NCJ Number
189439
Date Published
2001
Length
42 pages
Annotation
This report reviews the structure and performance of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act and assesses options for strengthening it, based on conclusions from a conference that examined the findings of three analyses of school drug and violence prevention, a study of the law’s background, and a focus group of teachers and practitioners.
Abstract
Participants at the conference included Department of Education program and policy leaders, classroom teachers and local program operators, representatives of the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, and researchers and policy analysts. Issues cited in the literature, focus groups, or by conference participants included problems that hindered the program’s ability to promote safe, drug-free schools, as well as problems that constrained program change. Problems included budgetary issues, vagueness of the program’s purpose and goals, lack of knowledge about program effectiveness, and lack of coordination with other programs. Recent program improvements have included new guidelines, the establishment of large comprehensive grants in approximately 75 districts, a junior high coordinator initiative, and the creation of an expert panel to identify effective programs. The six criteria for a successful program include the targeting of resources, effectiveness in reducing drug use and violence in and around schools, evaluability, accountability, improvement of program capacity, and administrative feasibility and cost. The Clinton Administration’s proposal was an improvement but was insufficient. Instead, a recommended change compatible with both the criteria and with the Bush administration’s objectives should be to change the within-state allocation formula to give much more weight to need and capacity of districts. Additional recommended changes include changing the basic character of the program, replacing formula grants to States with direct Federal grants, and creating requirements for State and local efforts. Footnotes and 18 references