Panel Finalizes Recommendations for Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program

To strengthen the structure safe and drug-free schools state grants program, lawmakers should create incentives for districts to use research-based programs and leverage community resources, according to recommendations by a federally -ppointed panel.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee, appointed by U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, also suggested implementing a stronger accountability system for the state grants that would require states to provide technical assistance to and collect data from local school districts. States would then be held accountable for encouraging partnerships between school districts and existing community-based groups, with the additional funding contingent on performance.

The recommendations are among the many proposed by the committee, which, over the course of the last year, has evaluated school safety and substance abuse prevention efforts under the No Child Left Behind Act.

The committee was charged with providing input on how to improve three main areas under the law: 1) the state grants program; 2) the Unsafe Schools Option; and 3) the data requirements of the safe and drug-free schools programs. The 19-member panel, chaired by David Long, California’s education secretary, held six meeting and six conference calls, compiling testimony from 38 witnesses in developing the final report.

“An underlying theme of testimony, submissions and discussion was the continued and heightened need to ensure our students are provided opportunities to excel in schools and learning environments that are safe and free of alcohol and drug use,” Chairman Long wrote in a letter accompanying the final report.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Advisory Committee offered a number of suggestions for revamping the state grant program. Additional recommendations include:

• Developing a competitive process that enables a more limited set of school districts to receive larger grants from states;
• Providing a reduced number of “needs-based grants” to schools selected based on a high incidence of specific issues related to substance abuse;
• Creating separate sets of guidelines for rural and urban schools that would reflect the different challenges of both environments;
• Requiring the U.S. Department of Education to provide clear measurable outcomes and key indicators of success;
• Establishing a system for identifying best practices; and
• Specifying that “safety” refers to personal and interpersonal safety, with a goal of creating environments that are safe, secure, healthy and free of bullying and harassment.

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants program, authorized under No Child Left Behind, provides funding to states, which is sub-granted under a statutory formula to local school systems. The flexible funding stream supports school district efforts to prevent drug and alcohol abuse and reduce violence.

Ultimately, the fate of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools state grants program is still up in the air, however. Earlier this year, President George W. Bush proposed shifting the focus of the substance abuse prevention grants from the districts to the states, with states providing local school systems with training and technical assistance in effective strategies. As part of the proposal, Bush would significantly reduce funding for the state grants, cutting funding from nearly $350 million to $100 million in school year 2008-09. Bush had asked Congress to terminate funding for the program for 2006-07.

The administration has cited weaknesses in the state grants that hinder the overall impact of the program. The Office of Management and Budget, through Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluations conducted in 2002 and 2006, found that the program’s structure spreads funding too broadly to support quality interventions and does not target the schools and localities that most need the resources.

In looking at the Unsafe School Option, the committee recommended that Congress scrap the “persistently dangerous schools” tag and utilize a less stigmatizing approach.

Under the Unsafe School Choice Option, students who were the victims of crimes or who attend “persistently dangerous schools” are allowed to transfer to a safe school in the district. However, few schools in the nation have actually been labeled “persistently dangerous,” a fact the panel attributed to underreporting and states setting standards too high. Instead of encouraging underreporting via the stigmatizing nature of the current label, the committee recommended that schools with safety issues be placed on a “watch list” with a possibility of a waiver for schools in states that have high reporting standards.

As for the data-reporting requirements under the law, the committee’s report noted a “need for enhanced data gathering and the integration of data into practice.” To achieve this twin goal, the committee suggested the Education Department consider developing a standard questionnaire to gather information at the state and local level. Further, the panel said efforts should be made to enhance cooperation among federal agencies in collecting data from schools, conduct a cost analysis of data-collection efforts, and sponsoring research on data collection and integration.

In a statement, Secretary Spellings commended the committee for its work. “Thanks to their efforts we now have a tremendous amount of information to help guide our work and ensure our students have the safe school environments they need to learn and thrive,” she said.

A copy of the final report, “Enhancing Achievement and Proficiency Through Safe and Drug-Free Schools,” is available at http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/sdfscac/comment.html.