The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program: Background and Context

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Program:
Background and Context
Updated January 22, 2007
Edith Fairman Cooper
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division



The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Program: Background and Context
Summary
The No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110), amended and reauthorized the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) as Part A of Title IV
— 21st Century Schools. The act is up for reauthorization in the 110th Congress.
The Department of Education (ED) administers SDFSCA through the SDFSC
program, which is the federal government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse
and violence in and around schools. State grants are awarded by formula to outlying
areas, state educational agencies, and local educational agencies in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Also, funds go to state
Governors for creating programs to deter youth from using drugs and committing
violent acts in schools. National programs are supported through discretionary funds
for a variety of national leadership projects designed to prevent drug abuse and
violence at all educational levels.
Other federally sponsored substance abuse and violence prevention programs
are administered in the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and
other agencies. Those programs are not discussed in this report.
A joint Department of Education and Department of Justice (DOJ) study
(Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006) states that “Our nation’s schools
should be a safe haven for teaching and learning free of crime and violence....
However, it is difficult to gauge the scope of crime and violence in schools given the
large amount of attention devoted to isolated incidents of extreme school violence.”
ED and DOJ data show that from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005, there were 21
homicides and seven suicides at school of 5- to 18-year-old students, which translated
to about one homicide or suicide of such a student at school per 2 million students
enrolled in the 2004-05 school year. Also, in 2004, 12- to-18-year-old students were
victims of about 1.4 million nonfatal crimes at school. A spate of school violence
deaths and injuries occurred early in the 2006-2007 school term, prompting renewed
interest in the issue, including a White House conference on school safety.
A study conducted by the University of Michigan (2006 Monitoring the Future),
revealed a continued general decline in illicit drug use by all 8th, 10th, and 12th grade
students. In 2006, very little or no declines in drug use occurred in any grade of such
drugs as inhalants, LSD, cocaine powder, methamphetamines, heroin, tranquilizers,
sedatives, various club drugs, steroids and others. There was little change in MDMA
(ecstasy) use among 8th and 10th graders, but a very small increase in annual use
among 12th graders. Marijuana use continued to decline among 10th and 12th graders,
but stopped declining among 8th graders. After decreasing slightly in recent years
among all grades, crack cocaine use showed a further decline among 10th graders.
OxyContin use increased among 8th and 10th graders, but declined among 12th
graders. Vicodin use slightly increased among all three grades. Alcohol use,
cigarette smoking, and smokeless tobacco use declined only among 12th graders who
had used the product 30 days prior to the survey. About one in every 25 8th graders
and one in every 14 high school seniors abused over-the-counter cough or cold
medications.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
School Safety.....................................................3
Indicators Study Data Questioned.................................6
School Homicides.............................................7
The 1996 Study on School-Related Violent Deaths...............7
Update of the 1996 Study....................................8
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention 2001 Reported Study..........................9
Source of Firearms Used
in School-Related Violent Deaths........................10
School-Associated Violent Deaths:
CDC’s 2006 Update...................................10
National School Safety and Security Services Data...............12
Multiple Deaths and Injuries....................................13
White House Conference on School Safety.........................18
Drug Abuse.....................................................20
Marijuana Use...............................................22
Ecstasy Use.................................................22
Other Illicit Drug Use.........................................23
Alcohol Use.................................................26
Cigarette Smoking............................................28
Smokeless Tobacco Use.......................................31
The SDFSC Program..............................................33
State Grants.................................................34
State Chief Executive Officer’s Funds........................35
State and Local Educational Agencies
Grant Allocations and Activities.........................36
State Application.........................................37
LEA Application.........................................37
LEA Limitation..........................................38
Principles of Effectiveness for State and
Local Grant Recipients.................................38
National Programs............................................39
Federal Activities.........................................39
Impact Evaluation........................................40
National Coordinator Program...............................41
Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse.............................41
Mentoring Programs......................................42
The Gun-Free Schools Act......................................42
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).............................43



Figure 1. Any Illicit Drug Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders
Within the Last 12 Months, 1992-2006............................26
Figure 2. Any Alcohol Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders
Within the Last 30 Days, 1992-2006..............................28
Figure 3. 30-Day Prevalence of Any Cigarette Use
by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, 1992-2006.........................31
Figure 4. 30-Day Prevalence of Smokeless Tobacco Use
by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, 1992-2006.........................33
Figure 5. The Program Formula Used
to Fund State and Local Schools.................................35
List of Tables
Table 1. School-Related Violent Deaths, by School Year,
1999-2000 through 2006-2007..................................12
Table 2. Multiple-Victim School-Related Violent Deaths
and Injuries, by School Years, 1994-1995 through 2000-2001..........16
Table 3. Multiple-Victims School-Related Violent Deaths and Injuries,
by School Year, 2001-2002 through 2006-2007
(as of December 22, 2006)......................................17



The Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities Program:
Background and Context
Introduction
The No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110) amended and reauthorized the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) within the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as Part A of Title IV — 21st Century Schools.
This program will again be considered for reauthorization in the 110th Congress.
SDFSCA is administered by the Department of Education (ED). Grants are
awarded to states and at the national level for programs to promote school safety and
assist in preventing drug abuse. Although the SDFSC program is the primary federal
government program targeted to reduce drug use and violence through educational
and prevention methods in the nation’s schools,1 it is one of several substance abuse
and violence prevention programs funded by the federal government.2 In a 1997
report, the General Accounting Office (GAO) identified 70 federal programs
authorized to provide services for either substance abuse prevention or violence
prevention. ED, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) administered 48 of the programs.3
For FY2006, Congress appropriated $568.8 million for the program. For
FY2007, the President requested $216.0 million. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $526.0 million for the SDFSC program ($310 million
more than requested), and the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$492.5 million ($276.5 million more than requested). The program continues to
operate at FY2006 levels under a continuing resolution through February 15, 2007.
For information about reauthorization and appropriations for the SDFSC program,
see CRS Report RL33870, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act:
Reauthorization and Appropriations, by Edith Fairman Cooper.


1 About Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, see [http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
osdfs/index.html ].
2 U.S. General Accounting Office, Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Balancing Accountability
With State and Local Flexibility, GAO/HEHS-98-3 (Oct. 1997), p. 8. (Hereafter cited as
GAO, Safe and Drug-Free Schools.) (GAO is now called the Government Accountability
Office.)
3 U.S. General Accounting Office, Substance Abuse and Violence Prevention: Multiple
Youth Programs Raise Questions of Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO testimony before the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, GAO/T-HEHS-97-166 (June 1997), p. 5.

Since 1986, when a crack cocaine crisis appeared to be developing among older
youth and adults in the nation, drug abuse among students in school has been a
congressional concern. In response to the growing concern about crack cocaine and
drug abuse in general, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. In 1994,
this legislation was expanded (as discussed below) to include violence occurring in
and around schools. GAO stated that in 1994, about 3 million violent crimes and
thefts occurred annually in or near schools, which equaled almost 16,000 incidents
per school day.4 The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) conducted by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES) indicated that in the 1993-1994 school year,
violence in public schools was on the rise and schools appeared less safe than in the
1987-1988 school year. From the 1987-1988 school year to the 1993-1994 school
year, an increasing percentage of public elementary and secondary school teachers
reported that physical conflict and weapon possession among students were moderate
to serious problems in schools.5 Similarly, between 1992 and 1995, drug use rates
among school-aged youth increased for over 10 different drugs, particularly
marijuana, after declining in the 1980s.6
To address those concerns, on October 20, 1994, President Clinton signed into
law the Improving America’s School Act (P.L. 103-382), which reauthorized ESEA,
and created SDFSCA as Title IV. The 1994 legislation extended, amended, and
renamed the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-297,
DFSCA).7 Violence prevention was added to DFSCA’s original drug abuse-
prevention purpose by incorporating the Safe Schools Act.8 Consequently, SDFSCA
was intended to help deter violence and promote school safety as well as discourage
drug use in and around the nation’s schools. Funding was authorized for federal,
state, and local programs to assist schools in providing a disciplined learning
environment free of violence and drug use, including alcohol and tobacco.9
This report provides background information about the school safety and drug
abuse issues, presents a detailed overview of the various aspects of the SDFSC
program as it exists under current law, and discusses an evaluation of the SDFSC
program.


4 GAO, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, p. 1.
5 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National
Center for Education Statistics, “How Safe Are the Public Schools: What Do Teachers
Say?” Issue Brief, NCES 96-842, Apr. 1996, p. 1.
6 Ibid.
7 The DFSCA was originally created by Title IV, Subtitle B of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of

1986 (P.L. 99-570).


8 The Safe Schools Act was originally created by Title VII of the Goals 2000: Educate
America Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-227).
9 “Title IV — Safe Schools,” 1994 CQ Almanac, vol. 50 (Washington: Congressional
Quarterly, 1994), p. 394.

School Safety
Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006 (Indicators Study), a joint
publication by ED and DOJ, provides the most recent federal data on school crime
and student safety. The report states that “it is difficult to gauge the scope of crime
and violence in schools given the large amount of attention devoted to isolated
incidents of extreme school violence.”10 The authors note that the aim of the study
is to create good indicators of the current state of school crime and safety across the
nation and to periodically monitor and update those indicators, which they believe11
is required to ensure safer schools. The Indicators Study draws information from
a variety of independent data sources, which include national representative sample
surveys of students, teachers, and principals, and a complete array of data collected
from federal departments and agencies including DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, NCES, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). Each data source has its own separate sample design,
method of collecting data, and questionnaire design or results from a universe of data
collection.12 The national representative sample surveys used in the report were the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and School Crime Supplement to
NCVS, sponsored by BJS and NCES, respectively, NCES’s Schools and Staffing
Survey and the School Survey on Crime and Safety, and CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior
Survey.
The Indicators Study noted that in the 2004-2005 school year, an estimated 54.9
million students were enrolled in elementary and secondary schools in the nation.
The study showed that violent crime13 victimization rates14 of 12- to 18-year-old
students at school actually declined from 73 victimizations per 1,000 students in

2003 to 55 such occurrences in 2004.15 The study observed that despite such a16


decline, violence, theft, drugs, and weapons continued to pose problems in schools.
Preliminary data revealed that 28 youth ages 5 to 18 were victims of school-
associated violent deaths from July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005 — that is, 21


10 R. Dinkes, et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006, U.S. Departments of
Education and Justice, NCES 2007-003/NCJ 214262 (Washington: Dec. 2006), p. 1.
(Hereafter cited as Dinkes et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006.)
11 Ibid., p. iii.
12 Ibid., p. 2.
13 School crimes included serious violent crimes such as homicide, suicide, rape, sexual
assault, aggravated assault with or without a weapon, and robbery. Less serious or
nonviolent crimes included theft/larceny and vandalism of school property.
14 The victimization rate is based on the number of thefts, violent crimes, or serious crimes
per 1,000 students. Theft included purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted
forcible entry, and all attempted and completed thefts, except motor vehicle thefts. Theft
did not include robbery in which victims were threatened or use of force was involved.
15 Dinkes et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006, p. iv.
16 Ibid.

homicides and 7 suicides.17 Those figures translated to about one homicide or suicide
of school-aged students at school per 2 million students enrolled during the 2004-05
school year. In 2005, 36% of 9th through 12th-grade students reported being in a fight
anywhere, while 14% stated that they had been in a fight on school property during
the previous year.18 Also in 2005, the report noted that 28% of 12- to 18-year-old
students stated that they had been bullied within the last six months. Males were
more likely than females to report being injured as a result of a bullying incident.19
Furthermore, 24% of such students reported sustaining an injury20 as a result of
bullying incidents.21 The presence of gangs in schools was reported by 24% of 12-
to 18-year-old students in 2005, with a larger percentage of such reports from urban
school students than suburban students. This is an increase from the 21% of students
who reported the presence of gangs in schools in 2003.22
In 2004, 12- to-18-year-old students were victims of about 1.4 million nonfatal
crimes at school. The incidence of thefts at school was 33 per 1,000 students,
compared with 27 thefts per 1,000 students that occurred away from school. The
study noted that students were more likely to be victims of theft at school than away
from school.23 In 2005, 43% of students in the 9th through 12th grades reported
drinking at least one alcoholic beverage anywhere, while 4% drank at least one such
beverage at school within the previous month. Also in 2005, 20% of 9th through 12th
grade students reported using marijuana anywhere within the previous month, while

