violent or moderate 

crime, but with a moderate level of some type of crime reported to the police. No Crime - No incident reported 

to the police of any type of crime. 

Crimes reported to the police did not necessarily involve students or school personnel as either victims or 

perpetrators. 

Table 8 provides a different way of describing school prevention activities. It ranks 

prevention activities by the number of schools that used the activity, for each crime pattern 

group. Review, revision, and monitoring school-wide discipline practices and procedures was 

one of the top three activities for all four crime pattern groups. Training, supemision, or 

technical assistance in the classroom was in the middle of the rankings for all four groups, as was 

recreational enrichment. Three prevention activities were consistently infkequent across all 

226 16 
groups: student involvement in resolving student conduct problems, community or parent 

involvement in school violence prevention efforts, and reorganization of schools. 

Table 8. Rank of Use of Different Programs to Prevent Violence within each Crime Group for U.S. 

Public High Schools ~ 

Type of Program 

Review, revision, or monitoring of school-wide 

liscipline practices and procedures 

Prevention curriculum, instruction, or training for 

Counseling, social work, psychological or therapeutic 

ictivity for students 

3tha activities involving individual attention for 

students (e.g., tutoring) 

Training, supervision, or technical assistance in 

:lassroom management for teachas 

Recreational, enrichment, or leisure activities for 

students 

Behavioral programming or behavior modification 

Student involvement in resolving student contact 

problems (e.g., conflict resolution, student court) 

Community or parent involvement in school violence 

prevention 

Reorganization of school, grades, or schedules 

[e.g., “house” or “teams” of students) 

owe: Principal-School Disciplinarian Survey on School Via 

students 

Crime Pattern Group+ 

(1= most frequent: 

NO 

Crime 

1 

1 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

lnce 

Isolated 

Crime 

1 

4 

2 

3 

6 

7 

5 

7 

9 

10 

I O=least fb 

Moderate 

Crime 

2 

3 

1 

4 

7 

6 

5 

9 

8 

10 

uent) 

Violent 

Crime 

3 

7 

5 

1 

4 

6 

2 

8 

10 

9 

+ Violent Crime - High level of serious violent crime reported to the police or schools with moderate levels of 

serious violent crime reported to the police and a high level of less serious violent crime reported to the police. 

Moderate Crime - Not in violent crime group, but with a high level of either less serious violent crime reported 

to the police or property crime reported to the police. Isolated Crime - Schools not in either violent or moderate 

crime, but with a moderate level of some type of crime reported to the police. No Crime - No incident reported 

to the police of any type of crime. 

Crimes reported to the police did not necessarily involve students or school personnel as either victims or 

perpetrators. 

There were differences in the prevention activities used by the different crime 

groups, especially between the Violent Crime group and the other three groups. For example, 

__ 227 - 17 
prevention curriculum, instruction, and training differed between the Violent Crime group and 

the other three groups. Prevention curriculum activities involve classroom instruction that aims 

to prevent problem behaviors such as drug use or fighting. This strategy was the most 

commonly used by schools in the No Crime group. Similarly, schools in the Isolated Crime 

group mentioned it third most frequently, while the Moderate Crime group mentioned it fourth 

most frequently. In contrast to this, this activity ranked seven out of ten for the Violent Crime 

group. 

A high proportion of the Violent Crime group used activities that required more 

planning and individual attention. This suggests that broad-brush approaches to violence 

prevention may be viewed as ineffective in schools that have a significant amount of violence. 

Behavioral programming and modification ranked second among schools in this group, but 

ranked fifth for schools in the Moderate and Isolated Crime groups. It ranked seventh for the No 

Crime group. Schools in the Violent Crime group also relied on other activities involving 

individual attention for students, which ranked first among these schools. This strategy varied 

between the third and fourth most common activity among the schools with other crime patterns. 

A final difference among the crime groups involves prevention strategies that 

involve counseling and social work. Among schools in the No Crime, Isolated Crime, and 

Moderate Crime groups, this type of activity appeared as one of the top three approaches. This 

contrasted to the Violent Crime group, where it ranks as the fifth most commonly used strategy. 

4.2 Security Strategies 

An obvious way for schools to prevent violence is through security devices and 

strategies. The P-SDSSV included a series of questions on security strategies, including whether 

the school used the following: 

Controlled access to school grounds, 

Metal detectors through which all students pass each day, 

Random metal detector checks on students, 

One or more drug sweeps, and 

Police or security officers (hours per week that officers were on campus). 

