Creating Safe and Drug-Free Schools. MENU TITLE: Creating Safe and Drug-Free Schools Series: OJJDP Published: September 1996 94 pages 190,666 bytes Creating Safe and Drug-Free Schools An Action Guide September 1996 ------------------------------ The full text of this document is available through the U.S. Department of Education World Wide Web site at: http://www.ed.gov and through the Home Page of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice at: http://www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm For additional copies, please call 800-624-0100. ------------------------------ Table of Contents Introduction Action Steps Action Steps for Schools Action Steps for Students Action Steps for Parents Action Steps for Community and Business Groups Information Briefs Preventing Juvenile Gun Violence in Schools Searches for Weapons and Drugs Drug Testing Student Athletes Truancy Uniforms Alternative Education Programs for Expelled Students Conflict Resolution Mentoring in Schools Information Sharing and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Effective Data Collection for Safe Public Schools: Exemplary Practices Research and Evaluation Findings Student Victimization at School Student Strategies To Avoid Harm at School How Safe Are the Public Schools? What Do Teachers Say? Resources Additional Readings Contact Information ------------------------------ Introduction The issue of school safety is a shared concern. Today, more than ever, it is essential that communities, businesses, parents, and students work together to develop a disciplined environment where learning can take place. Providing safe and drug-free schools is a cornerstone for achieving a world-class education. Most of all, creating safe and orderly schools is about commitment and community will. Accomplishing such a goal requires families, schools, and community leaders to articulate the quality of the educational environment they want to provide for youth and to collaboratively develop the strategies that will produce the desired results. Achieving this significant objective requires school and community leaders to assess where they are, plan where they want to be, implement a series of comprehensive strategies to bridge the difference, and evaluate their progress. Essential ingredients for creating safe, orderly, drug-free schools include: o Placing school safety high on the educational agenda. Such a priority involves making a personal and community commitment toward creating a safe, welcoming, respectful, gun-free, and drug-free school. o Involving parents and citizens. No plan can succeed without the participation of parents and citizens in the community. Planners must make certain to bring these participants to the table often to shape strategies and programs together. Most people dislike having things "done to them." However, they enjoy being a part of planning, carrying out, and evaluating programs in which they have invested concern and time. Those affected by Safe School Plans should be involved throughout the entire process. o Building and developing the team. Making schools safe is a joint responsibility, requiring a broad-based team and a working attitude emphasizing collaboration and cooperation. Team members should include educators, parents, students, law enforcers, community and business leaders, probation and court representatives, social service and health care providers, and other youth-serving professionals. o Conducting the school site assessment. Team members should determine the specific issues and concerns that the local community believes are most important. This step begins the process of developing a meaningful Safe School Plan that will foster an increased level of community commitment. o Reviewing the law. The law is at the heart of every major school safety issue today. Laws are intended to articulate the reasonable standards that define the delicate balance between student rights and student responsibilities. The law proclaims what must be done, implies what should be done, and establishes limits for what may be done. The law constitutes a code of professional expectations for school administrators and youth-serving professionals. As planning begins, school and community leaders should consult with the school district's attorneys to ensure that legal issues are appropriately addressed. Constitutional issues, as well as other concerns ranging from adequate liability insurance to the effective screening of volunteers, may arise with the implementation of a comprehensive violence prevention program. o Creating a Safe School Plan. This is an action plan that not only includes the substance of what is necessary to accomplish but also identifies the processes by which those goals will be achieved, including short-term objectives and long-term systemic changes. It is most important for team members to understand that they can make a positive difference in the quality of life for themselves, their community, and all the children they serve. o Formulating a contingency plan. Having a backup plan for handling emergencies and crises simply makes good sense. Such foresight can prevent a crisis and preclude successive crises while creating an effective mechanism for managing school problems. o Creating an educational climate. Team members should evaluate the current education atmosphere and propose modifications that will transform it into a safe, vibrant learning environment in which students and teachers respect each other. o Searching for ways to serve students and ways students can serve. Young people should always be included as part of the solution to the problems associated with juvenile delinquency. Actively engaging students in school and community projects and activities creates a level of ownership that supports the success of every child. o Getting the message out/communicating. Working with the media may be one of the most successful strategies for building awareness of both the issues involved and the progress being made. With simple newsletters, schools can share success stories and break down barriers with other districts and schools. o Evaluating progress. It is important to monitor activities, measure impact, and evaluate how the plan is working. A Safe School Plan should be modified and improved whenever necessary. These guidelines represent the beginning of a continuing team process to create safe schools for all of America's children. Making schools safe requires a total community effort within the context of a broad spectrum of opportunities. There are no simple solutions to making schools safe. Each school and each school district has its own unique challenges and resources with which to address them. This Action Guide begins with action steps for schools, parents, students, and community and business groups. Next it provides information briefs on specific issues affecting school safety. Other sections contain research and evaluation findings, a list of resources, and additional readings. This information is all designed to help school and community leaders, parents, and students develop a strategy to ensure safe schools in their communities. ------------------------------ Action Steps for Schools Some of the ways in which schools can ensure safety and discipline are: o Establish a team of educators, students, parents, law enforcement and juvenile justice officials, and community and business leaders to develop a plan for creating a safe, disciplined, gun- and drug-free school. o Develop a Safe School Plan based upon an examination of problems and resources and a review of strategies that work. o Ensure that students are engaged in school work that is challenging, informative, and rewarding. When students are fully engaged and absorbed, they are less prone to violence and less likely to be disruptive. o Establish, publish, publicize, and enforce policies that clearly define acceptable and un- acceptable behavior. These policies should include zero tolerance for weapons, violence, gangs, and use or sale of alcohol and drugs. o Work with law enforcement and juvenile justice agencies for support in reporting violations of weapons policies as well as other delinquent or criminal behavior. o Take immediate action on all reports of drug use or sales, threats, bullying, gang activity, or victimization. Anyone caught bringing a gun to school should be reported immediately to the appropriate law enforcement agency. o Create an environment that encourages parents and other adults to visit the school and participate in the school's activities. Develop a sense of community within the school. o Encourage staff to treat each other and students with respect and to act as good role models. o Encourage community members to support schools in their community and to participate in school programs and services that promote the safety of students and all school staff. o Work with community groups and law enforcement officials to keep schools open after normal operating hours so that students and their families have places where they can engage in productive, well-supervised, and safe activities. Help create safe corridors to and from school. o Involve youth in program and policy development. o Offer programs that teach peaceful, nonviolent methods for managing conflict to students and their families, as well as to staff. o Work with the media to make the public aware of the crime and safety issues that confront the schools. Provide accurate assessments of school crime and violence to the public. o Learn about effective practices based on research and proven programs used in other districts. Share the knowledge. o Monitor implementation and progress of the Safe School Plan, making improvements based on what is learned as well as on new developments in the field. ------------------------------ Action Steps for Students Students have an important role to play in ensuring that their schools are safe and orderly. They can take steps to help make their schools places where learning can take place without disruption and without the fear of being victimized or bullied. They can: o Participate in, or help develop, student government organizations and guidelines that promote a drug- and gun-free, safe, and orderly environment for learning. o Volunteer to serve on decisionmaking or advisory committees such as the group developing the overall Safe School Plan. o Become advocates for programs such as peer mediation, conflict resolution, peer assistance leadership, teen courts, or anger management. o Reduce conflict situations rather than making them worse. Practice good citizenship, and treat peers and teachers with respect. o Report weapon possession, drug use or sale, bullying threats or intimidation, victimization, gang activity, or vandalism to school authorities and parents. o Learn the consequences of gang involvement and alcohol, drug, and gun use and the methods for resisting alcohol, drugs, and tobacco. Use this understanding to help other students avoid alcohol or drug use or seek help if they are already involved in alcohol or drugs. o Follow the school code of conduct, understand that rules are made for everyone, and recognize the consequences of violating the rules. o Whenever possible, travel with others to and from school and to special school events. Students must always be aware of their surroundings. o Work with teachers, principals, and other students in developing a community service program, where students give back to the community in a positive manner. o Encourage their parents to come to the school and be involved in activities that support the school. o Serve as a big brother/big sister, tutor, or mentor for a younger student. ------------------------------ Action Steps for Parents Parents play a key role in ensuring that their children are safe and drug-free. Without the active support and participation of parents, schools and communities cannot be safe. Parents have to be part of a school's effort to create an orderly, respectful environment. Some of the actions parents can take to assist schools are: o Set standards of behavior, limits, and clear expectations for children both in and out of school and develop mutually agreed-upon rules about homework, extracurricular participation, grades, curfews, chaperoned parties, and places that are off limits. o Teach standards of right and wrong and demonstrate these standards through example. o Discuss with their children the school's discipline policies, reinforcing the belief that school rules support the rights of all students to attend schools with disciplined environments safe from influences of violence and alcohol or substance abuse. o Encourage their children to talk about school, their social activities, their interests and problems, and even their walk to and from school. o Be involved in their children's school life by reviewing homework, meeting their teachers, and attending school functions such as parent-teacher conferences, PTA meetings, class programs, open houses, plays, concerts, and sporting events. o Build a network of other adults with whom they can talk about school safety issues and alcohol and drug use. o Join a community association to ensure that issues related to alcohol, drugs, and violence are made part of the organization's agenda and that community groups work together to create a safe school corridor by supervising walking routes to and from school. o Talk to their children about the consequences of drug and weapon use, gang participation, and violence and ensure that firearms that parents keep in the home or automobile are unloaded and inaccessible to children. Other dangerous weapons should also be kept out of the reach of children. o Work with the school to develop a comprehensive Safe School Plan that incorporates a clearly articulated statement to students, parents, and the community regarding what will and will not be tolerated and that also provides a strong emphasis on programs to prevent violence and the use of alcohol and drugs. o Monitor the programs their children watch, the video games they play, and the music they listen to regularly. Take time to explain to their children the actual nature and consequences of what