5% stated that they used the drug on school property during the same time period.24


Furthermore, in 2005, 19% of such students stated that they had carried a weapon25
anywhere, while about 6% reported carrying a weapon on school property within the
previous month.26 Hispanic students were more likely to report being threatened or
injured with a weapon at school than white students.27
The Indicators Study stated that “Our nation’s schools should be safe havens for
teaching and learning, free of crime and violence.”28 It noted, however, that any
instance of crime or violence at school might broadly affect not only the persons


17 Ibid., pp. iii-iv.
18 Ibid., p. vii.
19 Bullying could involve pushing, shoving, tripping, or spitting on another student.
20 Injuries included bruises or swellings, cuts, scratches, or scrapes, black eyes or bloody
noses, chipped or knocked out teeth, broken bones or internal injuries, knocked unconscious,
or other injuries.
21 Dinkes et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006, p. vii.
22 Ibid., p. vi.
23 Ibid., p. iv.
24 Ibid., p. vii.
25 A weapon could be a gun, knife, or club.
26 Dinkes et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2006, p. vii.
27 Ibid., p. v.
28 Ibid., p. iii.

involved but also might cause disorder in the educational process and the school
itself, as well as affect bystanders and the adjacent community. Also, the report
found that in 2005, as in both 1999 and 2001, students were more likely to be afraid
of being harmed at school than while away from school. In 2005, as grade levels
increased, it was found that the percentage of students who reported fearing an attack
at school or on the way to or from school declined.29
The study revealed that feelings regarding safety at school depended on the
racial and/or ethnic group, grade level, and school location of the students. In 2005,
larger percentages of black and Hispanic students feared attack or harm at school, or
on the way to and from school, than white students, regardless of location.30
Furthermore, students in lower grades generally were more fearful of harm at school,
en route to or from school, or away from school, than students in higher grades.
Students in urban schools were more likely than those in suburban or rural schools
to fear attack both at school or on the way to and from school. Similarly, students in
public schools were more fearful of harm than those in private schools.31
In 2005, 11% of 12- to 18-year-old students revealed that someone at school
used hate-related words against them (that is, a derogatory word having to do with
race, religion, ethnicity, disability, gender, or sexual orientation). Also, 38% of
students reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school (that is, such words or symbols
written in classrooms, bathrooms, hallways, or on the outside of the school building).
In 2005, females were more likely to report gender-related hate words than males,
while males were more likely than female students to report hate words related to
both race and ethnicity. Blacks, Hispanics, and students of other races were more
likely to report race-related hate words than white students. Furthermore, students
in urban schools were more likely than students in suburban or rural schools to be
called a hate-related word. Students in public schools were more likely than private
school students to report being called a hate-related word and to see hate-related
graffiti.32
Some other significant findings involved threats and attacks on teachers. In the
2003-04 school year (the most recent data available), a smaller percentage of teachers
reported that they had been threatened with injury by a student in their school within
the previous year than in the 1993-94 and 1999-2000 school years. Also, in 2003-04,
teachers were less likely to report being physically attacked than in 1993-94.
Between 1993-94 and 2003-04, teachers in central city schools were more likely to
be threatened with injury or physically attacked than those who worked in urban
fringe areas or in rural schools. Furthermore, in 2003-04, a larger percentage of male
teachers than female teachers reported being threatened with injury, while female
teachers were more likely to have been physically attacked than their male
counterparts. Secondary school teachers were more likely to have been threatened


29 Ibid, p. 50.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid., p. 34.

with injury by a student than elementary school teachers, while elementary school
teachers were more likely to have reported being physically attacked.33
Indicators Study Data Questioned
Regarding the findings of the Indicators Study 2005, Kenneth Trump, President
of the National School Safety and Security Services (NSSSS), an independent
national school safety private consulting firm, stated that data showing a decline in
school crime were misleading because they were not based on actual reported crimes.
He stated that such “outdated, and limited data is misleading and creates a false sense
of security.”34 In November 2004, Trump summarized what he believed to be the
situation with school violence nationwide by observing that, “Federal statistics
grossly underestimate the extent of school crime and public perception tends to
overstate it. Nobody knows exactly how many school crimes occur or whether there
is an upward or downward trend because there is no mandatory school crime
reporting and tracking laws in the United States.”35 Furthermore, Trump stated that
unlike the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report,36 which is based
on actual crimes reported, the Indicators Study and similar publications “are based
upon limited research studies, academic surveys, and self-report surveys.”37
Trump conducts annual national surveys for the National Association of School
Resource Officers (NASRO), which comprises the nation’s school-based police
officers, and has found that survey results consistently indicated that crime in schools
is under-reported to law enforcement. Specifically, the 2003 survey of 728 school
resource officers (SROs) showed that over 87% reported that the numbers of crimes
occurring on school property nationwide were under-reported to police. Over 61%
of SROs believed that the possibility of a school being labeled “persistently
dangerous” (which the No Child Left Behind Act makes possible)38 could lead to
school administrators under-reporting school crime. Furthermore, over 88% of
survey respondents believed that Congress should pass a law requiring nationwide
mandatory, consistent school crime reporting for elementary and secondary schools.39


33 Ibid., p. 20.
34 “Federal School Crime Report Misleading, Expert Says,” National School Safety and
Security Services, News Release Wire, Nov. 29, 2004. (Hereafter cited as “Federal School
Crime Report Misleading, Expert Says,” News Release Wire.)
35 “Federal School Crime Report Misleading, Expert Says,” News Release Wire.
36 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States:
Uniform Crime Reports (Washington: GPO, published annually). The 2003 Uniform Crime
Reports states that data is gathered from the grassroots level, that is, “the law enforcement
officers who are in a position to know what crimes have been committed, the results of
investigations, and the facts concerning persons arrested for these offenses” (p. iii).
37 “Federal School Crime Report Misleading, Expert Says,” News Release Wire.
38 P.L. 107-110, Title IX, Part E, Subpart 2, Section 9532 (20 U.S.C. § 7912).
39 Kenneth S. Trump, School Safety Threats Persist, Funding Decreasing: NASRO 2003
National School-Based law Enforcement Survey, Final Report on the 3rd Annual National
(continued...)

School Homicides
The Departments of Education and Justice have concluded that violent school
deaths are extremely rare events.40 Therefore, schools remain the safest places for
children, although some might perceive them to be dangerous.41 Research reported
by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) discovered that less
than 1% of homicides and suicides among school-aged youth occurred on school
property or when traveling to or from school or at school-sponsored events.42 The
Indicators Study states that “violent deaths in schools are rare but tragic events with
far-reaching effects on the school population and surrounding.”43 The discussion
below about school-related violent deaths presents data collected prior to the 2006
Indicators Study, which, as stated above, is the most recent compilation of federal
research available on such incidents.
The 1996 Study on School-Related Violent Deaths. In 1996, JAMA
published the first study investigating violent school-related deaths nationwide,
conducted by researchers from CDC, the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and44
Communities Program at ED, the National School Safety Center (NSSC) of
Westlake Village, CA, and the National Institute of Justice of DOJ. The period
studied covered two consecutive academic years from July 1, 1992, through June 30,

1994 (specifically, July 1, 1992-June 30, 1993 and July 1, 1993-June 30, 1994).


Over the two-year period, 105 school-related deaths were identified. The researchers
used a case definition for school-associated deaths as “any homicide or suicide in
which the fatal injury occurred on the campus of a functioning elementary or
secondary school in the United States, while the victim was on the way to or from
regular sessions at such a school, or while the victim was attending or traveling to or
from an official school-sponsored event.”45 Deaths of students, non-students, and
staff members were included.


39 (...continued)
Survey of School-Based Police Officers (Osprey, FL: NASRO, Aug. 19, 2003), p. 5.
40 U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, 2000 Annual Report on School Safety, p. 9
41 Ira Pollack and Carlos Sundermann, “Creating Safe Schools: A Comprehensive
Approach,” Juvenile Justice, vol. 8, no. 1 (June 2001), p. 14.
42 Nancy D. Brener, Thomas R. Simon, Etienne G. Krug, and Richard Lowry, “Recent
Trends in Violence-Related Behaviors Among High School Students in the United States,”
JAMA, vol. 285, no. 5 (Aug. 4, 1999), p. 440.
43 DeVoe et al., Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005, p. 6.
44 The National School Safety Center was formerly a national clearinghouse for school
safety program information that was funded by ED and DOJ and housed at Pepperdine
University in Malibu, CA. In FY1997, federal funding ended, and NSSC became a private,
nonprofit, independent organization. Although NSSC is not a research-based group, it
participated in the 1996 released JAMA study on school-associated deaths. Discussed in a
telephone conversation with the Associate Director of NSSC on July 31, 2001.
45 S. Patrick Kachur et al., “School Associated-Violent Deaths in the United States, 1992 to

1994,” JAMA, vol. 275, no. 22 (June 12, 1996), pp. 1729-1730.



Researchers discovered the following:
!As mentioned above, less than 1% of all homicides among school-
aged children, 5 to 19 years, occurred in or around school grounds
or on the way to and from school;
!65% of school-related deaths were students, 11% were teachers or
other staff members, and 23% were community members who were
killed on school property;
!83% of school homicide or suicide victims were males;
!23% of the fatal injuries occurred inside the school building, 36%
happened outdoors on school property, and 35% occurred off
campus; and
!The deaths occurred in 25 states across the nation and took place in
both primary and secondary schools and communities of all sizes.46
Update of the 1996 Study. The December 5, 2001 issue of JAMA contained
the results of an update of the 1996 study. Entitled “School-Associated Violent
Deaths in the United States, 1994-1999,” the study described the trends and features47
of such deaths from July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1999. Using a definition similar
to the 1996 study, a school-related death was defined as “a homicide, suicide, legal48
intervention, or unintentional firearm-related death of a student or nonstudent in
which the fatal injury occurred (1) on the campus of a public or private elementary
or secondary school, (2) while the victim was on the way to or from such a school,
or (3) while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-49
sponsored event.” Researchers discovered that between 1994 and 1999, there were
220 events that led to 253 school-related deaths. Of the 220 events, there were 172
homicides, 30 suicides, 11 homicide-suicide occurrences, five legal intervention
deaths, and two unintentional firearm-related deaths.


46 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Facts About Violence Among Youth and
Violence in Schools,” Media Relations Fact Sheets, Apr. 21, 1999, at [http://www.cdc.gov/
od/oc/media/pressrel/r990421.htm] .
47 Mark Anderson et al., “School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1994-

1999,” JAMA, vol. 286, no. 21(Dec. 5, 2001), pp. 2695-2702.


48 “Legal intervention” is assumed to mean that a student was shot by police. The available
information about the study, however, does not define the phrase.
49 Anderson, et al., “School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States.”

Several trends were noted in a CDC press release as follows:
!“School-associated violent deaths represent less than one percent of
all homicides and suicides that occur among school-aged children.”
!“Troubled teens often give potential signals such as writing a note
or a journal entry, or they make a threat. In over half the incidents
that were examined, some type of signal was given.”
!“While the rate of school-associated violent deaths events has
decreased significantly during the study time period, the number of
multiple-victim events has increased.”
!“More than 50% of all school-associated violent death events
occurred during transition times during the school day — either at
the beginning or end of the day or during lunch-time.”
!“Homicide perpetrators were far more likely than homicide victims
to have expressed previous suicidal behaviors or had a history of
criminal charges; been a gang member; associated with high-risk
peers or considered a loner; or used alcohol or drugs on a weekly
basis. Among students, homicide perpetrators were twice as likely
than homicide victims to have been bullied by peers.”
!“The rate of school-associated violent deaths was over twice as high
for male students.”50
Researchers concluded and emphasized that such deaths remained rare events
but occurred often enough to indicate patterns and to identify possible risk factors.
Therefore, this information might assist schools in responding to the problem.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001 Reported Study.
The CDC, which has been involved in school-associated violent deaths research in
collaboration with ED and DOJ (as mentioned above), also collected data to assess
whether the risk for such deaths varied during the school year. The case definition
for school-associated violent deaths used in this study was the same one that was
used in the 1996 study discussed above. Researchers analyzed monthly counts of
school-associated homicides and suicides for seven school terms, from September
1, 1992, to June 30, 1999, that occurred among middle, junior, and senior high school
students in the nation. For that seven-year period, 209 school-related violent deaths
occurred involving either a homicide or a suicide of a student. An average of 0.14
school-related homicide incidents occurred each school day, which translated to one
homicide every seven school days. Homicide rates usually were highest near the
beginning of the fall and spring semesters and then declined over the subsequent
months. An average of 0.03 suicide incidents occurred each school day, which was
one suicide every 31 school days. The overall suicide rates were higher during the
spring semester than in the fall semester, but did not vary significantly within51


semesters.
50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Study Finds School-Associated Violent
Deaths Rare, Fewer Events but More Deaths Per Event,” CDC Media Relations, Press
Release, Dec. 4, 2001, at [http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r011204.htm].
51 “Temporal Variations in School-Associated Student Homicide and Suicide Events —
(continued...)