228 18 
Table 9 compares the use of security strategies by schools in the different crime 

groups. The high schools that experience the most violent crime are also the ones that report 

using these devices and strategies most fiequently. Schools in the Violent Crime group 

consistently use the most security devices. On average, these schools use 1.23 different 

strategies, significantly more than in the other crime groups. Schools in the No Crime group use 

significantly fewer types of security strategies than do schools in the Isolated or Moderate Crime 

groups. 

Differences between crime groups also appear within particular strategies. As would 

be expected hm the mean number of security measures, a higher proportion of the schools in 

the Violent Crime group reported using each of the individual strategies more often than the 

other types of schools. The largest difference is for the use of a random metal detector check, 

where 32.7% of the Violent group reported using this strategy compared to 10% or less among 

the other three groups. The Moderate Crime group and the Isolated Crime group exhibited some 

interesting differences. On the one hand, compared to the Isolated . -_ Crime group, a higher 

proportion of the Moderate Crime group used drug sweeps. On the other hand, more schools in 

the Isolated Crime group used controlled access to school grounds and random metal detectors. 

The use of police or other security personnel was another approach used by schools. 

The P-SDSSV asked principals the amount of time enforcement personnel were stationed in the 

school. The survey defined enforcement personnel to include police officers, school resource 

officers, and other security with arrest powers that are hired by the school. The four groups of 

schools differ on this as well. 

Among schools in the Violent Crime group, 33.1 percent report having this type of 

personnel on campus for at least 30 hours per week, compared to only 5 percent of the schools in 

the No Crime group. The schools that reported at least some crime also reported more police 

presence than did those in the schools No Crime group (22% - 24% vs. 5%). Smaller, marginally 

significant differences appeared between the Violent Crime group and the Moderate Crime and 

Isolated Crime groups. 

229 19 
Table 9. Descriptions of Security Devices and Strategies Implemented in U.S. Public High Schools, 

by Crime Group (standard error in parenthesis) 

No 

Crime 

I Crime Pattern Group+ 

Isolated 

Crime 

.60 

(.08) 

14.3 

.3 

(3.9) 

Average number of security measures 

per school 

Percent of Schools With: 

Controlled access to school grounds 

.86 

(.07) 

30.8 

2.2 

(2.8) 

Metal detectors and pass 

- >1 drugsweeps 

No police 

Police 2 30 hours per week 

Random metal detectors 

(1.6) (1.8) 

42.3 43 .O 

(6.6) (4.3) 

83.2 47.8 

(5.0) (3.7) 

5 .o 22.5 

(2.1) (1.9) 

Moderate 

Crime 

.77 

(.11) 

17.6 

(5 -6) 

2.5 

(2.1) 

5.2 

(2.4) 

51.8 

(6.7) 

Violent 

Crime 

1.23 

(.23) 

36.3 

(9.8) 

6.7 

(3 -6) 

32.7 

(8.0) 

51.1 

(11.0) 

+ Violent Crime - High level of serious violent crime reported to the police or schools with moderate levels of 

serious violent crime reported to the police and a high level of less serious violent crime reported to the police. 

Moderate Crime - Not in violent crime group, but with a high level of either less serious violent crime reported 

to the police or property crime reported to the police. Isolated Crime - Schools not in either violent or moderate 

crime, but with a moderate level of some type of crime reported to the police. No Crime - No incident reported 

to the police of any type of crime. 

Crimes reported to the police did not necessarily involve students or school personnel as either victims or 

perpetrators. 

5. Summary and Conclusions 

During the 1996-1997 school year, most U.S. public high schools were safe and 

secure. A large majority of high schools in the U.S. did not have high levels of violence and did 

not experience traumatic events. Rather, this analysis found that a disproportionately small 

number of schools accounted for a very high proportion of violent incidents. Roughly 60 percent 

of serious violent crimes occurred in 4 percent of the schools, four times higher than would be 

expected if these incidents were evenly distributed across schools. Schools that reported high 

levels of serious violence also reported high levels of other types of crimes as well, such as 

property crime and fights without weapons. 

230 20 
The analyses described in this report clearly show differences between schools with 

high and low levels of violence. This suggests that focusing on how high and low violence 

schools react to crime and then evaluating these policies would be an effective way to reduce 

violence in U.S. Further identification and analysis of these schools at a more in-depth level can 

increase understanding of the obstacles and successes that are related to controlling violence in 

these locations. 

High schools with the highest levels of violence tended to be located in urban areas 

and have a high percentage of minority students, compared to high schools that reported no 

crime to the police. They also tended to be located in areas with high social disorganization and 

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

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

violence being solely restricted to central cities is not accurate. 