is being said and done. o Encourage their children to participate in school-sponsored, after-class activities to help limit the amount of time their children spend watching television. ------------------------------ Action Steps for Community and Business Groups Making schools safe, orderly, and drug-free requires the support and cooperation of the entire community. Children spend a significant amount of their time in the community, and it is essential that community groups (including law enforcement and social services, juvenile justice agencies, foundations, and not-for-profit organizations) and businesses provide students with the assistance and support needed to live in a community and go to school without the fear or threat of violence. Some of the actions community and business groups can take to assist schools are: o Participate on a school's Safe School Plan committee. o Adopt and support a school. o Sponsor extracurricular social and cultural activities, entrepreneurial opportunities, and other positive alternative activities for students. o Work collaboratively with the schools in developing and sponsoring community projects for youth living in the community. o Assist in creating safe corridors for students going to and from school. o Adopt policies that permit and encourage employees to become active in youth-related activities, like tutoring, mentoring, or coaching. o Encourage employees who are parents to visit their children's schools regularly without being penalized at work. o Open businesses and corporate facilities for field trips, apprenticeships, and internships for students. o Promote awareness of career and college opportunities and the availability of financial aid and nontraditional scholarships. Sponsor a scholarship program. o Sponsor fundraising events for schools to support their safe schools initiatives, focusing on preventing violence and resisting alcohol and drug use. o Become knowledgeable about the operation of schools in their community and participate in school reform efforts. ------------------------------ Preventing Juvenile Gun Violence in Schools Since the mid-1970's, homicides by juveniles involving a firearm have increased nearly threefold. In addition, during this same period, the number of juvenile arrests for weapons violations increased 117 percent. When guns are the weapon of choice, youth violence becomes deadly.1 In 1990, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed a nationally representative sample of 9th- and 12th-grade students about the number of times they had carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club during the prior 30 days. One in 20 students indicated he or she had carried a firearm, usually a handgun.2 A number of other surveys confirm an increased propensity among young people to carry guns.3-5 In 1984, the United States saw a dramatic increase in juvenile gun homicide, coinciding with the introduction of crack cocaine into urban communities.4 Studies show that as the use of guns by drug-involved youth increases, other young people obtain guns for their own protection. This cycle of fear or "diffusion" theory is supported by recent research on the "ecology of danger."5 A 1993 Louis Harris poll showed that 35 percent of children ages 6 to 12 fear their lives will be cut short by gun violence,6 and a longitudinal study of 1,500 Pittsburgh boys revealed that their frequency of carrying a concealed weapon increased when they began selling drugs.7 Promising Practices To effectively address the rising levels of juvenile crime, especially youth gun violence, participants from all community sectors, public and private, are beginning to work collaboratively and comprehensively to reduce the incidence of violence in the schools. A number of approaches have been taken, can be supported, or should be initiated to address the increased access to and use of guns by young people. These practices are listed below as (1) prevention programs, (2) intervention programs, and (3) comprehensive initiatives. Prevention Programs The majority of youth gun violence prevention programs involve instruction carried out in schools, community-based organizations, and physicians' offices. They emphasize the prevention of weapon misuse, the risks involved with the possession of a firearm, and the need for conflict resolution and anger management skills. Educational programs often use videotapes to support their presentation of the tragic results of gun violence and may also include firearm safety instructions, public information campaigns, counseling programs, or crisis intervention hotlines. Key elements of a gun violence prevention program may include: o Creating an interagency gun-free school committee. o Standardizing antiweapon policies and procedures for an immediate response for gun-related incidents. o Developing a Safe and Drug-Free School Plan with a crisis response team for gun-related incidents. o Establishing an interdisciplinary review committee to examine gun-related incidents and determine offender outcomes in addition to expulsion (e.g., alternative school). o Providing student assessment for alternative school placement and linking of services for student and family, if needed. o Developing prerelease and transition strategies for returning the student to a mainstream school. o Providing followup services to track the student's performance in the mainstream school. o Developing methods for communicating the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act and corresponding school policies through school and community newsletters, Parent-Teacher and Parent- Student Associations, school resource officers, and other outlets. o Developing and implementing a gun violence prevention curriculum. o Establishing a student group against gun violence. Some examples of prevention practices are: Classroom Strategies. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence has developed a school-based curriculum that has been used extensively across the country and has been evaluated by the Education Development Center with positive results. The Straight Talk About Risks (STAR) program at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence is a comprehensive school-based program designed to reduce gun injuries and deaths with prevention activities for children and their families. Through STAR, students also learn how to make better, safer decisions and resolve conflicts without violence through role playing, goal setting, and the development of leadership skills. Gun Buy-back Programs. Weapons Watch was organized by the mental health center of the Memphis School District, the Memphis Police Department, and Crime Stoppers. Weapons Watch was implemented to get children involved in ridding their schools of weapons. A hotline was established for students to call anonymously with information about a classmate who brings a weapon to school. Students are rewarded if the information leads to the confiscation of weapons and the arrest of the classmate who brings a weapon on campus. Public Education Campaigns. Fresno's Youth Violence Prevention Network campaign in California is unique because it directly involves young people in delivering an anti-gun violence message. Previously known as Radio Bilingue, the Network is the result of a collaboration among Chicano Youth Center, House of Hope, Save Our Sons and Daughters, and End Barrio Warfare. Violence prevention activities include developing gun-free zone programs in city parks and neighborhoods, school emergency response and mediation teams, youth conferences, and youth leadership programs. Intervention Programs Police and sheriff's departments have been instrumental in supporting gun violence prevention/intervention programs. As part of drug education, public safety, and violence prevention efforts, police officers and sheriffs across the Nation have worked collaboratively with schools to present critical information on gun violence to young people and, simultaneously, to develop more effective and interpersonal relations with young people. Community Law Enforcement Programs. The Illinois State Police School Security Facilitator Program identifies jurisdictions with concerns about school violence. Representatives from all community programs that play a role in addressing problems of youth crime and violence are invited to attend an intensive 5-day team building and education program. Part of the curriculum deals directly with the interdiction of guns in schools. Teams return to their communities to educate others on youth violence issues and to implement specific strategies for violence reduction. While no short- or long-term evaluation of this program has been implemented, anecdotal information from prior participants indicates some degree of usefulness and success. Gun Market Disruption and Interception. The Kansas City Weed and Seed program is a joint effort of the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney, and the Kansas City, Kansas, police department. The program focuses police efforts in high-crime neighborhoods on traffic violations, curfew violations, and other infractions of the law. Despite the fact that previous police campaigns have drawn protests of discrimination, the gun intercept program in Kansas City has not. Police have involved community and religious leaders in initial planning, and neighborhoods have made requests for greater police activity. Diversion and Treatment Programs. In Pima County, Arizona, the Juvenile Diversion Program has set up a firearms prevention course for youngsters who are not hard-core delinquents but who have been referred to juvenile court for firing or carrying a gun, and for young people at risk for being involved with guns. At least one parent is required to attend the monthly sessions. During the course, the assistant prosecutor informs the juveniles and their parents about gun laws. Parents are given instruction on safe gun storage. By agreeing to take the course, the youth do not have their cases adjudicated and are not placed on probation; however, they do acquire a juvenile record. Gun Courts. A special type of court called a Gun Court has recently been established by Providence, Rhode Island, to focus on gun crimes. All gun crimes are referred to a single judge who processes cases on a fast track. Gun courts have cut the processing time of gun crime cases in half. Alternative Schools. The Second Chance School in Topeka, Kansas, is a voluntary half-day instructional course for students who have been expelled for possession of weapons or assaulting a staff member. Students engage in studies of math, social sciences, and language skills, participate in some recreational activities, and are required to participate in community service. Depending on the seriousness of the offense, students attend the program for 1 semester or 1 year. To date, 90 percent of the students enrolled have successfully completed the program. The program has been operating for 3 years and has developed partnerships with the juvenile courts, the public schools, the police department, and the recreational department. Comprehensive Initiatives In Atlanta, the Center for Injury Control at Emory University is working together with the community, State and local governments, and with Project Pulling America's Cities Together (PACT) to analyze the magnitude, extent, and characteristics of youth firearms violence and to develop a broad- based strategy for addressing the problem. The planned intervention includes a three-part strategy: (1) to reduce the demand for firearms through a comprehensive community education program; (2) to reduce supply by promoting safe storage of firearms and by increasing law enforcement efforts to interdict the illegal gun market; and (3) to provide aggressive rehabilitation to decrease recidivism among juvenile gun offenders. In Dade County, Florida, the Youth Crime Watch program, mandated for all schools by the Miami school board, was created in 1984 to extend the neighborhood watch concept to schools. The Gun Safety Awareness Program, a districtwide effort, began in November 1988. In addition to this comprehensive curriculum, the school board declares a week in November as Gun Safety Awareness Week. The Gun Safety Awareness Program targets kindergarten through 12th grade students and their parents, examining causes of handgun violence and teaching the consequences of being arrested. The curriculum is supplemented by area Youth Crime Watches, school resource officers, and police officers. Parents attend training workshops on handgun safety awareness. Metal detectors are used unannounced at selected schools, and students caught with guns are referred to juvenile or adult court and recommended for expulsion and assignment to an alternative school. Awareness levels among youth and parents about the need to prevent handgun violence have increased in Dade County as a result of this comprehensive program. State Legislation In May 1995, the State of Texas enacted legislation that would both remove students who bring guns to school and who commit other serious offenses from their regular school and provide a safety net for those youth so they are not on the streets. Each school, in cooperation with the juvenile board of each county, must adopt a student code of conduct and provide an alternative education program. When a student is expelled, the school must notify juvenile court. Juvenile boards and schools establish what support services are to be given to these expelled youth. In counties where the population exceeds 125,000, the juvenile board must offer a juvenile justice alternative education program. School districts and local juvenile boards meet regularly to coordinate efforts. For more information, contact the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission at 512-912-2404. Federal Legislation In August 1994, the Youth Handgun Safety Act (Title XI, Subtitle B) (P.L. 103-322) was passed as part of the Omnibus Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. It prohibits the possession, sale, or transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile. The law includes a number of exceptions, such as farming, hunting, and other