The CDC researchers believe that these findings could be useful for school
personnel in planning and implementing school violence prevention programs. They
point out possible explanations for why high school-related homicide rates were
highest at the beginning of each semester. One suggested explanation is that
conflicts that began either before or during the semester or holiday break might have
escalated into deadly violence when students returned to school for the start of a new
semester. Another suggestion was that the beginning of a new semester represented
a time of considerable change and stress for students when they have to adapt to new
schedules, teachers, and classmates. Such stressors might contribute to violent
behavior. For these reasons, they propose that schools should consider policies and
programs that might ease student adjustment during the transitional periods.
The researchers warn that the results of the study should be interpreted with
caution because incidents were identified from news media reports. Therefore, any
such event that was not reported in the news media would not have been included in
the study. Reports of suicides were of particular concern because media coverage of
such events might be limited or discouraged. If under-reporting of suicides did
occur, the report states, “coverage probably did not vary by time of year and would
not account for the higher rate observed during the spring semester.”52
Source of Firearms Used in School-Related Violent Deaths. In
March 2003, CDC released findings regarding the source of firearms used by
students in the violent deaths of elementary and secondary students that occurred
from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1999. Information on the types of weapons and
their sources was obtained by interviewing school and police officials and by
reviewing official police reports. CDC found that the majority of weapons used in
such school-related violent deaths were obtained from either the perpetrator’s home,
or from friends or relatives. CDC concluded that “The safe storage of firearms is
critically important and should be continued. In addition, other strategies that might
prevent firearm-related injuries and deaths among students, such as safety and design53
changes for firearms, should be evaluated.”
School-Associated Violent Deaths: CDC’s 2006 Update. On October
6, 2006, CDC provided an update54 regarding school associated violent deaths. The
update suggested measures that might help prevent school-associated violent deaths
as follows:


51 (...continued)
United States, 1992-1999,” MMWR Weekly, vol. 50, no. 31 (Aug. 10, 2001), pp. 657-660,
at [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5031a1.htm].
52 Ibid.
53 “Source of Firearms used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths — United
States, 1992-1999,” MMWR, vol. 52, no. 9 (Mar. 7, 2003), p. 169.
54 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “School Associated Violent Deaths,”
Updated 10/06/06, at [http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/sch-shooting.htm].

— Encouraging efforts to reduce crowding, increase supervision, and institute
plans/policies to handle disputes during transition times that may reduce the
likelihood of potential conflicts and injuries;
— Taking threats seriously: students need to know who to go to when they have
learned of a threat to anyone at the school, while parents, educators, and mentors
should be encouraged to take an active role in helping troubled children and
teens;
— Taking talk of suicide seriously: it is important to address risk factors for
suicidal behavior when trying to prevent violence toward self and others;
— Promoting prevention programs that are designed to help teachers and other
school staff recognize and respond to incidences of bullying between students;
— Ensuring at the start of each semester that schools’ security plans are being
enforced and that staff are trained and prepared to use the plans.
Youth Violence Prevention Resources. CDC’s 2006 update also listed
several resources related to youth violence prevention in general that educators,
parents, and others might find useful:
!CDC’s Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook
for Community Action. This is a source book for Community Action
that looks at the effectiveness of violence prevention practices in
four basic areas — parents and families, home visitation, social and
conflict resolutions skills, and mentoring.55
!Blueprints for Violence Prevention was designed and launched in
1996 by the University of Colorado’s (at Boulder) Center for the
Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV). Eleven violence
prevention and intervention programs or Blueprints were recognized
by DOJ as being effective in reducing youth violent crime,
aggression, delinquency, and substance abuse.56
!Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General summarizes a
large body of research clarifying youth violence trends, identifying
risk factors, and reviewing the effectiveness of particular prevention
strategi es. 57
!Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools provides
research-based practices intended to assist schools in identifying
warning signs early in order to develop plans to prevent, intervene,
and respond to crises. The publication was based on the work of an


55 More information about such practices can be found at [http://www.cdc.gov/
ncipc/dvp/bestpractices.htm] .
56 More information about the Blueprints is available at [http://www.nicic.org/Library/

019846] and [http://www.blueprintsconference.com/about.html].


57 Detailed information about the report is located at [http://www.surgeongeneral.
gov/library/youthviolence/].

independent panel of experts in the areas of education, law
enforcement, and mental health.58
National School Safety and Security Services Data. NSSSS President
Trump identifies school-related deaths, shootings, and crisis incidents from print and
electronic news sources, professional contacts, and other nationwide sources.59
NSSSS research on school-related violent deaths is not exhaustive nor is it a
scientific study. To monitor such incidents, the organization used the same definition
for school-related violent deaths as CDC (that is, including homicides and suicides
with firearms), but NSSSS also included other violent, non-accidental deaths (such
as fighting and stabbing) and also reported such fatal injuries occurring at parochial
schools. Furthermore, NSSSS has collected data for the 1999-2000 school year
through the 2006-2007 school term. NSSSS data and a news account (summarized
in Table 1) show that during those school terms, a total of 232 school-related violent
deaths occurred (as of January 19, 2007).60
Table 1. School-Related Violent Deaths, by School Year,
1999-2000 through 2006-2007
School yearaTotal Deaths
1999-2000 33
2000-200131
2001-200217
2002-200316
2003-200449
2004-200539
2005-200627
2006-2007 (as of Jan. 19, 2007)20
Total232
Source: National School Safety and Security Services, “School Deaths, School Shootings, and High-
Profile Incidents of School Violence, at [http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence.html].
Numbers include all school-related violent deaths, regardless of whether they occurred in a multiple-
victim incident, and are larger than those shown in Table 3. A news account reported the stabbing
death of a male student at school on January 19, 2007, not yet recorded by NSSSS.
a. A school year means Aug. 1 through July 31 of any given year, unless otherwise noted.


58 Additional information is found at [http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/osep/
gtss.html].
59 “School-Related Deaths, School Shootings, & School Violence Incidents,” National
School Safety and Security Services, at [http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_
vi olence03-04.html ].
60 National School Safety and Security Services, “School Deaths, School Shootings, and
High-Profile Incidents of School Violence,” 2007, at [http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/
school_violence.html ].

The data appear to indicate that school violence incidents declined from 33 in
the 1999-2000 school term to 16 in the 2002-2003 school term. A significant
increase of such incidents was recorded, however, in the 2003-2004 school year to
a high number of 49 deaths. Those deaths included 23 from shootings, 10 stabbings,
five suicides, six murder-suicides, four fight-related, and one other death (the cause
of death was not specified). NSSSS President Trump noted that those deaths
represented more than twice the number of such incidents in the previous two school
terms combined.61
Trump believed that the reasons for the sharp increase in school violence-related
deaths included complacency. The April 20, 1999 incident at Columbine High
School in Littleton, Colorado has been called the worst school shooting tragedy in
the nation’s history by some commentators. Two male students armed with
handguns and rifles shot and killed 12 classmates, a teacher, and wounded 23 others,
before killing themselves. This incident stirred much concern and questions about
safety in the nation’s schools. Trump stated that “School safety is an on-going
process, not a one-time event” (referring to the steps taken following the Columbine
tragedy). He noted that after Columbine, many schools immediately adopted
emergency and safety plans, but those plans started “collecting dust.” Also, he
observed that “Staff members were named to task forces or committees, but many of
these programs are now inactive. School administrators are under enormous political
pressure to raise test scores to meet accountability standards, and they may be too
preoccupied to focus on school safety.”62
The number of school-related violent deaths recorded by NSSSS declined to 39
in the 2004-2005 school year, and decreased again to 27 deaths in the 2005-2006
school year. There has been a spate of school-related violent deaths and injuries thus
far in the 2006-2007 school year. Experts were reported to be baffled regarding the
reasons for such occurrences.63 There have been 20 school-related violent single
deaths as of January 19, 2007. Those incidents included eight shootings, two
suicides, eight murder-suicides, and two stabbing deaths. Three high-profile school
shootings occurred within two days of each other beginning on September 27, 2006,
in Colorado, followed by another in Wisconsin on September 29, and then a multiple
shooting in Pennsylvania on October 2, 2006 (discussed below).
Multiple Deaths and Injuries
From the 1995-1996 school year through the 2000-2001 school term, several
school violence incidents occurred that appeared to reflect a pattern of multiple-
victim attacks at various schools across the nation. Mark Moore, chairman of a
National Research Council/Institute of Medicine Case Studies of School Violence


61 “Federal School Crime Report Misleading, Expert Says,” News Release Wire.
62 Stew Magnuson, “Violent Deaths in Schools Rise Sharply,” Education Daily, vol. 38, no.

123 (June 29, 2004), p. 2.


63 Gil Kaufman, “Rash of School Shootings Leaves Violence Specialists Baffled,” MTV
Think News, October 4, 2006, at [http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1542278/20061003/
index.j html ?headlines=true].

Committee (CSSVC), and fellow committee members stated that “the frequency of
student-perpetrated school rampages resulting in multiple victimizations increased
dramatically after 1994.”64
CCSVC research showed that from 1974 to 1990 and from 1991 to 2001, the
mean number of “student-perpetrated rampages increased from an average of 0.53
incidents per year to an average of 3.27 incidents per year.”65 Although that increase
might have skewed the public’s perception about the safety of children and youth at
school, CCSVC noted that such occurrences were not entirely a new phenomena.
CCSVC investigated both lethal school violence, which were incidents involving
more than one victim (their core operational definition for most of their work), and
“school rampages,” which included “cases in which more than one person was
injured, and there was a significant potential for lethal violence as well as those in
which people were actually killed.”66 The committee observed that the numbers of
lethal school violence and school rampage incidents were very small, and that the
increase in such incidents in the 1990s might be explained in part by media reporting.
CCSVC believed that although such school rampages would have been newsworthy
during the earlier period, the media might have been more sensitized to the school
shootings issue in the late 1990s and began covering them more diligently than
previously. CCSVC concluded that if this was the case, then the increase might partly
be explained as the result of more news accounts of such incidents rather than an
increase in the basic rate of those events.67 CCSVC collected data from an
assemblage of newspaper accounts (of school-associated violent deaths and injuries)
produced and gathered by the National School Safety Center between 1992 and 2001.
Using its core definition for lethal school violence, CCSVC separated out such
incidents from the NSSC data.
CCSVC compiled a list of its estimates of the number of multiple-victim,
student-perpetrated school violence incidents in the nation from 1974 to 2001. Their
data indicated that between 1974 and 1993, there were 19 incidents of multiple-
victim school shootings. From 1995 to 2001, they listed 26 such incidents.68 Table
2 below draws from CCSVC’s compilation of such incidents. The definition the
Committee used for listing such occurrences included not only multiple fatalities, but
also multiple non-fatal serious injuries.
NSSSS data and news accounts indicate that since the 2001-2002 school year,
there appear to have been about 38 multiple-victim school-related violent incidents.
Such incidents included 40 fatalities and 110 non-fatal violent acts (including
shootings and stabbings), for a total of 150 multiple victims. Table 3, below, lists


64 Mark H. Moore et al., eds. Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence, Case
Studies of School Violence Committee, Committee on Law and Justice and Board of
Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (Washington: National Academy Press,

2003), p. 293. (Hereafter cited as Moore et al., Deadly Lessons.)


