DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37913.v1
title: A Roadmap to Evidence-Based School Safety: Safe Communities Safe Schools, Colorado, 2016-2020
title: Version 1

description: Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder's Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) partnered with educators in 46 middle schools to implement Safe Communities Safe Schools (SCSS). SCSS seeks to prevent and reduce behavioral incidents, address mental and behavioral health concerns, and increase prosocial behavior in the school setting through three core program components: developing a functioning multidisciplinary school team, building capacity around data use, and selecting and implementing evidence-based programs. The study explored research questions in three areas: readiness (whether schools met baseline criteria and experienced changes in readiness over time), implementation (whether the SCSS model was implemented as intended; whether it is feasible, acceptable, and effective when implemented schoolwide), and associated outcomes (effects on school climate, safety, related behavioral and mental health indicators, and academic outcomes). To explore questions in these three areas, CSPV and external evaluators from American Institutes for Research conducted a mixed-methods randomized control trial with a staggered implementation design using qualitative data (open-ended questions on
implementation surveys, focus groups) and quantitative data (staff and student
school climate data, attendance/truancy rates, and suspension rates, and academic
achievement data).
This collection is organized into 12 parts and includes administrative school record data, student and staff climate surveys, and fidelity data. School record data from years 1 and 2 of the study include school-level attendance, truancy, and suspension rates, as well as student-level assessment data. Qualitative focus group data is not currently included in the collection.
description: Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder's Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) partnered with educators in 46 middle schools to implement Safe Communities Safe Schools (SCSS), which seeks to prevent and reduce behavioral incidents, address mental and behavioral health concerns, and increase prosocial behavior in the school setting. The study addressed four broad research questions:
Do schools have initial readiness and increase their readiness to implement the SCSS model over time?
Is the SCSS model implemented as intended in this set of schools?
Is the SCSS model feasible, acceptable, and effective when implemented schoolwide?
What is the effect on school climate, safety, related behavioral and mental health indicators, and academic outcomes for youth and staff in schools randomized to receive the SCSS model, compared to youth and staff in schools randomized to the waitlist control group; and how do these impacts vary by variation in implementation?
description: The research team conducted a staggered-implementation randomized control trial. Project subjects included educators at 46 middle schools, the students in these schools, and (indirectly) their families and broader community. Cohort 1 included 10 (5 treatment schools and 5 control schools) schools and Cohort 2 included 36 schools (18 treatment schools and 18 control schools). Schools were assessed for initial readiness and were supported to increase capacity to implement Safe Communities Safe Schools (SCSS) throughout the project period. Groups of schools within each cohort began receiving SCSS in different years so that all schools received at least 1 year of SCSS treatment by the project's end. The study examined outcomes only at years 1 and 2.
To address issues related to readiness, University of Colorado Boulder's Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) team members conducted readiness feasibility visits for recruitment, and school-based teams completed a 90-item readiness assessment annually. Six types of implementation data were collected and analyzed to address implementation fidelity: (1) SCSS training documents, (2) mid-year and (3) end-of-year surveys completed by program facilitators of the school's selected evidence-based program, (4) observations of classroom-based evidence-based programs, (5) implementation ratings completed by CSPV implementation managers, and (6) structured focus groups with school-based teams. Several types of outcome data were collected and analyzed to address SCSS impacts on student and school outcomes, including student and staff climate survey data assessing risk and protective factors and violence indicators, and school record data assessing daily attendance and truancy rates, suspension rates, and academic achievement test scores (reading and math).
description: Not applicable.
description: Response Rates: Please see Appendix A of the School Climate Survey Protocol documentation for student and staff climate survey response rates, and Attachment A of the Mid-Implementation Survey Protocol documentation for mid-implementation survey response rates.
description: Presence of Common Scales: The student and staff climate were modified version of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Several Likert-type scales were used in these.
The mid-implementation survey was modified from existing implementation and fidelity surveys used for several programs, including Positive Action, Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, and Achievement Mentoring. Several Likert-type scales were used in these, as well as some open-ended questions.
description: Schools were recruited from the Colorado Front Range. To establish baseline equivalence, schools were matched using optimal paired matching and then randomized into treatment or control conditions. Five variables were used to find the best matches for each school: (1) site selection ratings, (2) enrollment numbers, (3) percentage non-white students, (4) percentage of students receiving free or reduced price lunch, and (5) average standardized proficiency rate across subjects (math, reading, and writing) for grades 6-8. Subsequent analyses done on the treatment and comparison groups further indicated that these were valid matches, based on similar group means on the five variables included in the matching process plus additional school characteristics (e.g., percentage of students Hispanic, percent of students African American, mobility rates, and attendance rates). All cases were used in each school in subsequent analyses.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Colorado Department of Education School-level Data: Attendance Year 1
DS2: Colorado Department of Education School-level Data: Attendance Year 2
DS3: Colorado Department of Education School-level Data: Truancy Year 1
DS4: Colorado Department of Education School-level Data: Truancy Year 2
DS5: Colorado Department of Education School-level Data: Suspensions Year 1
DS6: Colorado Department of Education School-level Data: Suspensions Year 2
DS7: Colorado Department of Education Student-level Data: Assessment Year 1
DS8: Colorado Department of Education Student-level Data: Assessment Year 2
DS9: Student Climate Survey Data
DS10: Staff Climate Survey Data
DS11: Safe Communities Safe Schools Mid-Implementation Survey
DS12: Safe Communities Safe Schools Implementation Log
description: Middle school students and staff from participating schools in the Colorado Front Range. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.
description: coded on-site observation; paper and pencil interview (PAPI); on-site questionnaire; web-based surveyThe qualitative focus group data collected for this study are not available as part of the collection at this time.