specified uses. The Gun-Free Schools Act (P.L. 103-382) (GFSA), enacted in October 1994, requires that local educational agencies implement a policy "requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any student who brings a firearm or weapon to a school served by such agency." Under the Gun-Free Schools Act, each State receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) must have a law requiring expulsion from school, for a period of not less than 1 year, of any student who brings a firearm to school. The local chief administering officer may modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis. Even though reducing youth gun violence is a Federal priority, the primary responsibility is on the State and local level. The Federal role must be to encourage and assist communities by providing support based on sound information gathered nationally on effective approaches to intervention and prevention. Frequently Asked Questions What entities are affected by the provisions of the Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA)? Each State, as well as its State educational agency and local educational agencies, has responsibilities under the GFSA. Are private schools subject to the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act? Private schools are not subject to the provisions of the GFSA, but private school students who participate in Local Educational Agency (LEA) programs or activities are subject to the 1-year expulsion requirement to the extent that such students are under the supervision and control of the LEA as part of their participation in the LEA's programs. For example, a private school student who is enrolled in a Federal program, such as Title I, is subject to a 1-year expulsion, but only from Federal program participation, not a 1- year expulsion from the private school. Of course, nothing prohibits a private school from imposing a similar expulsion from the private school on a student who brings a weapon to school. Does the Gun-Free Schools Act's 1-year expulsion requirement preclude any due process proceedings? No. Students facing expulsion from school are entitled under the U.S. Constitution and most State constitutions to the due process protection of notice and an opportunity to be heard. If, after due process has been accorded, a student is found to have brought a weapon to school, the GFSA requires an expulsion of not less than 1 year (subject to the case-by-case exception discussed below). What does the Gun-Free Schools Act require of States? The GFSA requires that each State receiving Federal funds under the ESEA must, by October 20, 1995, (1) have in effect a State law requiring LEA's to expel from school for not less than 1 year a student who is determined to have brought a weapon to school; (2) have in effect a State law allowing the LEA's chief administering officer to modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis; and (3) report to the Secretary on an annual basis concerning information submitted by LEA's to State Educational Agencies (SEAs). SEA's must also ensure that no ESEA funds are made available to an LEA that does not have a referral policy consistent with Section 14602. 1-year Expulsion Requirement Each State's law must require LEA's to comply with a 1-year expulsion requirement; that is, subject to the exception discussed below, any student who brings a weapon to school must be expelled for not less than 1 year. Case-by-Case Exception Each State's law must allow the chief administering officer of an LEA to modify the 1- year expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis. Annual Reporting Each State must report annually on LEA compliance with the 1-year expulsion requirement and on expulsions imposed under the State law, including the number of students expelled in each LEA and the types of weapons involved. What does the Gun-Free Schools Act require of LEA's? The GFSA requires that LEA's (1) comply with the State law requiring the 1-year expulsion; (2) provide an assurance of compliance to the SEA; (3) provide descriptive information to the SEA concerning the LEA's expulsions; and (4) adopt a referral policy for students who bring weapons to school. 1-year Expulsion Requirement LEA's must comply with the State law requiring a 1-year expulsion; that is, subject to the case-by- case exception, any student who brings a weapon to school must be expelled for not less than 1 year. LEA Assurance An LEA must include in its application to the State educational agency for ESEA assistance an assurance that the LEA is in compliance with the State law requiring the 1-year expulsion. Descriptive Report to SEA An LEA must include in its application for ESEA assistance a description of the circumstances surrounding expulsions imposed under the 1-year expulsion requirement, including: (1) Name of the school concerned. (2) Number of students expelled from the school. (3) Type of weapons concerned. Referral Policy LEA's must also implement a policy requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any student who brings a weapon to school. When must an LEA implement its referral policy? LEA's must take immediate action to implement a policy requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any student who brings a weapon to school. The GFSA directs that no ESEA funds shall be made available to an LEA unless that LEA has the required referral policy. When must an LEA submit the required assurance? In its first application to the State educational agency for ESEA funds after the date that the State enacts and makes effective the required 1- year expulsion legislation, the LEA must include an assurance that the LEA is in compliance with the State law. What is the role of the SEA in determining whether an LEA is in compliance with the Gun-Free Schools Act? The GFSA requires States to report to the Secretary on an annual basis concerning LEA compliance. Therefore, before awarding any ESEA funds to an LEA, the SEA must ensure that the LEA has (1) implemented a policy requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system of any student who brings a weapon to school; and (2) included in its application for ESEA funds the assurance and other information required by the GFSA. SEA's must ensure that the LEA application contains: (1) An assurance that the LEA is in compliance with the State law requiring the 1-year expulsion; and (2) A description of the circumstances surrounding expulsions imposed under the 1-year expulsion requirement, including: (A) the name of the school concerned. (B) the number of students expelled from the school. (C) the type of weapons concerned. Who is an LEA's "chief administering officer"? The term "chief administering officer" is not defined by the GFSA. Each LEA should determine, using its own legal framework, which chief operating officer or authority (e.g., Superintendent, Board, etc.) has the power to modify the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis. Can any individual or entity other than the LEA's "chief administering officer" modify the 1-year expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis? No. However, the chief administering officer may allow another individual or entity to carry out preliminary information gathering functions, and prepare a recommendation for the chief administering officer. Is it permissible for an LEA to use the case-by- case exception to avoid compliance with the 1-year expulsion requirement? No, this exception may not be used to avoid overall compliance with the 1-year expulsion requirement. How is the term "weapon" defined? For the purposes of the GFSA, a "weapon" means a firearm as defined in Section 921 of Title 18 of the United States Code. According to Section 921, the following are included within the definition: o Any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. o The frame or receiver of any weapon described above. o Any firearm muffler or firearm silencer. o Any destructive device, which includes: (a) Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas -- (1) Bomb, (2) Grenade, (3) Rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (4) Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (5) Mine, or (6) similar device. (b) Any weapon which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter. (c) Any combination or parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in the two immediately preceding examples, and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. According to Section 921, antique firearms are not included in the definition. In addition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms advises that Class-C common fireworks are not included in the definition of "weapon." For additional information about whether a particular weapon is a "firearm" under this definition, contact the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program at 202-260-3954 for referral to the nearest Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms field office. Does the Gun-Free Schools Act preclude classes such as hunting or military education, or activities such as before- or afterschool hunting, or rifle clubs, which may involve the handling or use of weapons? No. Although individual school districts may choose to prohibit firearms altogether, the Secretary does not believe that Congress intended the GFSA to preclude, in all circumstances, school-sponsored or authorized classes and activities that might involve the handling or use of firearms by students. The Secretary interprets the GFSA to allow local school districts to permit firearms at school when students are participating in school-sponsored or authorized activities that involve firearms. Similarly, based on the legislative history, the Secretary interprets the GFSA not to forbid school districts from allowing firearms at school when students intend to use firearms solely for before- or afterschool hunting purposes, providing the school district's determination to permit firearms is made and disseminated in advance, as part of LEA policy, and is consistent with the intent and purposes of the GFSA to prevent violence and create an environment conducive to learning. For example, if a local school district approves an extracurricular program such as a rifle club or allows students to bring firearms solely for before- or afterschool hunting, the activities would not violate the GFSA if the school district: o Determines that the activity is consistent with the intent and purposes of the GFSA. o Provides notice as part of its Gun-Free Schools policy that the activities are approved and authorized. If any firearms are to be allowed for these limited purposes, local school districts are cautioned to consider all applicable Federal, State, and local laws pertaining to the possession of firearms. In particular, school districts should be aware that Federal and some State laws prohibiting juveniles from possessing handguns may be applicable. The Secretary also encourages school districts that permit students to bring firearms to school for these limited purposes to adopt appropriate safeguards to ensure student safety, consistent with the purposes of the GFSA. Are knives considered weapons under the Gun-Free Schools Act? No, for the purposes of the GFSA, the definition of weapon does not include knives. State legislation, an SEA, or an LEA may, however, decide to broaden its own definition of weapon to include knives. What is meant by the term "expulsion"? The term "expulsion" is not defined by the GFSA; however, at a minimum, expulsion means removal from the student's regular program. Expulsion does not mean merely moving a student from a regular program in one school to a regular program in another school. Care should be taken by local officials to ensure that a student who is determined to have brought a firearm to school is effectively removed from that setting. Is a State, SEA, or LEA required to provide alternative educational services to students who have been expelled for bringing a weapon to school? The GFSA neither requires nor prohibits the provision of alternative educational services to students who have been expelled. Other Federal, State, or local laws may, however, require that students receive alternative educational services in certain circumstances. What is an "alternative setting" for the provision of educational services to an expelled student? An alternative setting is one that is clearly distinguishable from the student's regular school placement. Is Federal funding available to provide alternative educational services? Yes, formula grants awarded under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act may be used for alternative educational services. In addition, other Federal funds may be available for alternative educational services, consistent with each program's statutory and regulatory requirements. Do the requirements of the Gun-Free Schools Act conflict with requirements that apply to students with disabilities? No. Compliance with the GFSA may be achieved consistently with the requirements that apply to students with disabilities, so long as discipline of such students is determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504. The Department intends to issue separate, more detailed guidance on discipline of students with disabilities, which will include clarification of the implementation of the GFSA consistent with IDEA and Section 504. Is it permissible to expel a student for a "school year" rather than a year? No. The statute explicitly states that expulsion shall be for a period of not less than 1 year. Does the expulsion requirement apply only to violations occurring in the school building? No. The 1-year expulsion requirement applies to students who bring weapons to any setting that is under the control and supervision of the LEA. Research and Evaluation While there are few conclusive evaluations of youth gun violence prevention programs, because so many are new, a growing body of research identifies the circumstances surrounding the incidence of youth gun violence, providing guidance for prevention and intervention programs. Effective programs should address young people's access to, carrying of, and use of guns. Research suggests that targeting the source of guns and drug dealing, increasing young people's faith in law enforcement and school administrators, teaching conflict resolution skills, and encouraging youth to develop positive attitudes about themselves and their peers may assist in creating a safer, violence-free school environment. Resources Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program U.S. Department of Education 600 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, D.C. 20202-6123 202-260-3954. The U.S. Department of Justice is engaged in a number of efforts to address the problem of youth gun violence, from grant programs to support linkages between community-based youth gun violence reduction strategies and law enforcement strategies; from drafting a model juvenile handgun law for adoption by States and U.S. territories to disseminating documents on youth gun research, programs, organizations, and program implementation. For more information about these activities, contact the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) at 202-307- 5911. For a copy of OJJDP's Reducing Youth Gun Violence: A Summary of Programs and Initiatives, contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC) at 800-638-5726. On August 9, 1996, OJJDP sponsored a satellite teleconference to assist communities in developing strategies to reduce youth gun violence. The broadcast described promising approaches to youth gun violence prevention and intervention. For a videotape copy of this program entitled Reducing Youth Gun Violence, contact JJC. Endnotes 1. American Psychological Association. 