65 Ibid., pp. 293-294.
66 Ibid., p. 288.
67 Ibid., p. 295.
68 Ibid., pp. 293-294.

NSSSS data and information from news accounts about such incidents from the

2001-2002 school year to the 2006-2007 school year (as of December 22, 2006).


Interestingly, in the multiple-victim school violence episodes in Colorado and
Pennsylvania, a total of 16 female students were traumatized, and six were killed
before each of the assailants (who were atypically adult males) committed suicide.
Some experts believe that the Pennsylvania incident might have been a case of
copycat violence fostered by media attention.69 James Fox, a criminologist at
Northeastern University in Boston, stated that he believes the news media bear some
responsibility for the copycat phenomena. He remarked that “This is especially the
case when attackers’ personalities and grudges are exposed to high-profile public
analysis — as when two teenage attackers in the Columbine attack were featured on
the cover of a news magazine.... While most sympathize with the victims, others
empathize with the shooters. It’s the publicity they get that turns the shooter into a
celebrity that spawns more of them.”70
Another similarity between the Colorado and Pennsylvania shootings is that in
both incidents, girls were the targeted victims. Katherine S. Newman, a Harvard
urban studies professor and co-author of the book, Rampage: The Social Roots, who
has researched school shootings since the 1970s, observed that “The predominant
pattern in school shootings of the past three decades is that girls are the victims....
Though it is impossible to know whether girls were randomly victimized in those
cases ..., ‘in every case in the U.S. since the early 1970s we do note this pattern’ of
girls being the majority of victims.”71
Both the Colorado and Pennsylvania multiple-victim shootings occurred in rural
settings. Newman reports that it is uncommon for such incidents to occur in urban
areas. Revenge, she observed, can be particularly fertile in rural settings.72 Cheryl
Meyer, a Wright State University psychology professor in Dayton, Ohio, has
conducted research on school shooting similarities in rural and small towns. She
noted that “It’s so often about revenge. Even if something happened 20 years ago,
it doesn’t mean it is gone. People talk about it and everybody remembers. It just
trails after you.”73


69 Pierre Thomas, “Why the Spike in School Shootings?” Oct. 3, 2006, available at
[ h t t p : / / www.abcnews.go.com/ GMA/ p r i nt ?i d=2521025] .
70 Gail Russell Chaddock and Mark Clayton, “A Pattern in Rural School Shootings: Girls
as Targets,” The Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 4, 2006, at [http://www.csmonitor.com/

2006/1004/p01s01-usgn.html ?s=t5].


71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.

Table 2. Multiple-Victim School-Related Violent Deaths and
Injuries, by School Years, 1994-1995 through 2000-2001
Number ofNumberTotal
School yearCity/town/statedeathswoundedvictims
1994-1995Redlands, CA 1a12
1995-1996Blackville, SC2a13
Richmond, VA044
Lynnville, TN213
Moses Lake, WA3a14
Palo Alto, CA134
Las Vegas, NV0a22
Taylorsville, UT112
Los Angeles, CA022
1996-1997Bethel, AK224
1997-1998Pearl, MS 279
West Paducah, KY358
Stamps, AR022
Jonesboro, AR d21015
Pomona, CA1b13
Edinboro, PA223
Springfield, ORd02123
Richmond, VA022
1998-1999Miami, FL0a33
Carrollton, GA202
New York, NY0a22
Littleton, CO152338
Conyers, GA066
1999-2000Las Vegas, NV022
Fort Gibson, OK044
2000-2001Portland, ORc033
Santee, CA 21315
Cajon, CA077
Totals 2846132178
Source: Data drawn from Table 9-1,Multiple-Victimization, Student-Perpetrated School Violence
in the United States,” in Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence, Case Studies of
School Violence Committee, Mark H. Moore, et al., eds, Committee on Law and Justice and Board
of Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine (Washington: National Academy Press, 2003), p. 294.
a. The perpetrator(s) committed suicide.
b. The alleged killers parents were later found shot to death in their home.
c. Stabbing incident.
d. Congressional Research Service included this incident (which was not listed in CCSVCs Table
9-1) based on the 1996 JAMA published studys case definition for school-associated violent
deaths on pp. 6-7. This incident was listed in the news account article, “Violence in U. S.
Schools: A List of Past School Shootings,” by ABCNews.com, Apr. 20, 1999.



Table 3. Multiple-Victims School-Related Violent Deaths and
Injuries, by School Year, 2001-2002 through 2006-2007
(as of December 22, 2006)
NumberNumber
School yearCity/town/stateof deathswoundedTotal victims
2001-2002Monteca, CA022
Manhattan, NY022
Gardena, NY022
Chicago, IL033

2002-2003Carson, WA123a


Philadelphia, PA066
New Orleans, LA134b
Red Lion, PA202
2003-2004Randallstown, MDd055
Brighton, CO112
Cold Spring, MN202a
Ft. Worth, TX156
Washington, DC112
Los Angeles, CA303
Tucson, AZd112
Woodhaven, NY033
Los Angeles, CA022c
Wayne, IN022
Merced, CA022
Oakland, CA022

2004-2005Philadelphia, PAe134a


Valparaiso, IN055
Baltimore, MD0 b22
Red Lake, MN101323
New York, NY123
2005-2006New York, NY145
Richardson, TXb1910
San Leandro, CA202
Jacksboro, TN123
Tampa, FL134
2006-2007Essex, NY1fg12
Hillsborough, NC022
Irvington, NJ033
Albany, GA022
Oxnard, CA033
Charlotte, NC0h2i2
Bailey, CO2j57
Nickel Mines, PA6511
Houston, TX033
Totals 39 40 113 153
Source: National School Safety and Security Services, School-Related Deaths, School Shootings, &
School Violence Incidents, at [http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/school_violence.html]. Numbers
include only those deaths that occurred during a multiple-victim incident, and are smaller than those
shown in Table 1, as well as numbers of injured victims during such incidents.



a. Stabbing incident.
b. Includes the suicide of perpetrator.
c. One victim was shot, the other stabbed.
d. This incident was not included in NSSSS data. CRS selected school violence incidents from Safer
School News that met the 1996 JAMA published studys case definition (discussed above) for
school-associated violent deaths. This incident was cited inSchool Year 03/04: A Bad Start,”
Safer School News, vol. 67, at [http://www.keystosaferschools.com/violence03.htm].
e. This incident was not included in NSSSS data. As stated above (Table 2, note d) , CRS included
this incident, which was cited inSchool Violence: School Year 04/05,” Safer School News, vol.
79, at [http://www.keystosaferschools.com/violence04.htm].
f. The 27-year-old suspect allegedly shot and killed his girlfriends 57-year-old mother prior to
entering the school.
g. Suspect was later charged with killing his father.
h. This number includes one 16-year-old female student and the 53-year-old gunman who committed
suicid e.
i. This figure includes five high school female students who were held hostage and molested by the
53-year-old gunman.
j. This number includes five young girls between the ages of 6 and 13, and the 32-year-old gunman
who committed suicide.
White House Conference on School Safety
The early 2006-2007 school violence incidents and several school lockdowns
because of the threat of violence stirred schools across the nation to review school
safety issues. Also, the occurrences led President Bush to call for a conference on
school safety that was held on October 10, 2006, in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Convened by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Education Secretary Margaret
Spellings, the purpose of the hour-long meeting was to gather leading school and
youth safety experts and concerned citizens to discuss how federal, state, and local
governments could work together and discuss best practices for keeping the nation’s
schools safe learning environments for students.
NSSSS President Trump, who attended the conference, observed that the
discussions broke no new ground regarding school safety, and that best practices
discussed have been well established within the school safety profession since the
Columbine tragedy.74 Also, in follow-up to the conference, Trump and NSSSS called
upon Congress to create a bipartisan task force to promote the following
recommendations: 75
!establish a required K-12 school crime reporting and tracking
mandate for schools to report up-to-date actual crime data to law
enforcement. The Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2005
report discusses 2002-2003 school year data, not 2005 onward;
!revise the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grant
program. Remove responsibility for school security, school-based
policing, and school emergency planning from ED and place it under
DOJ. Drug and alcohol prevention curricula programs, suicide


74 Kenneth S. Trump, “Protecting American’s Schools: A National Call for Action,” October
16, 2006, National School Safety and Security Services, Cleveland, Ohio, available at
[ ht t p: / / www.school secur i t y.or g/ t r ends/ whi t e _house_school _saf et y.ht ml ] .
75 Ibid.

prevention, and similar education and curriculum-based projects
should remain under ED in cooperation with HHS. Funding cuts for
such projects should be restored to support new restructured
programs;
!restore funding for the Emergency Response and Crisis Management
Program, significantly enlarge funds for K-12 school emergency
preparedness funding and resources, and move to DOJ the
responsibility for this component, along with, as previously stated,
school security and school-based policing initiatives;
!restore funding for the COPS in Schools program76 conducted by
DOJ, and increase funding for local and regional training for school
resource officers (SROs) and school administrators concentrating on
school violence prevention, school security evaluations, school
emergency preparedness planning, and related initiatives; and
!create legislation that would allow K-12 schools to apply for
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding for increased
security and emergency preparedness to protect against possible
terrorist attacks upon schools and school buses. Also, Congress
should guarantee that K-12 schools would remain classified as
government facilities by DHS, and that such schools are
incorporated into National Critical Infrastructure programs.
After the conference, ED Secretary Margaret Spellings responded to questions
from the public about school safety and other education-related topics of interest on
the White House online site “Ask the White House.” Four questions were asked
about school safety. Replying to one inquiry, the Secretary mentioned some things
communities, students, parents, teachers, and school officials could do to help
prevent further violence in schools:
... [T]here are some things communities can do to improve school safety such as:
ensuring that every school has a comprehensive crisis plan, that every school
involves students, parents, law enforcement and community groups in the
development of its crisis plan and prevention programs and trains educators in
how to use the crisis plan, and that schools ensure that every student is connected
to a responsible adult in the school or community. ... [Y]ou as a student can help
ensure that schools remain safe. You can do that by reporting threats and
criminal incidents, speaking out against those who bully or harass others, and
serving as a peer mentor to someone who needs a helping hand. Whether a
student, parent, teacher, or school official, one of the most important actions we
can take to prevent further violence is to remain aware, watch for warning signs77


of violence and report them immediately.
76 See CRS Report RL33308, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background,
Legislation, and Issues, by Nathan James, March 10, 2006.
77 Conference on School Safety, “Margaret Spellings Hosts Ask the White House,” at
[ h t t p : / / www.whi t e house.go v/ ask.20061010.ht ml ] .