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

schools that experience a high level of serious violence also reported high use of prevention 

measures and programs that were specifically aimed at controlling violence. Schools in the 

Violent Crime group appeared to put more emphasis on programs geared toward changing 

individual behavior, such as behavioral modification or other types of individual attention. This 

contrasted with high schools in the other three crime groups, which tended to place a higher 

priority on prevention instruction or counselors within the school. 

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

variety of security measures to reduce risk of crimes, particularly random metal detectors, used 

by about one-third of the Violent Crime group (compared to 10% or less in the other groups). 

The crime groups also differed in their use of law enforcement and security personnel. The 

schools in the Violent Crime group were more likely to use this as a measure to control disorder 

than were schools with lower levels of crime. 

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

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

using many of the programs/activities). A follow-up question is whether these programs are 

effective at reducing violence. The current analysis did not allow for assessment of whether 

programs were implemented in an effective way and/or significantly reduced the amount of 

violence in the school. 

23 1 21 
Several caveats must be applied to the above results. First, there is error in the 

measure of crime. One type of error relates to how the principal or school disciplinarian 

provided information for the survey. Ideally, the information on the number of crimes reported 

to the police, the types of programs implemented, and other data are based on records residing 

within the school. However, the process of respondents actually looking up information in their 

records is not entirely clear-cut. The records may not exist at all, they may be organized in ways 

that are not consistent with how the question was asked, or the respondents may not understand 

that they need to use records. All of these possible problems likely contribute to the accuracy of 

the information reported. 

A second caveat, as mentioned briefly above, is the reliance on crimes reported to 

the police as the primary measure of disorder in the school. Whether or not a crime is reported to 

the police depends on a two step process. First, the principal has to learn about the event, and 

second, the principal has to decide to report the event to the police. As with any data related to 

police-recorded crime, these steps may not be followed. The reasons they are not may very well 

differ by the type of event that occurs (e.g., serious vs. non-serious crime), the relationship of the 

school with the police, and the relationship among students, faculty, and administrators (e.g., 

student fear of retribution). 

In conclusion, this analysis has shown that while many high schools in the country 

are safe, a small percentage of schools experience a disproportionate amount of serious violence, 

at least as measured by crimes the principal reported to the police. These schools are quite 

difierent from other schools along several important dimensions and merit more intensive 

investigation. This report also suggests that future measurement of crime within schools should 

be designed to pick up more detail on the small percentage of schools that seem to be 

experiencing this crime. The low frequency of any violent event, even in those schools with a 

relatively high crime rate, is such that detailed analysis in a national sample for a single year is 

quite difficult. Future surveys like the P-SDSSV should consider ways to increase the statistical 

power for these types of analyses. This would include increasing the sample size of schools with 

high rates of disorder and schools that have similar characteristics (e.g., urban, high social 

disadvantage). ’ 

’ A concrete suggestion to address this would be to continue to follow-up a sample of schools in future data 

collection efforts like the P-SDSSV. By being able to cumulate reports of crime over time, the problems 

experienced with the small sample sizes in any single year’s survey would be mitigated. This would also provide 

a way to assess whether crime in particular schools persists over time. 

232 22 
References 

Crosse, S., Burr, M., Cantor, D., & Hartman, I. (Forthcoming). Casting A Wide Net: Drug and 

Violence Prevention Eflorts in American Schools. Study on School Violence and 

prevention. Draft report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. 

Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S.P., Ruddy, S.A., Miller, A.K., Fleury, J.K., Chandler, K.A., 

Rand, M.R., Klaus, P., & M.G. Planty. (2000). Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 

2000. [NCES 2001-017/NCJ-184176]. Washington D.C.: US. Departments of Education 

and Justice. 

Gottfiedson, G.D. & Gottfiedson, D.C. (1 985). Victimization in Schools. New York: Plenum. 

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

Study OfDelinquency Prevention in Schools. Final Report for the National Institute of Justice, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Grant # 96-MU-MU-008. Ellicot City, MD: Gottfiedson Associates, 

InC . 

McCutcheon, A. (1987). Latent Class Analysis. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in US. 

public schools: 199697. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

233, - 

23 
Appendix A 

Identifying Schools by Crime Rates 

Section 3 of this report describes the characteristics of four groups of schools with 

different levels and types of crimes. This appendix provides a description of how these four 

groups were created. 

For each type of crime (described in Section 2), school-level crime rates per 1000 

students were computed. Crime rates were then divided into three crime levels. For serious 

violent crime, these levels were: 

0 bw-A rate of less than 1 incident per 1000 students; 

0 Moderate-A rate between 1 and 5 incidents per 1000 students; and 

0 High-A rate greater than 5 incidents per 1000 students (equivalent to five times 

the average rate or higher). 