1993. Violence and Youth: Psychology's Response. Washington, D.C. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1991. Weapon-Carrying Among High School Students: United States, 1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 40(40):681-684. 3. Webster, D.W., P.S. Gainer, and H.R. Champion. 1993 (November). Weapon-Carrying Among Inner-City Junior High School Students: Defensive Behavior vs. Aggressive Delinquency. American Journal of Public Health 83(11):1604-1608. 4. A Survey of Experiences, Perceptions, and Apprehensions About Guns Among Young People in America. 1993. New York: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. And LH Research, Inc. 5. Allen-Hagen, B., M. Sickmund, and H. Snyder. 1994 (November). Juveniles and Violence: Juvenile Offending and Victimization. Fact Sheet #19. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 6. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1996 (March). Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, p. 34. 7. Blumstein, A. 1994. Youth, Violence, Guns, and the Illicit-Drug Industry. Pittsburgh, PA.: Carnegie Mellon University. 8. Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. 1993. 9. Van Kammen, W. and R. Loeber. 1994. Delinquency, Drug Use and the Onset of Adolescent Drug Dealing. Pittsburgh, PA.: University of Pittsburgh. ------------------------------ Searches for Weapons and Drugs If public schools experience high levels of violence and drug use, school officials may wish to consider adopting search policies that permit them under certain circumstances to screen students and search school property for weapons and drugs. Compliance With Basic Dictates of the Fourth Amendment Public school officials, like law enforcement officers, are State officers bound by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, school officials must understand the basic dictates of the Fourth Amendment -- both to comport themselves within the bounds of the law and to implement an effective drug and weapons search policy. What follows is a general discussion on this important topic. Contact an attorney before implementing a search policy. The information contained in this section is meant to give school officials some basis for considering whether to pursue a search policy in their schools or school districts. Before implementing a search policy, schools should be sure to contact either the school attorney, the local district attorney, or the State attorney general. School officials do not need a warrant or probable cause prior to conducting a search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits all unreasonable searches and seizures by State officers. Reasonableness is determined by balancing the governmental interest behind the search against the privacy intrusion of the search. The Supreme Court has held that students have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their persons and accompanying possessions. However, the Court also has held that schools have a substantial interest in maintaining security and order in the classroom and on school grounds. The Court has determined that this interest justifies a more flexible standard of reasonableness for searches of students that are conducted by school officials as opposed to law enforcement officers. Thus, the Court has held that school officials, unlike the police, do not need to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a search. Nor do they need probable cause to believe that a violation of the law has occurred. In order to conduct a search, school officials need only a "reasonable suspicion" that the search will turn up evidence that the student broke the law or the rules of the school. School officials need only have "reasonable suspicion" that a particular search will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Even if reasonable suspicion exists, to be permissible, the scope of the search must be such that the measures used are reasonably related to the purpose of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and gender of the student and the nature of the suspected infraction. The Supreme Court has upheld searches that comply with this standard only insofar as such searches are initiated and conducted by school officials. A more stringent legal standard likely applies to searches conducted in conjunction with or at the behest of law enforcement officers. The meaning of "reasonable suspicion." In interpreting and applying the "reasonable suspicion" standard set forth by the Supreme Court, lower courts generally have required more than general suspicion, curiosity, rumor, or a hunch to justify searches of students and their possessions. Factors identified by courts in sustaining a search of a student include the observation of specific and describable behavior leading one reasonably to believe that a particular student is engaging in or has engaged in prohibited conduct. The more specific the evidence in support of searching an individual student, the more likely the search will be upheld. For example, courts using the reasonable suspicion standard have upheld the right of school officials to search the following: o A student's purse, after a teacher saw her smoking in a restroom and the student denied having smoked or being a smoker. o A student's purse, after several other students said she had been distributing firecrackers. o A student's pockets, based on a phone tip about drugs from an anonymous source believed to have previously provided accurate information. School officials may search students only within reasonable limits. When reasonable suspicion exists, school officials may search students, but only within reasonable limits. Such limits require school officials to adopt measures that are reasonably related to the purpose behind the search. In addition, the search may not be excessively intrusive in light of the age and gender of the particular student and the nature of the infraction. For example, if a teacher thinks he or she has seen a student pass a marijuana cigarette to a second student, the teacher might reasonably search the two students and any nearby belongings in which the students may have tried to conceal the drug. If, however, the teacher discovers that what was actually observed was only a stick of gum or other noncontraband item, the teacher would be unjustified in searching either the students or their belongings any further. As a general rule, the more intrusive the search, the greater the justification the courts will require. Thus, a search of a student's jacket or bookbag requires less suspicion than a physical pat-down or, at the extreme, a strip search. Courts consider strip searches to be highly intrusive of an individual student's privacy; thus, they should be premised only on probable cause. A search does not have to end because the school official found the item that is sought. In addition, school officials do not have to end a search simply because they uncover what they suspected would be found. Instead, if a search of a student reveals items that provide reasonable grounds for suspecting that the student might also possess other evidence of crimes or misconduct, the school officials may continue the search. For example, if a teacher justifiably searches a student's purse for cigarettes and finds rolling papers such as those used for marijuana cigarettes, it will be reasonable for the teacher to continue the search for further evidence of drugs. School officials may search school property when they have "reasonable suspicion" that the search will turn up evidence that the student broke the law or the rules of the school. The Supreme Court has not decided whether, and to what extent, students have legitimate expectations of privacy in school property such as lockers, desks, or other areas provided for the storage of school supplies and/or personal belongings. At a minimum, school officials may search all such areas when they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that such a search will reveal evidence of illegal activity or a violation of school regulations, as set forth above. Whether school officials may conduct suspicionless searches, however, will be determined by the nature of the specific privacy expectations students have in a particular area. For example, a student's locker often serves as the repository for all school supplies and personal belongings that the student is required, or chooses, to bring to school. Indeed, at least one court has described the school locker as a student's "home away from home." Thus, when school officials permit a student exclusive, secured use of a locker to store his or her books and belongings throughout the school year, such student arguably has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the locker's contents. On the other hand, students likely have a lesser expectation of privacy in the contents of classroom desks, at least to the extent these desks are unsecured and available for use by other students throughout the school day. When a school does permit its students to store and secure the contents of a desk such that others cannot gain access (in a homeroom, for example), a similar expectation of privacy as that retained by students in their lockers probably would attach. Courts are more likely to uphold searches of school property when students have a reduced expectation of privacy. Courts are more likely to uphold searches conducted by school officials of lockers, secured desks, and other areas in which students store personal effects when certain steps are taken to reduce the reasonable expectation of privacy students may have in these areas. First, at the start of each academic year, school administrators can provide students with a written statement that details the school's policy of conducting random, unannounced searches throughout the year of student lockers, desks, and any other targeted areas within the school. The statement should inform students that they are to consider all such areas to be "public," not "private." Moreover, the nonprivate nature of areas such as lockers and desks should be made obvious to the students. Thus, courts have upheld locker searches when the school retains joint control over the student lockers, maintains duplicate or master keys for all lockers, and reserves the right to inspect lockers at any time. Other possibilities might include providing students with lockers that have transparent or grid doors that enable passersby to observe the contents therein or providing students with secured lockers only when the students consent to joint custody with the school. When a policy of inspecting lockers or other school property is adopted, school officials should in fact implement it. Otherwise, the practice of not searching could negate the effect of the written policy by raising the expectation of privacy that students have in such areas. Although these practices remain largely untested by the courts, locker and desk searches in schools will be easier to justify when the students' reasonable expectation of privacy is effectively reduced. School officials may search student vehicles when they have "reasonable suspicion" that the search will turn up evidence that the student broke the law or the rules of the school. School officials may search a student's vehicle that is left in a school parking lot when they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will disclose evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school, as set forth above. School officials may conduct random vehicle searches or keep students' car keys when the school has a very serious weapon or drug problem. Under certain limited circumstances, school officials also may be able to conduct random, suspicionless weapon and/or drug searches of student vehicles parked on school grounds. When it is justifiable, all students who park their vehicles on school property therefore could be required to leave the ignition keys with school officials in the morning and then retrieve them before leaving at the end of the school day. Or, such students simply may be required to agree to provide school officials with access to their vehicles on demand. To justify such a policy, a school will have to demonstrate that it has a very serious weapon and/or drug problem and that conducting these searches is a reasonably effective means of combatting that problem. For example, the school may have to show either that (1) students have access to their vehicles during the school day and thus are able to bring weapons and/or drugs from their vehicles into the