Drug Abuse
Since 1975, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research has
conducted the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, funded by the National Institute
on Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health of HHS.78 High school seniorsthth
and, since 1991, 8 and 10 grade youth have been canvassed annually about their
behavior, attitudes, values in general, and substance use. At each grade level,
responses of students surveyed were used to represent all students nationwide in
public and private secondary schools. For the 2006 MTF study, 48,460 students in

410 secondary schools were surveyed about their use of illicit drugs, alcohol,


cigarettes and smokeless tobacco within three prevalence periods, that is, lifetime,79
annual (or 12 months), past month (or 30-day), and daily use.
Overall, for 2006, illicit drug use and alcohol consumption continued a decade-
long decline. Decreases since 2005, however, were relatively small and, while
statistically significant for all grades combined, were not for any one individual
grade.80 Lloyd Johnston, MTF’s principal investigator, noted that the “youngestth
students that we survey — the 8 graders — have shown the largest proportional
drop in their use of nearly all of the illicit drugs since the recent peak rates of the mid
to late 1990s..., but their improvements now seem near an end. The older teens, on
the other hand, are showing a continuation of their decreases, as they catch up with
the progress of the younger age groups. We believe that this reflects what social
scientists call a ‘cohort effect’....”81 A cohort effect refers to teens who were
previously in lower grades who have entered the upper grades.
In 2006, as in 2005, researchers reported that survey results revealed high rates
of prescription painkillers use, such as Vicodin and OxyContin, and in abuse ofth82
sedatives/barbiturates, especially among 12 graders. OxyContin use increased
among 8th and 10th graders, but slightly declined among 12th graders. Although
relatively few youth are using OxyContin, Johnston observed, given the addictive
potential of this narcotic drug, there still should be concern about its rates of use


78 HHS sponsors two other major drug use-related studies — The National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse, which is the primary data source of illicit drug use of persons 12 and
older in the nation that was periodically conducted from 1971 and taken annually since
1990, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey of students in grades nine through 12 concerning
health-related risk behaviors as well as drug abuse that began in 1990, and sponsored by the
Centers for Disease Control. This report focuses on MTF results only.
79 Daily use of drugs, the MTF report states, usually refers to use on 20 or more occasions
in the past 30 days.
80 L. D. Johnston et al., “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens, Prescription Drug Use
Remains High,” University of Michigan News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI,
Dec. 21, 2006, p. 1, at [http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=3065].
(Hereafter cited as “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens.”)
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid., p. 3.

among teens.83 Vicodin use slightly increased among all three grades in 2006, but
since 2002, when rates were first measured, its use has remained relatively stable.
The use of sedatives, including barbituates, showed a steady increase over a period
of years among 12th graders, whose yearly use of such drugs increased from 1993 to
2005. In 2006, however, such use declined, marking what researchers called “the end
of a long rise, but ... still near its recent peak in teen-age use.”84 Furthermore,
Johnston noted that “Because most of the illegal drugs like LSD, ecstasy, cocaine,
and heroin have shown considerable declines in recent years, while the misuse of
prescription-type drugs has been growing, the latter have become a more important
part of the country’s drug problem.”85 Also, he observed that marijuana is still the
most widely used among all illicit drugs and recently, its use has gradually decreased.
Among the class of prescribed psychotherapeutic drugs86 used for purposes other than
a medical regimen, researchers found that amphetamines constituted the only drug
in this class that had not shown a recent increase in use among teens. 87
A new question was added to the study in 2006 regarding the use of over-the-
counter cough and cold medications for the sole purpose of getting high. The street
names for those drugs include “DXM,” “Dex,” and “skittles.” The proportion of 8th,
10th, and 12th grade students who reported using such drugs to get high translated to
one in every 25 students in 8th grade and one in 14 high school seniors.88 Because
these types of drugs are sold over-the-counter, researchers noted, most students might
not fully understand the dangers in using them. Johnston observed, “If the dangers
of using these drugs receive more attention in the media I would expect that their
popularity to fade somewhat” (sic).89
In general, MTF researchers noted that alcohol use has been in decline among
teens for many years and continued in all three grades in 2005.90 In 2006, however,
12th graders consituted the only group that showed a further decline in 30-day use of
alcohol.91 Teen cigarette smoking rates continued to show a decline in all grade
levels in 30-day use with the greatest decrease among 12th graders. Similarly,


83 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 3.
84 Ibid.
85 Ibid.
86 Psychotherapeutic drugs are used to treat psychotic disorders, such as obsessive-
compulsion disorders, schizophrenia, depression, and others. Such drugs include anti-
anxiety drugs (such as Librium and Valium), anti-depressants (such as Prozac, or Zoloft),
anti-manic drugs (such as Tegretol or Depakene), and anti-psychotic drugs (such as
Thorizine and Risperdal). “Common Psychotherapeutic Drugs,” at [http://encarta.msn.com/
me dia_461545257/Commom_Psyc hotherapeutic_Drugs .html ].
87 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 3.
88 Ibid., pp. 3-4.
89 Ibid., p. 4.
90 L. D. Johnston, et al., “Teen Drug Use Down But Progress Halts Among Youngest
Teens,” University of Michigan News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 19,

2005, p. 8, at [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/05drugpr.pdf]..


91 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 4.

smokeless tobacco use declined only among 12th graders who had used the product

30 days prior to the survey.92


Survey findings of specific drugs are discussed below.
Marijuana Use
In 2003, the use of marijuana, the most widely used illicit drug among all grade
levels, declined for the second year in a row among 10th and 12th graders, and for the
seventh year among 8th graders. In 2004, the decline continued in all grade levels, but
was more modest among 10th and 12th graders because their use of the drug held
steady from 1997 to 2001, before declining. This modest decline in use continued
in the upper grades in 2006.93
Researchers noted that the 30-day prevalence of any illicit drug use, including
marijuana, among such students dropped by statistically significant amounts between
2003 and 2004. It was reported that over those two years, there had been significant
increases in the proportion of students who perceived marijuana use as dangerous.
Researchers believed that this change in perception was a possible explanation for
the decline in use. In 2005, however, this increase in perceived risk in marijuana use
continued among 12th graders only.94 In 2006, for the fifth consecutive year,
marijuana use continued to decrease among 10th and 12th graders. It appeared,
however, that declines in such use among 8th graders had ended.95 Although
researchers noted that the decline in marijuana use among 8th graders ended in 2006,
Johnston observed that 8th graders showed the largest proportional drop in the use of
nearly all illicit drugs since the peak rates of the mid to late 1990s.96
Ecstasy Use
In 2001, there was a sharp increase in the proportion of students who believed
that using ecstasy was dangerous. Also, the rate of use that had increased between97
1999 and 2001 began to slow among all students. In 2002, there was another
marked rise in the proportion of teens who believed that using ecstasy was dangerous,


92 L. D. Johnston et al., “Decline in Daily Smoking by Teens Has Leveled-Off,” The
University of Michigan, News Service, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 21, 2006, p. 1, at
[http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/06cigpr.pdf]. (Hereafter cited as
“Decline in Daily Smoking by Teens Has Leveled-Off.)
93 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 1.
94 “Teen Drug Use Down But Progress Halts Among Youngest Teens,” p. 3.
95 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 1.
96 Ibid.
97 “Rise of Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Begins to Slow,” The University of
Michigan News, and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 19, 2001, p. 2, at
[ h t t p : / / www.moni t o r i ngt h e f ut ur e .or g] .

and a decline in the drug’s usage occurred.98 In 2003, the trend continued with an
even sharper decline in ecstasy use as the perceived dangers in using the drug
continued to climb.99 Consequently, since 2002, Johnston observed, “the annual
prevalence of ecstasy use fell by more than half among both 10th and 12th graders.”
The declines, however, were much smaller in 2004, and did not reach statistical
significance, although such decreases in ecstasy use occurred in all three grades.100
In 2005, only 12th graders showed any further decline in ecstasy use.101 In 2006, 12th
graders showed a slight but insignificant increase in the annual prevalence of ecstasy
use. There was very little change, however, in the proportion of 8th or 10th graders
saying that they used the drug.102
The perception that there is a great risk associated with experimenting with
ecstasy, Johnston believed, accounted for most of the turnaround in ecstasy use prior
to 2006. Since 2000, there has been an increased disapproval of ecstasy use among
teens that continued among 10th and 12th grade students in 2004. Also, fewer students
in 2004 believed that the drug was readily available.103 In 2006, however, Johnston
noted that over the past one to three years, there had been a reduction in the
proportion of students who believed that using ecstasy was dangerous, or who stated
that they disapproved of using the drug. Johnston warned that this change “could be
setting the stage for a resurgence in the use of this drug, since use often moves with
these beliefs and attitudes.”104
Other Illicit Drug Use
In 2006, as previously mentioned, researchers found no or very little decline at
any grade level in the use of LSD, hallucinogens other than LSD, cocaine powder,
inhalants, crystal methamphetamine (“ice”), heroin, narcotics other than heroin,
tranquilizers, sedatives, various club drugs,105 and steroids.106 Since 2000, student


98 “Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Drops for the First Time in Recent Years, and
Overall Drug and Alcohol Use Also Decline in the Year After 9/11,” The University of
Michigan, News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 13, 2002, p. 2.
99 “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The
University of Michigan, News and Information Services, Dec. 19, 2003, p. 1.
100 “Overall Teen Drug Use Continues Gradual Decline,” p. 2.
101 “Teen Drug Use down But Progress Halts Among Youngest Teens,” p. 4.
102 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 2.
103 “Overall Teen Drug Use Continues Gradual Decline,” p. 3.
104 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 2.
105 Club drugs, such as Ketamine, Rohypnol, and GHB, are referred to as “date rape drugs,”
or “drug-facilitated sexual assault” drugs. U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Office
of Women’s Health, National Women’s Health Information Center, “Date Rape Drugs,”
Frequently Asked Questions, at [http://www.4woman.gov/faq/rohypnol.pdf].
106 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 2.

use of illicit drugs other than marijuana had shown evidence of some decline or had
remained steady.107
Use of anabolic steroids, which are often used to improve strength and muscle
mass, continued to decline among 8th and 10th graders in 2004. Steroid use remained
steady for 8th graders from 2004 to 2005, and slightly declined for 10th and 12th
graders for the first time since a decline from 1999 to 2000.108 None of those
reductions continued in 2006, and there were no significant changes in usage rates
among students in all three grades. Also, steroid use remained considerably higher
among boys than girls.109
Since 1996, LSD use declined in all three grade levels, but showed a sharp
decrease in 2002 and in 2003. There was little change in LSD use in 2004 or in
2005, which kept its use at historic low levels. Perceived LSD availability dropped
considerably since 2001.110 Johnston observed, “Our concern about this drug is that
a new generation of young people, particularly the 8th graders, do not see LSD as
dangerous. This leaves them vulnerable to a possible new epidemic of use at some
time in the future if easy availability returns.”111
In 2005, the 30-day prevalence of crack cocaine use held steady for 8th and 12th
graders and slightly declined for 10th graders. In 2006, only 10th graders showed a
further decline in use of the drug, which was statistically significant,112 although their
belief that there was a great risk in using the drug slightly declined after an increase
in that belief in 2005 over 2004.113 Cocaine powder use slightly increased in 2005
among 8th graders, declined among 10th graders, and remained steady among 12th
graders.114 As previously mentioned, researchers found no or very little decline at
any grade level in cocaine powder use in 2006. The belief that there is a great risk
in trying crack cocaine once or twice or occasionally among 8th graders declined in
2006. This perceived risk in using the drug had held moderately steady in 2004 and
in 2005. Among 12th graders, there was a decline in the belief that there is a great


107 “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second Year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The
University of Michigan, News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 19, 2003, p.

5.


108 Table 3 — “Trends in 30-Day Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth, and
Twelfth Graders,” Monitoring the Future, the University of Michigan, at
[http://monitoringthefuture.org/ data/05data/pr05t3.pdf].
109 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 2.
110 “Overall Teen Drug Use Continues Gradual Decline,” p. 4.
111 “Teen Drug Use Down But Progress Halts Among Youngest Teens,” p. 5.
112 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 2.
113 Table 6 — “Trends in Harmfulness of Drugs as Perceived by Tenth Graders,” Monitoring
the Future Study, the University of Michigan, at [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/
data/06data/pr06t6.pdf].
114 Table 3 — “Trends in 30-Day Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth, and
Twelfth Graders,” Monitoring the Future, the University of Michigan, at [http://www.
monitoringthefuture.org/ data/06data/pr06t3.pdf].

risk if crack cocaine was used once or twice or regularly, but data indicated an
increase in perceived risk if the drug was used occasionally.115
The use of inhalants (called “huffing”), after a long and continuous decline in
all grade levels, significantly increased among 8th graders in 2003. Researchers
believed that such use among 8th graders was likely because inhalant products (such
as glues, aerosols, butane, paint thinner, and nail polish remover) were inexpensive,
legal, and easy to obtain. In 2004, inhalant use among 8th graders continued to rise,
and for the first time in recent years, also increased among 10th and 12th graders.116
In 2005, there was no further increase among 8th and 10th graders in such use, but
some further increase occurred among 12th graders. Researchers believed that the
increase in use among 12th graders might reflect a cohort effect, as mentioned
above.117 Researchers noted that over the past four years, the perceived dangers in
using inhalants declined among both 8th and 10th graders. Johnston observed that
“This fact continues to suggest the need for greater attention to this class of drugs in
media messages and in-school [prevention] programming.”118 In 2006, as previously
stated, researchers found no or very little decline at any grade level in the use of
inhalants.
Figure 1, below, depicts the usage levels of any illicit drug within the last 12
months by grade, from 1992 through 2006.