Slightly different levels were used for fighting without a weapon and property 

crimes: 

None-No crimes reported; 

ModerateA rate more than zero and less than 21 incidents per 1000 students; 

and 

High-A rate of 2 1 or more incidents per 1000 students (equivalent to twice the 

average rate or higher). 

There is a correlation among these different crimes. Schools that experienced 

moderate or high levels of serious violence were also more likely to experience other, less 

serious, types of crimes (e.g., vandalism). This is illustrated in Table A-1, which provides crosstabulations of the crime level classifications for the three crime types reported on the P-SDSSV. 

Schools classified as having a high level of violent crime also experienced higher levels of the 

other two types of crimes.* For example, of the schools with high violent crime, 84 percent 

reported a moderate to high level of fighting without a weapon and 100 percent reported a 

* All of the relationships displayed in Table A-2 are statistically signiricant at pc.05. 

234 24 
moderate to high level of property crime. Among schools in the low serious violence level, only 

50 percent had a moderate to high level of and only 62 percent reported a moderate to high level 

of property crime. Table A-2 displays the cross-tabulation of fighting without a weapon and 

property crime. Again, schools with a high level of fighting are more likely to have moderate or 

high property crime levels, compared to other schools. b 

None 

49.5 

38.4 

12.1 

100.0 

13.057 

Table A-1. Co-Occurrence of Rates of Crimes Reported to the Police for Serious Violence, 

Attack Without a Weapon, and Property Crime' Among U.S. Public High 

Schools 

Moderate I High Total 

12.1 16.7 45.1 

56.2 59.8 41.3 

21.7 24.1 13.6 

100.0 100.0 100.0 

1.935 448 15.440 

Attack Without a Weapon 

(Percent of Schools) 

No incidents 

Moderate rate of incidents 

High rate of incidents 

Total Number of Schools 

I Total Number of Schools I 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

13,057 1,935 448 15,440 

Serious Violence* 

Property Crime' 

(Percent of Schools) 

No incidents 

Moderate rate of incidents 

High rate of incidents 

37.8 

49.9 

12.2 

14.4 

62.6 

22.9 

*Serious violence includes: murder, sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight with a weapon and robbery. 

Schools participating in the survey did not report any murders or suicides. ProDeTtv crime includes theMarceny 

(stealing without confrontation) and destruction of school property. 

235. 

-- 25 
Table A-2. Co-Occurrence of Rates of Crimes Reported to the Police for Attack Without a 

Weapon and Property Crimes Among U.S. Public High Schools (percent of 

schools) 

Property Crime* 

No incidents 

Moderate rate of incidents 

High rate of incidents 

(Percent of Schools) 

I Attack With 

54.3 

37.0 

8.7 

I None I Moderate 

20.6 

38.7 

40.7 

33.8 

52.5 

13.7 

15.7 

74.0 

10.3 

I 100.0 1 100.0 

Total Number of Schools I 6,967 I 6,375 

lut a Weapon 

100.0 II 100.0 

2,098 11 15,440 ~~ 

* ProDertv crime includes theMarceny (stealing without confiontation) and destruction of school property. 

A Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was conducted using the three crime variables 

described above. This tested whether schools can be classified into groups defined by the rate of 

serious violence, fights without a weapon and property crime. The results of this analysis 

indicate that schools can be described by these three different types of crimes. Schools with a 

great deal of serious violence also tend to have other types of crimes. Conversely, there is a 

disproportionate number of schools that do not experience any of these types of crimes. 

The classification into four groups was done by cross-classifying the three crime 

variables described above. This resulted in a table with 27 cells (3 x 3 x 3 = 27). The crime 

groups were formed by collapsing these 27 cells to form the following groups: 

* Violent Crime-Schools with a high level of serious violent crime or schools 

with a moderate level of serious violent crime and a high level of fighting 

without a weapon. 

Moderate CrimeSchools not in group 1 above, but with a high level of either 

fighting without a weapon or property crime. 

* Isolated Crime-Schools not in groups 1 or 2, but with a moderate level of some 

type of crime. 

0 No Crime-Schools with no incidents of any type of crime. 

236 

26 
US. Department of €ducation 

Ofice of Educational Research and lmprovement (OERI) 

* National library of Education (ME) 

Educational Resources lnformafion Center (ERIC) 

NOTICE 

Reproduction Basis 

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)" 

form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes of 

documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a 

"Specific Document" Release form. 

LJ 

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to 

reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may be 

reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either 

"Specific Document" or "Blanket"). 

EFF-089 (10003)