schools or (2) weapons and/or drugs are used or exchanged within the immediate area of the parking lot. Moreover, the searches as conducted must be only as intrusive as necessary to further the interests at stake. For example, if a school official is searching for a firearm, it would not be reasonable to examine the ashtray. Vehicle searches must be conducted in a manner that curtails undue discretion. The vehicle searches must be conducted in a manner that curtails undue discretion on the part of school officials in deciding which vehicles to search. Suspicionless vehicle searches must be done uniformly or by systematically random selection, such as every third car. The courts have held that when the decision to search is left entirely to the discretion of the official, the searches may stigmatize or embarrass the isolated students searched, tending to make the search relatively more intrusive. Schools must adequately inform all students that their vehicles are subject to search. In addition, the school must adequately inform all students who use the lot that their vehicles are subject to search. This notice should inform the students of the grounds for the search, the extent of the search, and the frequency or regularity of the searches. This notice must be consistent with the school's actual vehicle search practice. For example, if school officials inform students who use the school parking lot that their vehicles will be subject to a search once a month, but in fact do not conduct such searches until 6 months have elapsed, students may be justified in arguing that their expectation of privacy in the security of their vehicle was not adequately reduced by the practice followed by the school, regardless of the specific terms of the initial notice. A search is permissible if the student consents. If a student consents to a search, the search is permissible, regardless of whether there otherwise would be reasonable grounds for the search. However, school officials should be extremely cautious in basing a search on a student's consent. Consent must be given knowingly and voluntarily. For a search based on a student's consent to be valid, such consent must be given knowingly and voluntarily. Establishing whether a student's consent was voluntary can be difficult and the burden remains with the school official to so prove. If a student agrees to be searched out of fear or as a result of other coercion, that consent will probably be found invalid. Similarly, if school officials indicate that a student must agree to a search, or if the student is very young or otherwise unaware that he or she has the right to object, the student's consent also will be held invalid. For example, a policy that permits vehicle searches will not be permissible in schools at which students have no choice other than to drive -- for example, because of a lack of public transportation or the unavailability of school busing -- and no viable parking options other than the school lot. In such cases, courts probably will find that any consent obtained is coerced and thus invalid. To enhance the voluntariness of a student's consent, school officials are advised to explain to students that they do not have to consent to a search. In some cases, consent forms may be useful. If a student refuses to consent to a search, school officials still may conduct the search as long as there are reasonable grounds to justify it, as set forth above. Alternative search techniques Schools with severe drug or weapons problems may wish to consider special types of search techniques to screen students for drugs or weapons. Although the Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of the use of these devices in the context of public schools, the case law has evolved in the lower courts as follows: Trained narcotics dogs to sniff objects may be used at any time and without any particular suspicion by the school official. The courts have generally agreed that the use of trained narcotics dogs to sniff objects, as opposed to people, is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and thus requires no level of suspicion. School officials therefore may use trained narcotics dogs to sniff objects that are not affixed to, or carried by, an individual student, such as lockers, desks, student vehicles parked in school parking lots, or any articles of personal property that have been discarded or abandoned. If the dog alerts them to a particular locker or vehicle, school officials then will have satisfied the reasonable suspicion requirement that justifies a more thorough search to determine whether in fact drugs are present. The use of dog sniffs on individual students in the absence of reasonable suspicion is more problematic. Of the few courts to consider the issue, the majority have concluded that the use of dog sniffs on students is a search and therefore may not be justified in the absence of reasonable suspicion. When justified, schools may use metal detectors to search students and their personal effects. Under certain circumstances, schools may be able to use magnetometers, or metal detectors, to search students and their personal effects for weapons prior to entering school premises. These devices could be either walk-through or hand-held. Although Federal courts have not yet addressed the constitutionality of such devices as used in public schools, the courts have upheld such use in the context of airports and courthouses. The courts have so concluded in light of the vital governmental interest in preventing air hijackings and safeguarding courthouses and of the relatively minimal intrusiveness of the magnetometer search. Courts are likely to uphold the use of magnetometers in public schools subject to certain restrictions. First, school officials must be able to document a very serious problem with the possession of illegal weapons and the threat of related violence on school grounds. Second, school officials must use the device in a random fashion; they may not exercise any discretion in deciding whom to search. Thus, school officials may search every student who enters the building, or some other neutral category of persons, such as every third student. The courts have held that such random use of a magnetometer limits the stigma that attaches to those searched and minimizes the risk of abuse by the searching officials. Finally, the routine use of a magnetometer is justifiable only to the extent school officials are searching for weapons. However, other contraband uncovered in plain view or by plain touch during a magnetometer search may be seized by school officials. Subject to these restrictions, students may be required to submit to such a detection device daily or intermittently throughout the academic year. ------------------------------ Drug Testing Student Athletes If a public school has a drug problem in which its athletes play a significant part and school officials have attempted other, less intrusive drug prevention methods, the school may wish to consider adopting a policy of random drug testing of student athletes. Promising Practices The use of drug tests to screen students for drug use is a relatively new phenomenon in the school setting, and the law is still evolving. The Supreme Court in June 1995 upheld a policy of the Vernonia, Oregon, school district that requires all students who wish to participate in the school's athletic program to submit to periodic, random drug testing. The Vernonia policy was effective: teachers noted a decrease in drug use and an improvement in discipline. In the fall of 1989, after undertaking previous prevention efforts that proved ineffective in stopping the district's sharp increase in drug use, the policy of random drug testing was adopted, along with very detailed procedures to ensure the accuracy of the testing, while minimizing its relative intrusiveness. Under the Vernonia policy, all students in the district who wish to participate in interscholastic athletics are required to sign a form consenting to be drug tested and must obtain the written consent of their parents. Athletes are tested at the beginning of their athletic season; once each week thereafter, 10 percent of all athletes are randomly selected from a pool for an additional drug test. A student, with the supervision of two adults, blindly draws the names of the 10 percent to be tested. Those chosen are notified and tested that same day, if possible. Prior to the testing, each student must complete a specimen control form that bears an assigned number. The student must identify and verify any prescription medications they are taking. Students produce the samples under conditions very similar to those encountered in a public restroom. The student enters an empty locker room with an adult monitor of the same sex. Each male student produces a sample at a urinal, remaining fully clothed with his back to the monitor, who stands approximately twelve to fifteen feet behind the student. The monitor may or may not directly observe the student while he produces the sample. Female students produce samples in an enclosed bathroom stall and thus are not subject to direct observation. For both male and female students, monitors listen for normal sounds of urination. After the sample is produced, the student gives it to the monitor, who checks it for temperature and tampering and then transfers it to a vial. The samples are then sent to an independent laboratory, which routinely and anonymously tests them for amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana. The laboratory also may screen for other drugs, such as LSD, at the request of the district, but the identity of the student whose sample is being tested does not determine which drugs will be tested. The laboratory has a 99.94 percent rate of accuracy, and the district adheres to strict chain of custody procedures. Upon completion of its analysis, the laboratory is authorized to mail written test reports only to the superintendent and to provide test results to district personnel by telephone only after the requesting official recites a code confirming his or her authority. Only the superintendent, principals, vice principals, and athletic directors have access to the test results, and the results are not kept for more than 1 year. Under no circumstances are the results of a drug test turned over to law enforcement officers. If a student tests positive, he or she is subject only to either suspension from the athletic team or participation in an assistance program. Specifically, if a test result is positive, a second test is conducted as soon as possible to confirm the result. If the second sample tests negative, no further action is taken. If the second sample tests positive, the student's parents are notified, and the principal meets with the student and the parents. At this meeting, the student is presented with the option of (1) participating for 6 weeks in an assistance program that includes weekly urinalysis or (2) being suspended from athletics for the remainder of the current season and the next athletic season. The student is then retested before the start of the next athletic season for which he or she is eligible. A second violation results in automatic imposition of option (2); a third offense results in suspension for the rest of the current season and the next two athletic seasons. Legal Issues Drug testing of a student by a public school official is a search that must comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits all unreasonable searches and seizures by State officers. Reasonableness is determined by balancing the governmental interest behind the search against the privacy intrusion of the search. In upholding the drug testing policy in Veronia, the Supreme Court balanced the school's interest in conducting the drug test against the privacy interest upon which the test intrudes. The Court recognized the "government's responsibilities, under a public school system, as guardian and tutor of children entrusted to its care." The Court noted that deterring drug use by the Nation's schoolchildren, in general, is "important, perhaps compelling." It further noted the substantial physical risks posed by student athlete drug use, where the risk of immediate physical harm to the drug user or teammates is particularly high. The Court underscored the severity of the drug problem that existed within the school district whose policy was at issue and the fact that athletes were an active part of the school's drug-using population. Thus, the Court observed that the drug problem was largely fueled by the "role model" effect of athletes' drug use. Against this governmental interest, the Court balanced the privacy intrusion endured by student athletes who are drug tested. The Court acknowledged that urinalysis drug tests are searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment that intrude upon a significant privacy interest. However, the Court held that athletes, unlike other members of the student population, have reduced expectations of privacy due to the "element of communal undress" inherent in athletic participation. Moreover, student athletes voluntarily subject themselves to preseason physical examinations and a higher degree of regulation than other students through compliance with codes of conduct, dress, and maintenance of minimum grade point averages. Finally, the Court noted the importance of the strict chain of custody procedures and restricted access to test results to which the district adhered. The unique, reduced expectation of privacy of student athletes and the heightened risk posed by student athlete drug use -- which is not at issue with students who are not engaged in rigorous, school-supported physical activity -- provided the basis for the Court's decision upholding the school's drug testing policy. Since the Vernonia decision, courts have not addressed the constitutionality of a drug testing program that targets students other than athletes. Moreover, in upholding the random drug testing of athletes, the Supreme Court stated in fairly strong terms that any school policy that identifies students for testing in other than a random fashion, thus allowing school