115 Table 7 — “Trends in Harmfulness of Drugs as Perceived by Twelfth Graders,”
Monitoring the Future Study, the University of Michigan, at
[ h t t p : / / www.moni t o r i ngt h ef ut ur e.or g/ dat a / 06dat a / p r 06t 7.pdf ] .
116 “Overall Teen Drug Use Continues Gradual Decline,” p. 5.
117 “Teen Drug Use Down But Progress Halts Among Youngest Teens,” p. 7.
118 Ibid.

Figure 1. Any Illicit Drug Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders
Within the Last 12 Months, 1992-2006


45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
8th Grade10th Grade12th Grade
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future, Table 2,
“Trends in Annual Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders, at
[http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/06data/pr06t2.pdf].
Alcohol Use
In 2002, some significant declines occurred in teen alcohol use. Quite large
drops occurred in the proportion of students in all three grades who said that they had
consumed any alcohol in the past year, or in the past 30 days. Those declines were
statistically significant for 8th and 10th graders. Furthermore, there were decreases in
the proportion of students in all three grades who indicated that they got drunk in the
past year, and in the past 30 days prior to the survey.119
In 2003, only 12th graders showed further decreases in alcohol use in the past 30
days, although the decline was statistically insignificant. Heavy drinking (that is,
more than five or more drinks in a row), continued to slightly decline among all grade120
levels, although none reached statistically significant changes.
119 “Ecstasy Use Among American Teens Drops for the First Time in Recent Years, and
Overall Drug and Alcohol Use Also Decline in the Year After 9/11,” The University of
Michigan, News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 13, 2002, p. 7.
120 “Ecstasy Use Falls for Second Year in a Row, Overall Teen Drug Use Drops,” The
University of Michigan, News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 19, 2003, p.

7.



Alcohol use among 8th and 10th graders remained steady in 2004, although there
were drops in several alcohol use indicators among all grade levels. Among 12th
graders in 2004, however, levels of drinking increased. Johnston observed “We will
have to wait for another year to see if this increase in 12th grade is a real one, or just
a blip in the data.”121
In 2005, alcohol use declined in all three grades.122 Also, heavy drinking or
binge drinking (that is, more than five or more drinks in a row at least once in the
prior two weeks), continued to slightly decline among all grade levels. Researchers
noted, however, that over the past two years there has been only a modest decrease
in binge drinking among 8th and 10th graders, and no decline among 12th graders.
There has been an increase among all grades in the perceived risk to health as a result
of binge drinking, and an increase in disapproval of such behavior.
Only 12th graders showed a further decline in 30-day prevalence of alcohol use
in 2006. Researchers believed that this result suggested that the decline in such use
might have ended for 8th and 10th graders, but was continuing among the older youth
for a while longer as a result of the cohort effect (that is, teens who were previously
in lower grades who had entered the upper grades). Survey results showed that there
were high prevalence rates among all teens of being drunk at least once during the
previous month. Despite those results, the analysts noted that the data actually
reflected proportional declines from recent peaks of drunkenness that occurred
among the students in previous years, but no further improvement (that is, declines)
occurred in 2006.123
Flavored alcoholic beverages (sometimes referred to as “alcopops” or
malternatives”) used in the past 30 days were first measured in all grades in 2004.
In 2006, the prevalence of such use declined to slightly lower levels among all
students than in the previous survey. The analysts reported that despite the fears of
some, the use of these types of alcoholic beverages did not appear to be expanding
among teens, but rather appeared to have declined somewhat in teen use.124
The perceived belief that alcohol is readily available if wanted has steadily
declined among 8th graders (that is, they do not believe it is readily available) since

1997, and declined slightly among 10th graders since 2001. Among 12th graders,


however, more than 90% believe that alcohol is readily available, a belief that has not
changed in recent years.125


121 “Overall Teen Drug Use Continues Gradual Decline,” p. 6.
122 “Teen Drug Use Down But Progress Halts Among Youngest Teens,” pp. 8-9. References
for all discussion regarding 2005 alcohol use are found on those pages.
123 “Illicit Drug Use Down Among Teens,” p. 4.
124 Ibid.
125 Table 13 — “Trends in Availability of Drugs as Perceived by Twelfth Graders,”
Monitoring the Future Study, the University of Michigan, at
[ h t t p : / / www.moni t o r i ngt h ef ut ur e.or g/ dat a / 06dat a / p r 06t 13.pdf ] .

Figure 2, below, shows alcohol use by teens surveyed within the last 30 days
before the survey.
Figure 2. Any Alcohol Use by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders
Within the Last 30 Days, 1992-2006


60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 992 1 99 3 19 94 19 95 199 6 199 7 19 98 1 99 9 2 00 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 20 04 20 05 20 06
8th Grade10th Grade12th Grade
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future, Table 3,
Trends in 30-day Prevalence of use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders, at
[http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/06data/pr06t3.pdf].
Note: Researchers explained that in 1993, the question asked participants regarding their alcohol use
slightly changed. The term drink was defined to mean that they consumed “more than a few sips.”
What the termdrink meant for students surveyed in 1992 was not indicated. It is assumed that it
might have meant to some participants the consumption of a “few sips” of alcohol.
Cigarette Smoking
Cigarette smoking (defined as smoking one or more cigarettes during the past
30 days), which showed a steady increase among all grade levels between 1992 and
1998, continued a decline in 2004 that had begun in 1998 (see Figure 3). Johnston
and his associates emphasized that these significant reductions translated into the
lengthening of many lives and preventing an even larger number of serious illnesses,
such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, and emphysema.126
126 L. D. Johnston, P. M. O’Malley, and J. G. Bachman, “Teen Smoking Declines Sharply
in 2002, More than Offsetting Large Increases in the Early 1990s,” University of Michigan
News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 16, 2002, p. 1, at [http://www.
monitoringthefuture.org] .

In 2003 and 2004,127 the declines continued, but researchers found the rate of
decline had slowed considerably.128 In 2005, the decline in cigarette smoking ended
among 8th graders, whom researchers observed had been the leaders in smoking
trends among teens.129 In addition, although declines in smoking were noted among
10th and 12th graders, researchers believed that those decreases would likely end in
the near future. In 2004, researchers cautioned that despite the decreases, substantial
numbers of teen smokers were evident — 25% of 12th graders, 16% of 10th graders,
and 9% of 8th graders reported having smoked 30 days prior to taking the survey.130
One finding that analysts found to be encouraging was that in 2004, the proportion
of current smokers had declined by half from mid-1990s peak levels among 8th and

10th graders, and by one-third among 12th graders.131


Johnston cautioned in 2005:
Among the facts that we would like to share with young people who are thinkingthth
about taking up smoking are these: In 2005 about half of all 10 and 12 graders
said that they strongly dislike being near people who are smoking; and 75 percent
to 80 percent of them say that they personally prefer to date nonsmokers.
It is clear that there is a high social price to be paid for any teen becoming a
smoker today, and that’s all in addition to the serious costs in terms of one’s
eventual health and length of life. And, of course, the other fact they should
know is that once the smoking habit is established, most people find it terribly
difficult to quit. Even though many teenage smokers say they expect to quit,132
most fail to do so....
MTF researchers reported that after 10 years of substantial improvement in daily
smoking among students in their early to mid-teens, the decline has ended.133 In


127 L. D. Johnston et al., “Cigarette Smoking Among American Teens Continues to Decline,
but More Slowly Than in the Past,” The University of Michigan, News Service, Ann Arbor,
MI, Dec. 21, 2004, p. 1, at [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/04cigpr.pdf].
(Hereafter cited as Johnston et al., “Cigarette Smoking Among American Teens Continues
to Decline, but More Slowly Than in the Past.”)
128 “Teen Smoking Continues to Decline in 2003, But Declines Are Slowing,” The
University of Michigan, News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 19, 2003, p.
1, at [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org]. (Hereafter cited as “Teen Smoking Continues
to Decline in 2003, but Declines Are Slowing.”)
129 “Decline in Teen Smoking Appears to be Nearing its End,” The University of Michigan,
News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 19, 2005, p. 1, at [http://www.
monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/05cigpr.pdf]. (Hereafter cited as “Decline in Teen
Smoking Appears to be Nearing its End.”)
130 “Cigarette Smoking Among American Teens Continues to Decline, but More Slowly
Than in the Past,” p. 1.
131 Ibid.
132 “Decline in Teen Smoking Appears to be Nearing its End,” p. 4.
133 Johnston, et al., “Decline in Daily Smoking by Younger Teens Has Ended,” The
University of Michigan News and Information Services, Ann Arbor, MI, Dec. 21, 2006, p.
(continued...)

2006, there were no further declines in daily smoking among 8th and 10th graders. A
further decline, however, did occur among 12th graders, particularly in their half-
pack-a-day cigarette use. The 12th graders have been showing the greatest declines.
These results occurred, researchers observed, “as the class cohorts of 8th and 10th
graders who have previously shown large declines in their use move into 12th
grade.”134 For 30-day prevalence in smoking, all grades showed a small, continuing
decline. Most notably, data for monthly smoking among teens were down
substantially from the mid-1990s, when such smoking reached a peak.135
Johnston noted that much fewer students in 2006 had ever tried smoking
cigarettes than in 1996, when the peak in lifetime usage was attained. He observed
that the decline was expected to continue among 12th graders as the younger, less
tobacco-experienced students move into the 12th grade.136 Researchers noted,
however, that there appeared to be a leveling off in the decline in cigarette smoking
among teens in recent years. They attributed this change to a reduction in anti-
tobacco advertising campaigns that were widespread in the mid-1990s after the
Tobacco Settlement occurred between major tobacco companies and state attorneys
general, focusing on the hazards of smoking and questionable practices of the
tobacco industry. The researchers believed these campaigns probably contributed to
less favorable attitudes toward smoking. They contend, however, that since the
Tobacco Settlement is now over and there are fewer heated public debates regarding
the problems with smoking or with the tobacco industry, national anti-smoking ad
campaigns have declined and the reduction in teen smoking has diminished.137
Over the past two years, the proportion of students who believed that smoking
was dangerous, Johnston observed, leveled off among 10th graders and has begun to
drop among 8th graders. He stated, “Generally we have found perceived risk to be an
important indicator of changes in future use of a drug, so this is not a favorable
development. The good news is that disapproval of cigarette smoking is still rising
and is at very high levels among teens.”138 The analysts found, however, that the
perceived risk of cigarette smoking among 8th and 10th graders is declining (that is,
fewer of them believe that smoking is dangerous), and the reductions in the
percentages of such youth who smoke cigarettes have ended.139
In 2000, because of concern about a possible increase in use among teens of
small flavored cigarettes imported from India called “bidis,” the MTF study
introduced a new question regarding their use. Likewise in 2001, because of the


133 (...continued)
1, at [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pressreleases/06cigpr.pdf]. (Hereafter cited as
“Decline in Daily Smoking by Younger Teens Has Ended.”)
134 Ibid., p. 2.
135 Ibid.
136 Ibid.
137 Ibid.
138 Ibid., p. 3.
139 Ibid., p. 4.

same concern, a new question was introduced regarding teen use of clove-flavored
cigarettes imported from Indonesia called “kreteks.” Relatively small prevalence
rates were observed among teens in the use of both types of cigarettes during the
initial years of measurement. Since that time, use of the specialty cigarettes dropped
substantially and steadily in all grades. By 2006, the decline in the annual use of the
specialty cigarettes had continued to steadily drop, which produced a statistically
significant decrease. The researchers concluded that both types of specialty cigarettes
constituted short-term fads that did not catch on with the nation’s mainstream youth,
diminishing the likelihood of these types of cigarettes becoming health hazards, as
some people had feared. The analysts noted, however, that U.S. tobacco companies
had introduced their own flavored cigarettes, which might have influenced the
demise of the imported products.140
Figure 3. 30-Day Prevalence of Any Cigarette Use
by 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, 1992-2006