officials to exercise any amount of discretion, would be met with disapproval. ------------------------------ Truancy The Problem of Truancy in America's Communities Truancy is the first sign of trouble, the first indicator that a young person is giving up and losing his or her way. When young people start skipping school, they are telling their parents, school officials, and the community at large that they are in trouble and need help if they are to keep moving forward in life. Research data indicate that students who become truant and eventually drop out of school put themselves at a long-term disadvantage for becoming productive citizens. High school dropouts, for example, are 2 1/2 times more likely to be on welfare than high school graduates. In 1995, high school dropouts were almost twice as likely to be unemployed as high school graduates. In addition, high school dropouts who are employed earn much lower salaries. Students who become truant and eventually drop out of high school too often set themselves up for a life of struggle. Truancy is a gateway to crime. High rates of truancy are linked to high daytime burglary rates and high vandalism. According to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, truancy is the most powerful predictor of juvenile delinquent behavior. "I've never seen a gang member who wasn't a truant first," says California District Attorney Kim Menninger. Truancy prevention efforts should be a part of any community policing effort to prevent crime before it happens. o During a recent sample period in Miami, more than 71 percent of 13- to 16-year-olds prosecuted for criminal violations had been truant. o In Minneapolis, daytime crime dropped 68 percent after police began citing truant students. o In San Diego, 44 percent of violent juvenile crime occurs between 8:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. While no national data on the extent of truancy exist, in some cities unexcused absences can number in the thousands each day. In Pittsburgh, for example, each day approximately 3,500 students or 12 percent of the pupil population is absent and about 70 percent of these absences are unexcused. In Philadelphia, approximately 2,500 students a day are absent without an excuse. In Milwaukee, on any given school day, there are approximately 4,000 unexcused absences. Combating truancy is one of the first ways that a community can reach out quickly to a disaffected young person and help families that may be struggling with a rebellious teenager. This chapter seeks to offer parents, school officials, law enforcement agencies, and communities a set of principles to design their own strategies to combat truancy and describes successful models of antitruancy initiatives that are working in communities across the Nation. Users' Guide to Deterring Truancy Each school and each community needs to decide what steps to take to reduce truancy. These decisions should be made with the active involvement of parents, educators, law enforcement personnel, juvenile and family court judges, and representatives from social service, community, and religious organizations. The communities that have had the most success in deterring truancy not only have focused on improving procedures -- such as those that accurately track student attendance -- but have also implemented a comprehensive strategy that focuses on incentives and sanctions for truants and their parents. Below are five primary elements of a comprehensive community and educational strategy to combat truancy. 1. Involve parents in all truancy prevention activities. Parents play the fundamental role in the education of their children. This applies to every family regardless of the parents' station in life, their income, or their educational background. Nobody else commands greater influence in getting a young person to go to school every day and to recognize how a good education can define his or her future. For families and schools to work together to solve problems like truancy, there must be mutual trust and communication. Many truancy programs contain components that provide intensive monitoring, counseling, and other family-strengthening services to truants and their families. Schools can help by being "family-friendly" and encouraging teachers and parents to make regular contact before problems arise. Schools may want to consider arranging convenient times and neutral settings for parent meetings, starting homework hotlines, training teachers to work with parents, hiring or appointing a parent liaison, and giving parents a voice in school decisions. 2. Ensure that students face firm sanctions for truancy. School districts should communicate to their students that they have zero tolerance for truancy. State legislatures have found that linking truancy to such items as a student's grades or driver's license can help reduce the problem. Connecticut, Delaware, and several other States have curfews during daytime school hours that allow law enforcement officers to question youth to determine if their absence is legitimate. In a few States, including New York, a student with a certain number of unexcused absences can be failed in his or her courses. A Wisconsin judge may, among other options, order a truant to attend counseling or an education program designed for him or her. 3. Create meaningful incentives for parental responsibility. It is critical that parents of truant children assume responsibility for truant behavior. Each community must determine the best way to create meaningful incentives for such parents to ensure that their children go to school. In some States, parents of truant children are asked to participate in parenting education programs. Some other States, such as Maryland and Oklahoma, have determined that parents who fail to prevent truancy can be subject to formal sanction or lose eligibility for certain public assistance. Communities can also provide positive incentives for responsible parents who ensure their child's regular school attendance. Such incentives can include increased eligibility to participate in publicly funded programs. Working together, local officials, educators, and parents can make a shared commitment to assume responsibility for reducing truancy -- and can choose the incentives that make the most sense for their community. 4. Establish ongoing truancy prevention programs in school. Truancy can be caused by or related to such factors as student drug use, violence at or near school, association with truant friends, lack of family support for regular school attendance, emotional or mental health problems, lack of a clear path to more education or work, or inability to keep pace with academic requirements. Schools should address the unique needs of each child and consider developing initiatives to combat the root causes of truancy, including tutoring programs, added security measures, drug prevention initiatives, mentorship efforts through community and religious groups, campaigns for involving parents in their children's school attendance, and referrals to social service agencies. Schools should also find new ways to engage their students in learning, including such hands-on options as career academies, school-to-work opportunities, and community service. They should enlist the support of local business and community leaders to determine the best way to prevent and reduce truancy. For example, business and community leaders may lend support by volunteering space to house temporary detention centers, establishing community service projects that lead to afterschool or weekend jobs, or developing software to track truants. 5. Involve local law enforcement in truancy reduction efforts. In order to enforce school attendance policies, school officials should establish close linkages with local police, probation officers, and juvenile and family court officials. Police departments report favorably on community-run temporary detention centers where they can drop off truant youth rather than bring them to local police stations for time-consuming processing. Police sweeps of neighborhoods in which truant youth are often found can prove dramatically effective when they are part of a comprehensive antitruancy initiative. Model Truancy Reduction Initiatives Each community needs to determine how it will reduce and deter truancy. Below are descriptions of truancy programs in communities around the country that employ some or all of the elements described above. Milwaukee, Wisconsin Program elements: Parents, police, and the school system focus on the causes of truancy in the Truancy Abatement and Burglary Suppression (TABS) initiative in Milwaukee. Attendance is taken every period in all high schools. Local police officers pick up truant students and bring them to a Boys and Girls Club for counseling. Parents are called at home automatically every night if their child did not attend school that day. If the parent is not supportive of regular school attendance, the district attorney is contacted. Results: In a recent sample of students who went through the TABS process, 73 percent returned to school the next day, 66 percent remained in school on the 15th day, and 64 percent still are in school 30 days later. Since the TABS initiative began, daytime burglary in Milwaukee has decreased 33 percent, and daytime aggravated battery has decreased 29 percent. Aquine Jackson, director of the Parent and Student Services Division of the Milwaukee Public Schools, said: "I think the TABS program is so effective because it is a collaboration among...the Milwaukee Public Schools, the Milwaukee Boys and Girls Clubs, the Milwaukee Police Department, and the County Sheriff, and because it is now a part of State statute that police officers can stop students on the street during school hours." Rohnert Park, California Program elements: The Stop, Cite, and Return Program is designed to reduce truancy and juvenile crime in the community and to increase average daily attendance for the schools. Patrol officers issue citations to suspected truants contacted during school hours, and students are returned to school to meet with their parents and a vice principal. Two citations are issued without penalty; the third citation results in referral to appropriate support services. Results: Due in large part to this initiative, the daytime burglary rate is 75 percent below what it was in 1979. Haynes Hunter, who has worked in different capacities on the issue of truancy in Rohnert Park for more than 15 years, reported that the program is effective because it is a "high- visibility" effort. "Being on the street, being in contact with the kids makes them aware of the fact that we care. We want them to get their education." New Haven, Connecticut Program elements: The Stay in School Program targets middle school students who have just begun to have problems. Targeted students go to truancy court where a panel of high school students question them and try to identify solutions. After court, youth and attorney mentors are assigned to each student for support. The student and the court sign a written agreement, and after 2 months, students return to the court to review their contract and report on their progress. Results: Denise Keyes Page, who recruits and trains mentors for this initiative, said: "This program works because it harnesses the power of peer pressure. Truants are judged and mentored by their peers, instead of just by adults who may seem distant and unconnected. Our program uses both the carrot and stick approaches, providing both supportive mentorship and real courtroom accountability to truant students. One of the evolving strengths of the program is that not only are we providing support to the truant, but we are serving as a resource to their parents." Atlantic County, New Jersey Program elements: The Atlantic County Project Helping Hand receives referrals from six Atlantic City and four Pleasantville elementary schools for youth in kindergarten through eighth grade who have 5 to 15 days of unexcused absences. A truancy worker meets with the youth and family to provide short-term family counseling, usually up to eight sessions. Referrals for additional social services are made on an as-needed basis. If the family fails to keep appointments, home visits are made to encourage cooperation. Once a truancy problem is corrected, the case is closed and placed on an aftercare/monitoring status with contact made at 30-, 60-, and 90-day intervals to ensure that truancy does not persist. Results: During the past school year, 84 percent of the students who participated in the Atlantic County program had no recurrence of truancy. Colleen Denelsback of Project Helping Hand stated: "Our philosophy is one of early intervention, regarding both the age level and the number of unexcused absences. We stress that the earlier intervention takes place, the greater the chance for positive outcomes. Early intervention will prevent truancy and later delinquency." Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Program elements: The THRIVE (Truancy Habits Reduced Increasing Valuable Education) initiative is a comprehensive antitruancy program spurred by an ongoing community partnership of law enforcement, education, and social service officials. Police bring a suspected truant to a community-run detention center where, within 1 hour of arrival, officials assess the youth's school status, release the youth to a parent or relative, and refer the family to any needed social service agencies. Parents are notified by the district attorney of potential consequences for repeat behavior. Parents who harbor youth with 15 days of consecutive unexcused absences are subject to misdemeanor charges. Results: Since THRIVE's inception in 1989, the Oklahoma City Police Department reports a 33- percent drop in daytime burglary rates. Tom Steemen, the parent of a student who went through THRIVE, commented: "The first I heard of the program was when my son was caught and taken to the center. I was real glad to know they had something like THRIVE." His son Ken, age 15, said, "THRIVE shook me up. I knew [while in the police car] just how wrong I was." Norfolk, Virginia Program elements: The Norfolk, Virginia, school district uses software to collect data on students who are tardy, cut class, leave grounds without permission, are truant but brought back to school by police, or are absent without cause. Each school has a team composed of teachers, parents, and school staff that examines the data to analyze truancy trends. For example, a team may try to pinpoint particular locations where truant students are found during school hours and then place additional monitors in these locations. A team may also notice certain months when truancy is prevalent and then design special programs to curb truancy during those months. Results: Ann Hall of the Norfolk Public Schools stated: "Attendance has improved at all levels of schools since 1992 -- 2 percent at the elementary and secondary levels. The overall district average is up 1 percent. This is significant in that the legal attendance rate for 1994-95 is up to 93 percent. Tighter attendance policies, grading practices, and teamwork have led to this improvement...There are few, if any, teachers complaining that discipline and law violations are not being handled consistently throughout the district. This is a marked improvement over the report that was made in the teacher satisfaction survey conducted in 1988." Marion, Ohio Program elements: The Community Service Early Intervention Program focuses on potential truants during freshman year. Referred students are required to attend tutoring sessions as directed, give their time to community service projects, and participate in a counseling program. In addition, students are required to give back to the intervention initiative by sharing what they have learned with new students in the program and by recommending it to others who might benefit. Parental participation is required throughout the program. When the student has completed the 6-week sequence, school records relative to truancy are nullified. If the student fails the program, formal court intervention is the next step. Results: Of the 28 students who took part in the program one recent semester, 20 had improved attendance records and were expected to pass freshman year. The eight who did not improve their attendance records either moved from the school district or were removed from the school for failure to meet attendance requirements. Misty Swanger, community educator for this initiative, saw a general improvement in the grades and behavior of the students. Executive Director Christine Haas noted: "This program is a combination of early intervention and early attention. As long as the child knows that someone is watching out for them and taking an interest in them, they will not be truant. The attention factor is very important. It creates success." The intervention program has already identified 100 ninth-grade students with truancy problems to work with in the coming year. Peoria, Arizona Program elements: In Operation Save Kids, school officials contact the parents of students with three unexcused absences. Parents are expected to inform school officials of steps they have taken to ensure their children regularly attend school. When students continue to be truant, cases are referred to the local district attorney. To avoid criminal penalty and a $150 parent fine, youth are required to participate in an intensive counseling program, and parents must attend a parenting skills training program. Results: Since Operation Save Kids began 2 years ago, daytime juvenile property crime rates have declined by 65 percent. Truancy citywide has been cut in half since 1994. "Look at today's truant, and you're looking at tomorrow's criminal," said Assistant City Attorney Terry Bays Smith. Bakersfield, California Program elements: A consortium of school districts in Kern County, California, formed the Truancy Reduction Program. Local schools reach out to youth with a history of truancy through parent contact, peer tutoring, and mentoring services. Persistently truant youth are referred to the County Probation Office. Probation officers visit parents at home one-on-one, check on the youth at school weekly, and in the majority of cases refer youth and their families to one or more needed social service agencies. The County Probation Office and the local school continue to track the youth for a full year before making a referral to the local District Attorney's Office. Results: "The majority of graduates of the Truancy Reduction Program's first year no longer present a truancy problem," according to the Kern County Public Schools coordinator, Steve Hageman. More than a fifth of that 1994 class had perfect school attendance records in the year following their participation. Resources The U.S. Department of Justice provides Federal funding to States to implement local delinquency prevention programs, including programs that address truancy. Many of these programs address risk and protective factors. A large portion of the funding comes from the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grants Program, which is administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs. For more information contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, 800-638-8736. Under a jointly funded project, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education have developed a training and technical assistance project to help communities develop or enhance truancy prevention/intervention programs and programs that target related problems of youth out of the education mainstream. Training and technical assistance will be made available to 10 jurisdictions through a competitive application process in 1996. For more information contact Ron Stephens at the National School Safety Center, 805-373-9977. For more information about the programs in this chapter, please call the U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug-Free Schools Office at 202-260-3954. ------------------------------ Uniforms At the direction of President Clinton, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley sent a Manual on School Uniforms to every school district in the country in March 1996. Below is an excerpt from the manual as well as answers to some commonly asked questions on school uniforms. For a copy of the complete manual, please call 800-624- 0100. The full text is also available throughout the U.S. Department of Education World Wide Web site at http://www.ed.gov. School Uniforms: Why They Work and Where They Are A safe and disciplined learning environment is the first requirement of a good school. Young people who are safe and secure, who learn basic American values and the essentials of good citizenship, are better students. In response to growing levels of violence in the Nation's schools, many parents, teachers, and school officials have come to see school uniforms as one positive and creative way to reduce discipline problems and increase school safety. They observed that the adoption of school uniform policies can promote school safety, improve discipline, and enhance the learning environment. The potential benefits of school uniforms include: o Decreasing violence and theft -- even life- threatening situations -- among students over designer clothing or expensive sneakers. o Helping prevent gang members from wearing gang colors and insignia at school. o Instilling discipline in students. o Helping parents and students resist peer pressure. o Helping students concentrate on their school work. o Helping school officials recognize intruders who come to the school. As a result, many local communities are deciding to adopt school uniform policies as part of an overall program to improve school safety and discipline. California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted school uniform regulations. Many large public school systems -- including Baltimore, Cincinnati, Dayton, Detroit, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Miami, Memphis, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, Phoenix, Seattle, and St. Louis -- have schools with either voluntary or mandatory uniform policies, mostly in elementary and middle schools. In addition, many private and parochial schools have required uniforms for a number of years. Still other schools have implemented dress codes to encourage a safe environment by, for example, prohibiting clothes with certain language or gang colors. Users' Guide to Adopting a School Uniform Policy The decision to adopt a uniform policy is made by States, local school districts, and schools. For uniforms to be a success, as with all other school initiatives, parents must be involved. The following information is provided to assist parents, teachers, and school leaders in determining whether to adopt a school uniform policy. 1. Get parents involved from the beginning. Parental support of a uniform policy is critical for success. Indeed, the strongest push for school uniforms in recent years has come from parent groups who want better discipline in their children's schools. Parent groups have actively lobbied schools to create uniform policies and have often led school task forces that have drawn up uniform guidelines. Many schools that have successfully created a uniform policy survey parents first to gauge support for school uniform requirements and then seek parental input in designing the uniform. Parent support is also essential for encouraging students to wear the uniform. 2. Protect students' religious expression. A school uniform policy must accommodate students whose religious beliefs are substantially burdened by a uniform requirement. As U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley stated in Religious Expression in Public Schools, a guide he sent to superintendents throughout the Nation on August 10, 1995: Students may display religious messages on items of clothing to the same extent that they are permitted to display other comparable messages. Religious messages may not be singled out for suppression, but rather are subject to the same rules as generally apply to comparable messages. When wearing particular attire, such as yarmulkes and head scarves, during the school day is part of students' religious practice, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act schools generally may not prohibit the wearing of such items. 3. Protect students' other rights of expression. A uniform policy may not prohibit students from wearing or displaying expressive items -- for example, a button showing support for a political candidate -- so long as such items do not independently contribute to disruption by substantially interfering with discipline or with the rights of others. Thus, for example, a uniform policy may prohibit students from wearing a button bearing a gang insignia. A uniform policy may also prohibit items that undermine the integrity of the uniform, notwithstanding their expressive nature, such as a sweatshirt that bears a political message but also covers or replaces the type of shirt required by the uniform policy. 4. Determine whether to have a voluntary or mandatory school uniform policy. Some schools have adopted wholly voluntary school uniform policies that permit students freely to choose whether and under what circumstances they will wear the school uniform. Alternatively, some schools have determined that it is both warranted and more effective to adopt a mandatory uniform policy. 5. When a mandatory school uniform policy is adopted, determine whether to have an "opt out" provision. In most cases, school districts with mandatory policies allow students, normally with parental consent, to "opt out" of the school uniform requirements. Some schools have determined, however, that a mandatory policy with no "opt out" provision is necessary to address a disruptive atmosphere. A Phoenix, Arizona, school, for example, adopted a mandatory policy requiring students to wear school uniforms or attend another public school. That Phoenix school uniform policy was recently upheld by a State trial court in Arizona. However, in the absence of a finding that disruption of the learning environment has reached a point where other lesser measures have been or would be ineffective, a mandatory school uniform policy without an "opt out" provision could be vulnerable to legal challenge. 6. Do not require students to wear a message. Schools should not impose a form of expression on students by requiring them to wear uniforms bearing a substantive message, such as a political message. 7. Assist families that need financial help. In many cases, school uniforms are less expensive than the clothing that students typically wear to school. Nonetheless, the cost of purchasing a uniform may be a burden on some families. School districts with uniform policies should make provisions for students whose families are unable to afford uniforms. Many have done so. These are some examples of the types of assistance: (1) the school district provides uniforms to students who cannot afford to purchase them, (2) community and business leaders provide uniforms or contribute financial support for uniforms, (3) school parents work together to make uniforms available for economically disadvantaged students, and (4) used uniforms from graduates are made available to incoming students. 