40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
8th Grade10th Grade12th Grade
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future, Table 3,
Trends in 30-day Prevalence of use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders, at
[http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/06data/pr06t3.pdf].
Smokeless Tobacco Use
In 2003, use of smokeless tobacco (that is, chewing tobacco) continued a decline141
that began around 1996/1997 among teens. Between 1994 and 2003, the 30-day
prevalence of smokeless tobacco use among 8th graders declined by about one-half,142
and remained at that level in 2005. Similar to cigarette usage, declines in
smokeless tobacco use ended among 8th and 10th graders, and such use leveled off inth

2006. Only 12 graders showed evidence of a further decrease in such use probably,


140 Ibid.
141 “Teen Smoking Continues to Decline in 2003, but Declines Are Slowing,” p. 5.
142 “Decline in Teen Smoking Appears to be Nearing its End,” p. 4.

researchers believed, because of the cohort effect of teens previously in lower grades
entering the upper grades. Johnston observed that the data appeared to be a little
deceptive because boys accounted for nearly all smokeless tobacco use, of which one
in 9 males in 12th grade had used the product in 2006.143
Analysts believed that one important reason for the considerable declines in
smokeless tobacco use by teens between 1995 and 2004 was that a growing portion
of such youth believed that using the product could be dangerous.144 That belief
showed a slight turnaround in 2005. Johnston noted that in 1995, teens began to get
the message that using smokeless tobacco could cause mouth and throat cancer, and
were probably deterred from using such products. He believed that a new group of
teens would also have to hear the same message if the rates in such use were to
remain low.145 MTF 2004 survey data indicated that using smokeless tobacco was
perceived as a great risk among 8th and 12th graders (such a perception declined
among 10th graders), but that 8th and 10th graders disapproved of its use. The 12th
graders were not asked the question regarding whether they disapproved of the
product.146 Johnston noted that “A rise in disapproval often starts a year after an
increase in perceived risk is observed for a drug, which is what we saw here as well.
I think a reasonable interpretation of the dynamic is that young people eventually
become more disapproving of using a drug after they have come to see its use as
dangerous.”147
In 2006, the MTF survey data indicated that fewer 8th and 10th graders
(compared with the percentage of such students in 2005) believed that using
smokeless tobacco regularly could be harmful to one’s health, while 12th graders
believed that such use would be a great risk to health. Furthermore, the percentage
of such teens who disapproved of using the product declined for 8th graders, but
remained steady for 10th graders in 2006. Twelfth graders were not asked the
question about their attitude toward using the product.148


143 “Decline in Daily Smoking by Younger Teens Has Ended,” p. 4.
144 L. D. Johnston, P. M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, Monitoring the Future National Results
on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2001, NIH Publication No. 02-5105
(Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse), 2002, p. 34. (Hereafter cited as
Johnston, Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use.)
145 “Decline in Teen Smoking Appears to be Nearing its End,” p. 4.
146 “Trends in Attitudes About Regular Smokeless Tobacco Use for Eighth, Tenth, and
Twelfth Graders,” Table 10, at [http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/data/04data/
pr04cig10.pdf].
147 “Decline in Teen Smoking Appears to be Nearing its End,” p. 4-5.
148 Table 5 — “Trends in Attitudes About Regular Smokeless Tobacco Use for Eighth,
Tenth, and Twelfth Graders,” Monitoring the Future Study, the University of Michigan, at
[ h t t p : / / www.moni t o r i ngt h ef ut ur e.or g/ dat a / 06dat a / p r 06ci g5.pdf ] .

Figure 4. 30-Day Prevalence of Smokeless Tobacco Use by 8th, 10th, and

12th Graders, 1992-2006


14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
8th Grade10th Grade12th Grade
Source: Congressional Research Service presentation of data from Monitoring the Future, Table 3,
Trends in 30-day Prevalence of use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders, at
[http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/06data/pr06t3.pdf].
MTF researchers reported throughout the survey years (that is, from 1975
through 2005)149 that smokeless tobacco was primarily used by boys, especially in
rural areas. Also, some demographic differences in its use by teens indicated that
such use tended to be higher in the South and North Central regions of the nation,
than in the Northeast or in the West. Also, as implied above, such use tended to be
more focused in non-metropolitan areas than in metropolitan regions. Furthermore,
its use was negatively correlated with the education level of the parents, and tended
to be higher among Whites than among Black or Hispanic youths.
The SDFSC Program
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is administered by the
Department of Education. Grants are authorized for state programs and for a variety
of national programs to promote school safety and assist in preventing drug abuse in
the nation’s schools. For the program’s appropriations and funding history, see CRS
Report RL33870, The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act:
Reauthorization and Appropriations, by Edith Fairman Cooper. As previously stated
149 L. D. Johnston, P.M. O’Malley, J. G. Bachman, and J. E. Schulenberg, Monitoring the
Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2005: Volume I, Secondary School
Students (NIH Publication No. 06-5883), Bethesda, MD, National Institute on Drug Abuse,
August 2006. This is the most recent published report available.

the SDFSC Act is up for reauthorization in the 110th Congress. How the program is
administered under current law is discussed below.
State Grants
State grants are administered through a formula grant program. Funds for state
grants are disbursed as follows: From the total appropriation for state grants each
fiscal year, 1%, or $4,750,000 (whichever is greater) is reserved for outlying areas
(Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands); 1% or $4,750,000 (whichever is greater) is reserved for the
Secretary of the Interior to administer programs for Indian youth; and 0.2% is
reserved to provide programs for Native Hawaiians. The remaining funds are
distributed to the states (which include the District of Columbia, and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico), by a formula based 50% on school-aged population
and based 50% on ESEA Title I, Part A concentration grants for the preceding fiscal
year. No state receives less than the greater of one-half of 1% (0.5%) of the total
amount allotted to all of the states, or the amount the state received for FY2001.
State grant funds may be redistributed to other states if the Secretary determines that
a state will not be able to use the funds within two years of the initial award. Also,
funds appropriated for national programs may not be increased unless state grant
funding is at least 10% more than the previous fiscal year’s appropriation. Language
in the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act negated this “limitation” provision.
Since the FY2006 national programs appropriation is less than its FY2005
appropriation, the limitation does not appear to apply.
Of the total allotted to a state, up to 20% is used by the state Chief Executive
Officer (Governor) for drug and violence prevention programs and activities, and the
remainder is administered by the State Educational Agency (SEA).150 The Governor
may use not more than 3% of the funds for administrative costs. Those aspects of the
SDFSC program are discussed below.
The distribution of state funds is depicted in Figure 5.


150 P.L. 107-110, Section 4112(1).

Figure 5. The Program Formula
Used to Fund State and Local Schools


Source: Congressional Research Service, adapted from Figure 1, “How Funding Reaches States and
Local Schools, Fiscal 1995,” in GAO, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, p. 2.
Note: The sum of these percentages exceeds 100%. States will have to make some adjustments either
in Administration or State Activity costs to accommodate LEA percentages.
State Chief Executive Officer’s Funds. As mentioned above, of the total
state allotment, up to 20% goes to the Governor to award competitive grants and
contracts to local educational agencies (LEAs), community-based groups, other
public entities, private groups, and associations. Grants and contracts are to be used
to support the comprehensive state plan for programs and activities that complement
an LEA’s drug and violence prevention activities. The Governor must award grants
based on the quality of the proposed program or activity, and how such program or
activity fulfills the principles of effectiveness.151
Funding priority for such programs and activities must be given to children and
youth who are not normally served by SEAs and LEAs, or to populations that require
special services, such as youth in juvenile detention facilities, runaway and homeless
children and youth, pregnant and parenting teens, and school dropouts. In addition,
when awarding funds, the Governor must give special consideration to grantees that
151 Ibid.

seek to accomplish a comprehensive approach to drug and violence prevention efforts
that include providing and incorporating into their programs mental health services
related to drug and violence prevention. Furthermore, funds must be used to
implement and develop drug and violence prevention programs that include activities
to prevent and reduce violence related to prejudice and intolerance, to disseminate
information about drug and violence prevention, and to develop and implement
community-wide drug and violence prevention plans. The Governor may use not
more than 3% of the funds for administrative costs.152
State and Local Educational Agencies Grant Allocations and
Activities. SEAs can reserve up to 5% of their allotted funds for statewide drug and
violence prevention efforts. Funds should be used for planning, developing, and
implementing capacity-building, training and technical assistance, evaluating the
program, providing services to improve the program, coordinating activities for
LEAs, community-based groups, and other public and private entities that are
intended to assist LEAs in developing, carrying out, and assessing comprehensive153
prevention programs that are consistent with the SDFSC mandated requirements.
Such uses of the funds are required to meet the principles of effectiveness (discussed
below), should complement and support LEA-funded activities, and should be in
agreement with the purposes of state activities.154 Funded activities may include, but
are not limited to, identifying, developing, evaluating, and disseminating drug and
violence prevention projects, programs, and other information; training, technical
assistance, and demonstration programs, to address violence associated with
prejudice and intolerance; and providing financial assistance to increase available
drug and violence prevention resources in areas that serve numerous low-income
children, that are sparsely populated, or have other special requirements. SEAs may
use up to an additional 3% of funds for administering the program.
At least 93% of SEA funds must be subgranted to LEAs for drug and violence
prevention and education programs and activities. Of those funds, 60% are based on
the relative amount LEAs received under ESEA Title I, Part A for the previous fiscal
year, and 40% are based on public and private school enrollments. Of the amount155
received from the state, LEAs may use not more than 2% for administrative costs.
LEAs are required to use funds “to develop, implement, and evaluate comprehensive
programs and activities, which are coordinated with other school and community-
based services and programs.”156 Such programs should nurture an environment
conducive for learning that is safe and drug-free and supports academic attainment,
should be consistent with the principles of effectiveness, and should be designed to
prevent or reduce violence, the use, possession, and distribution of illegal drugs, and
delinquency. Activities should be included to promote parental involvement in the
program or activity, coordination with community organizations, coalitions, and


152 Ibid., Section 4112(2)(3)(5)(6).
153 U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2003 Justifications of Appropriation
Estimates, p. C-112.
154 P.L. 107-110, Section 4112(c)(2).
155 Ibid., Section 4114(a).
156 Ibid., Section 4115(b)(1).

government agencies, and distribution of information about the LEA’s needs, goals,
and programs that are funded under the SDFSCA.157
Uniform Management Information and Reporting System. States are
required to create and maintain a uniform management information and reporting
system to provide the public with information about truancy rates, the frequency,
seriousness, and incidence of violence and drug-related offenses resulting in
suspensions and expulsions in elementary and secondary schools; the types of
curricula, programs, and services provided by the Governor, SEA, LEAs, and other
fund recipients; and about the incidence and prevalence, age of onset, perception of
health risk, and perception of social disapproval of drug use and violent behavior by
youth in schools and in communities.158 The data collected must include incident159
reports by school officials, and anonymous student and teacher surveys. In
addition, the state must submit a report to the Secretary of Education (hereafter, the
Secretary) every two years on the implementation, outcomes, and effectiveness of its
SEA, LEA, and Governor’s SDFSC programs, and on the state’s progress toward160
achieving its performance measures for drug and violence prevention efforts.
State Application. To receive an allotment, a state must provide the
Secretary with an application that contains a comprehensive plan about how the SEA
and the Governor will use the funds for programs and activities that will complement
and support LEA activities to provide safe, orderly, and drug-free schools and
communities; how such programs and activities comply with the principles of
effectiveness; and that they are in accordance with the purpose of the SDFSCA. The
application must describe how funded activities will promote a safe and drug-free
learning environment that supports academic attainment; must guarantee that it was
developed by consulting and coordinating with appropriate state officials and others;
must describe how the SEA will coordinate its activities with the Governor’s drug
and violence prevention programs and with the prevention efforts of other state
agencies and programs, as appropriate; and must comply with several other additional
requirements.161
LEA Application. An LEA must submit an application to its SEA that has
been developed through timely and meaningful consultation with state and local
government representatives, as well as representatives from public and private
schools to be served, teachers and other staff, parents, students, community-based
groups, and others such as, medical, mental health, and law enforcement personnel
with relevant and demonstrated expertise in drug and violence prevention activities.
The application should contain, among other things, an assurance that the funded
activities and programs will comply with the principles of effectiveness, promote safe
and drug-free learning environments that provide for academic achievement, and


157 Ibid.
158 Ibid., Section 4112(c)(3)(B).
159 Ibid., Section 4112(c)(3)(C).
160 Ibid., Section 4116.
161 Ibid., Section 4113.

contain a detailed account of the LEA’s comprehensive plan for drug and violence
prevention activities.162
LEA Limitation. LEAs are authorized to use the funds for a wide range of
related activities. There is a limitation, however, on the use of funds by LEAs
regarding drug and violence prevention activities related to (1) Acquiring and
installing metal detectors, electronic locks, surveillance cameras, or other related
equipment and technologies; (2) Reporting criminal offenses committed on school
property; (3) Developing and implementing comprehensive school security plans or
obtaining technical assistance concerning such plans; (4) Supporting safe zones of
passage activities that ensure that students travel safely to and from school; and (5)
The hiring and mandatory training, based on scientific research, of school security
personnel. Not more than 40% of LEA funds may be used to support these five
activities. Out of the 40% of LEA funds used for the five activities, not more than
one-half of those funds (that is, 20% of the LEA funds) may be used to support the
first four activities. An LEA, however, may use up to 40% of the funds for the first
four activities, only if funding for those activities is not received from other federal
government agencies.163
Principles of Effectiveness for State and Local Grant Recipients.
A 1997 study164 authorized by ED to assess drug and violence programs in 19 school
districts across the nation, found that few districts weighed research results when
planning their prevention programs nor generally did they use proven prevention
approaches with the greatest potential to make a difference among students.
Therefore, to improve the quality of drug and violence prevention programs, ED
devised four principles of effectiveness for all grant recipients. On July 1, 1998, the
Principles of Effectiveness became operative. Under these principles, grantees are
required to use SDFSC State and Local Grants Program funds to support research-
based drug and violence prevention programs for youth. The principles were adopted
by the Secretary to ensure that SEAs, LEAs, Governors’ offices, and community-
based groups would plan and implement effective drug and violence prevention
programs165 and use funds as efficiently and effectively as possible. The Principles
of Effectiveness became mandated requirements under NCLBA.


162 Ibid., Section 4114(c)(d).
163 Ibid., Section 4115(c)(1)(2).
164 U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Services, School-Based Drug
Prevention Programs: A Longitudinal Study in Selected School Districts, Final Report,
1997, by E. Suyapa Silvia, Judy Thorne, and Christine A. Tashjian, Research Triangle
Institute (Washington: GPO, 1998), p. 5-3.
165 U.S. Department of Education, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program,” Federal Register,
vol. 63, no. 104, June 1, 1998, p. 29902.

Grant recipients must
!base their programs on a thorough evaluation of objective data about
the drug and violence problems in the schools and communities
served;
!design activities to meet goals and objectives for drug and violence
prevention;
!create and implement activities based on research that provides
evidence that the strategies used prevent or reduce drug use,
violence, or disruptive behavior among youth; and
!assess programs periodically to determine progress toward achieving
program goals and objectives, and use evaluation results to refine,
improve, and strengthen the program, and refine goals and objectives
as necessary.166
National Programs
Under National Programs, funding is authorized for various programs to foster
safe and drug-free school environments for students and to assist at-risk youth.
These activities and programs are discussed below.
Federal Activities. The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative has been
funded under the National Program’s federal activities since FY1999. This program
is jointly funded with HHS and DOJ to assist school districts and communities in
developing and implementing community-wide projects in order to create safe and
drug-free schools and to encourage healthy childhood development. For each fiscal
year, the Secretary is required to reserve an amount necessary to continue the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students initiative. Other SDFSC National Programs collaborative
efforts include funding grants with DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) for projects to recruit and train adult mentors to assist at-risk
youth in avoiding alcohol, illegal drug use, participation in gangs, and in acts of
violence. Another joint project with OJJDP is supporting a National Safe Schools
Resource Center to provide training and technical assistance to large urban school167
districts.
Federal activities are authorized to allow the Secretary to consult with the HHS
Secretary, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and
the Attorney General, to administer programs aimed at preventing violence and
illegal drug use among students and promoting their safety and discipline. The ED
Secretary must carry out such programs directly or through discretionary grants,
contracts, or cooperative agreements with public and private entities and persons, or


166 Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2001 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates,
vol. I, p. D-68.
167 Ibid.

by agreements with other federal agencies, and coordinate such programs with other
suitable federal activities.168
Impact Evaluation. The Secretary may reserve up to $2,000,000 to conduct
a required evaluation every two years of the national impact of the SDFSC program
and of other recent and new enterprises to deter violence and drug use in schools.
The evaluation must report on whether funded community and LEA programs
complied with the principles of effectiveness, considerably reduced the usage level
of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, lowered the amount of school violence,
reduced the level of the illegal possession of weapons at school, conducted effective169
training programs, and accomplished efficient parental involvement.
Similar to the required uniform management information and reporting system
for states, under national programs, the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) must collect data to determine the incidence and prevalence of illegal drug
use and violence in elementary and secondary schools in the states. Such data must
include incident reports by school officials, and anonymous student and teacher
surveys. Furthermore, by January 1, 2003, and subsequently, biennially, the
Secretary was required to submit a report on the findings of the impact evaluation to
the President and to the Congress. Along with such findings, the Secretary must
provide NCES collected data, and statistics from other sources on the incidence and
prevalence of drug use and violence in elementary and secondary schools, as well as
on the age of onset, perception of health risk, and perception of social disapproval of
such behavior among students.170
In late 2003 or early 2004, ED awarded a contract for an independent impact
evaluation of violence and drug prevention programs in schools. ED estimates that
the evaluation probably will take five years to complete. Whether interim reports
will be issued prior to its completion is not known. The Institute on Educational
Sciences (ED’s research arm) is working with the contractor.171
Prior to the No Child Left Behind Act, NCES collected data regarding crime and
violence occurring in schools and to and from school. NCES, however, does not
collect data on drug use in schools because there are three surveys that ED believes
meet this requirement — CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey, HHS’s National
Survey on Drug Use and Health (formerly the National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse), and the HHS funded University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future study
discussed in this report.172


168 P.L. 107-110, Section 4121(a).
169 Ibid., Section 4122.
170 Ibid.
171 Discussed in a telephone conversation with a spokesman in ED’s Office of Safe and
Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) on Feb. 2 and 9, 2005.
172 Ibid.

National Coordinator Program. In FY1999, the National Coordinator
Initiative was created under national programs allowing LEAs to recruit, hire, and
train persons to serve as SDFSC program coordinators in middle schools. ED
officials believed that middle school students were at the age where they were most
likely to begin experimenting with drugs and becoming more involved in violence
and crime. SDFSCA continued this permissive activity by expanding coverage for
national coordinators to serve as drug prevention and school safety program
coordinators in all schools with notable drug and safety problems. The coordinators
were responsible for developing, conducting, and analyzing assessments of drug and
crime problems at their schools and for administering the SDFSC state grant173
program.
Funding for the National Coordinator initiative was terminated in FY2004.
Grants to Reduce Alcohol Abuse. The Secretary may award competitive
grants, in consultation with the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMSHA, within HHS), to LEAs allowing school
districts to develop and implement new programs to reduce alcohol abuse in
secondary schools. The Secretary may reserve 20% of amounts used for these grants
to empower SAMSHA’s Administrator to provide alcohol abuse resources and start-
up assistance to LEAs receiving the grants. Furthermore, the Secretary may reserve
up to 25% of the funds to award grants to low-income and rural SEAs.174
To be eligible to receive a grant, LEAs must prepare and submit an application
to the Secretary containing the following required information:
!Describing activities that will be administered under the grant;
!Guaranteeing that such activities will include one or more of the
proven strategies that reduce underage alcohol abuse;
!Explaining how activities to be conducted will be effective in
reducing underage alcohol abuse by including information about
previous effectiveness of such activities;
!Guaranteeing that the LEA will submit an annual report to the
Secretary about the effectiveness of the programs and activities
funded under the grant; and
!Providing any additional information required.175


173 P.L. 107-110, Section 4125.
174 Ibid., Section 4129(a)(d).
175 Ibid., Section 4129(b).

Mentoring Programs.176 The Secretary may award competitive grants to
eligible entities, that is, LEAs, non-profit community-based groups, or a partnership
between an LEA and a non-profit community-based organization, for assistance in
creating and supporting mentoring programs and activities for children with greatest
need in middle schools. Mentors would assist such students in successfully making
the transition to secondary school. The mandate defines a child with greatest need
as “a child who is at risk of educational failure, dropping out of school, or
involvement in criminal or delinquent activities, or who lacks strong positive role
models.” A mentor is defined as “a responsible adult, a postsecondary school
student, or a secondary school student who works with a child.”177
Grants, which will be made available for an obligation of up to three years, may
be awarded to eligible entities for mentoring programs that are designed to link
children with greatest need, especially those living in rural areas, high-crime areas,
stressful home environments, or children experiencing educational failure, with
mentors who have been trained and supported in mentoring; screened with
appropriate reference checks, child and domestic abuse record checks, and criminal
background checks; and who have been deemed as interested in working with such
children.
Mentors are expected to achieve one or more of several goals with respect to the
children including — providing general guidance; fostering personal and social
responsibility; increasing participation in, and enhancing the ability to profit from
elementary and secondary school; discouraging the illegal use of drugs and alcohol,
violent behavior, using dangerous weapons, promiscuous behavior, and other
criminal, harmful, or potentially harmful behavior; encouraging goal setting and178
planning for the future; and discouraging gang involvement.
When awarding grants, the Secretary must give priority to each eligible entity
that provides adequate service for children with greatest need who live in rural areas,
high crime areas, reside in troubled homes, or who attend schools with violence
problems; provides high quality background screening of mentors, training for
mentors, and technical assistance in administering mentoring programs; or that plans
a school-based mentoring program.179
The Gun-Free Schools Act
The Gun-Free Schools Act, which was Title XIV, Part F of the ESEA, was
incorporated as part of SDFSCA because of its close relationship with the SDFSC
program. This provision calls for each state receiving funds under the No Child Left


176 For a more detailed discussion about the federal government’s mentoring programs to
assist disadvantaged youth, see CRS Report RL32633, Mentoring Programs Funded by the
Federal Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities, by Edith
Fairman Cooper.
177 P.L. 107-110, Section 4130(2)(B)(C).
178 Ibid., Section 4130(b).
179 Ibid., Section 4130(b)(5).

Behind Act to have a law that requires LEAs to expel for one year any student
bringing a weapon to school. The chief administering officer of an LEA, however,
can modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.180
In order to receive funds under the SDFSCA, an LEA must have a policy
requiring that any student who brings a firearm or weapon to school will be referred
to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system.181
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
PART is an instrument that was developed by the Administration to examine
the performance of certain programs across federal agencies. It was used in 2004 for
the first time, and the SDFSC State Grants component of the SDFSC program was
selected to be rated by the instrument. The SDFSC State Grants component was
found to be “ineffective” by PART because ED was unable to demonstrate that those
programs worked and because state grant funds were distributed too thinly to support182
quality interventions. Consequently, the Administration proposes to terminate the
state grants program in FY2007.
ED has explained that the department’s strategy to determine whether positive
outcomes are occurring as a result of the state grants program is using national survey
data from CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System to determine how
widespread are teen drug use and violence, along with data on the extent SDFSC
state grant recipients implement research-based programs. Also, ED is conducting
an evaluation “using rigorous methodology for measuring the impact of promising
interventions, and supporting grants and technical assistance to help States improve
the collection, analysis, and use of data to improve the quality, and report the
outcomes, of their SDFSC programs.”183


180 Ibid., Section 4141(b)(1).
181 Ibid., Section 4141(h).
182 Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2007 Justifications of Appropriation Estimates,
to the Congress, vol. I, p. F-18.
183 Ibid., p. F-19.