8. Treat school uniforms as part of an overall safety program. Uniforms by themselves cannot solve all the problems of school discipline, but they can be one positive contributing factor to discipline and safety. Other initiatives that many schools have used in conjunction with uniforms to address specific problems in their community include aggressive truancy reduction initiatives, drug prevention efforts, student-athlete drug testing, community efforts to limit gangs, a zero tolerance policy for weapons, character education classes, and conflict resolution programs. Working with parents, teachers, students, and principals can make a uniform policy part of a strong overall safety program, one that is broadly supported in the community. Frequently Asked Questions Why is the President promoting school uniforms? For the past 3 years, the President has actively been supporting activities that reduce violence and crime in schools. The Clinton administration is always looking for ideas or concepts that will help create safer schools. After talking to and working with schools that found reductions in crime and violence after adopting a uniform policy, the Clinton administration drafted the manual to assist communities that want to implement school uniform policies. Is the President mandating that schools have a school uniform policy? The President believes that it is a local decision whether to adopt a uniform policy. The school uniform manual developed by the Departments of Education and Justice merely provides guidance and assistance to local school districts and schools. Is the cost of school uniforms prohibitive? School uniforms are usually less expensive than the clothes students typically wear to school. Further, the manual gives some suggestions for schools that want to assist families in need of financial help to purchase uniforms. Does a school uniform policy rob students of their individuality? School uniform policies permit children to wear expressive items, such as a button that shows support for a political candidate, or a religious piece of clothing, such as a yarmulke or head scarf. Will a school see reductions in crime, violence, and disruptions simply by adopting a uniform policy? School uniform policies must be viewed as part of a comprehensive safe school strategy and should be combined with such other actions as training security personnel, implementing zero tolerance policies, and starting after-school programs. Is the Department of Education recommending a specific uniform for schools? Individual schools and school districts that choose to adopt uniform policies should determine what their uniforms are. What is the most common school uniform? No one style of uniform is predominant. The uniforms that schools have adopted cover a wide range of options for individual schools and school districts to consider. ------------------------------ Alternative Education Programs for Expelled Students A defining feature of life in America's schools today is the increasing incidence of violence. Nearly 3 million crimes take place in or near schools annually -- one every 6 seconds of the school day.1 These increases are occurring nationwide. Eighty-two percent of school districts surveyed by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) reported increasing violence within their schools during the past 5 years. Increasingly, incidents of violence reported in schools involve deadly weapons. More than 60 percent of school districts have reported weapon violations among their students.2 One prominent legislative and policy measure to ensure a safe school environment has been to require removal of disruptive and dangerous students. Typically this is accomplished through expulsions and long-term suspensions. For example, the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires a minimum 1-year expulsion for any student found to have carried a firearm on school grounds (See Preventing Juvenile Gun Violence in Schools). School districts across the country report experiencing significant increases in both the number of students expelled and the length of time they are excluded from their schools. The consensus among educators and others concerned with at-risk youth is that it is vital for expelled students to receive educational counseling or other services to help modify their behavior and possibly other support services while they are away from their regular school. Without such services, students generally return to school no better disciplined and no better able to manage their anger or peaceably resolve disputes. They will also have fallen behind in their education, and any underlying causes of their violent behavior may be unresolved. Research has shown a link between suspension/expulsion and later dropping out of school, with resulting personal and social costs. One reservation about providing services to expelled students has been the cost. However, data show it is less costly to address the problem behavior and its underlying causes as quickly as possible than to wait until the student becomes involved with the criminal justice or welfare systems later in life. The American Federation of Teachers has estimated that "for the [$1,750] additional dollars spent on each [disruptive] student attending an alternative school, the public annually gains $14,000 in student learning time that would have been lost, $2,800 in reduced grade repetition costs, $1,750 in reduced welfare costs, and $1,500 in reduced prison costs."3 This is a total savings of $18,300 per student. Promising Practices School systems across the country are turning to alternative education programs to deliver educational and other services to expelled students. Some school systems are modifying existing programs to accommodate the larger numbers of students expelled for disruptive behaviors, while others are creating new programs, often in collaboration with social agencies or nonprofit service organizations. The programs typically differ from the expelled students' regular schools in these dimensions: the ratio of students to teachers, the way academic subject matter is presented, the setting of the program, the linkage of the school to the community or workplaces, the emphasis on behavior modification, the emphasis on counseling for conflict resolution and anger management, and the availability of comprehensive support services. Programs have been created for students as young as elementary age. Some seek to prepare students to return to their regular schools, and others prepare students to graduate from high school and enter the workforce or postsecondary education directly from the alternative program. Components of Effective Alternative Education Programs The components of effective alternative programs are: o Lower student-to-staff ratio. o Strong and stable leadership. o Highly trained and carefully selected staff. o A vision and set of objectives for the program that are shared by all staff and integrated into how staff and administrators interact with the program. o Districtwide support of programs. o Innovative presentation of instructional materials with an emphasis on real-life learning. o Working relations with all parts of the school system and with other collaborating agencies that provide critical services to youth. o Linkages between schools and workplaces. o Intensive counseling and monitoring. Examples of Alternative Education Programs The following programs provide some examples of the varied alternative education programs that have been created for expelled students. City-As-School Program, Buffalo, New York The City-As-School (CAS) program in Buffalo, New York, places students as interns in dozens of sites across the city. Students earn academic credits for the work they perform -- an English credit for work involving the theater, a newspaper, or other type of communication; a social studies credit for work at the local courts or community action agency. Students rotate through three or four internships each semester, becoming familiar with a variety of work environments and being exposed to a variety of role models. Throughout the program, each student also works on his or her Learning Experience Activity Packet (LEAP), a set of goals and activities customized for each student and each internship. The LEAP includes weekly assignments as well as a semester-long final product. The student's progress is monitored by his onsite supervisors and program teachers. Students attend weekly seminars at CAS offices. The program elected to locate its offices on a college campus to expose the students to the possibilities of postsecondary education. The CAS program has developed extensive support within the community. Because many businesses and agencies have volunteered to sponsor interns, the program has been able to serve more students. Program staff feel the experience produces major changes in the students. The students become more motivated and their negative behaviors are reduced. Sixty-five percent of the students are able to maintain 100 percent attendance for as long as 2 years, complete all their internships, and earn their high school diplomas. The staff point out that this graduation rate is considerably higher than that of comparable students who remain in the regular school program. Community Academy, Boston, Massachusetts The Community Academy (CA) is located in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts. CA is designed to provide students with a safe and challenging academic learning environment in order to help them become successful and productive citizens. CA is housed in leased space in the Roxbury Boys and Girls Club. In working with students, CA uses a cognitive approach that focuses on modifying inappropriate behavior and enhancing academic potential. CA emphasizes small class size, low student-teacher ratios, and parental involvement. In addition to academic instruction, the program provides a vocational component and an advanced placement program, and students are eligible to earn dual enrollment credits at area colleges and universities. CA has also established community partnerships with several area businesses, civic organizations, and social service agencies for providing services to students. The academic component of the program assigns students to small classes to work intensively with highly skilled and experienced teachers on core academic subjects. Teaching is individualized to each student's abilities and learning style, with the goal of bringing the student up to grade-level performance. Students are required to participate in a counseling program conducted by the program's staff psychologist that focuses on personal growth and development. The psychologist is also available to meet with students individually on an as-needed basis. However, students who may need intensive counseling are referred to area community health centers. Additionally, assessments, counseling, and drug awareness education are provided by the substance abuse clinicians. These staff meet with students on both an individual and group basis, but those students needing intensive/ long-term treatment are also referred to the local community health center. Students are encouraged to participate in community service activities, work with a mentor, complete job-training classes, and explore advanced academic course work and post-secondary education. Staff closely monitor student progress. Ratings for each student are based upon attendance, academic performance, disciplinary incidents, and clinical assessments. Although the program was designed under the assumption that the average student would require 2 years of service before returning to the regular school, nearly 45 percent are judged ready after 1 year. Fewer than 15 percent of students entering the program are unable to complete it. More than 25 percent are able to complete some college-level work before leaving the CA program. Borough Academies, New York, New York The Borough Academies, located in New York City, serve students from the entire metropolitan area. The Borough Academies are designed primarily to help students develop positive behavior skills and secondarily to prepare students for entrance into college or a job. Students are provided with the opportunity to earn credits through vocational internships with employers throughout New York City. The key concept at the Borough Academies is behavior change through positive reinforcement and flexibility. Faculty are instructed to always use positive incentives and to present students with attainable goals. Students are told only what they can do, not what they cannot. The Borough Academies encourage flexibility not only from students but also from faculty and administrators. The program's three campuses are located in nontraditional settings -- offices or apartment buildings. The program provides students with a combination of academic and behavior management skills. The model initially focuses on teaching students how to manage their behavior positively. The principal feels that once students are able to manage their behavior they will be better prepared to reach their potential both as students and as citizens in the workplace. Students earn credits toward a New York City High School degree through the three components of the program: academic, guidance, and internship/vocational. Students choose their schedule each day under a program called "free options" whereby they can change the set of classes they attend every day. Students can earn credits as quickly as they want to and work at their own pace. Since the inception of the Borough Academies, two classes have graduated. The Academies have an 86- percent graduation rate, and the majority of the students have gone on to college. Resources Alternative Schools for Disruptive Youth. National School Safety Center (NSSC) Resource Paper, 1987. This research paper presents background information on reasons some youth are disruptive, approaches to alternative education, and alternative schools as a way to provide services to suspended or expelled students. Joy G. Dryfoos, Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Adolescents at Risk provides an overview of prevention programs, practices, and components that appear critical to success regardless of the high-risk behavior the program strives to prevent. Alternative Schools for Disruptive Youth, School Safety, NSSC (winter 1991), pp. 8-11. School Safety, NSSC (winter 1995). This special issue is devoted entirely to alternative education and provides several articles on a range of issues including early identification of problems, State initiatives, adult mentoring, and apprenticeship learning. More information is available from: Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program U.S. Department of Education 600 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, DC 20202-6123 National School Safety Center 4165 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Suite 290 Westlake Village, California 91362 805-373-9977 National School Boards Association 1680 Duke Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 703-838-6722 National Association of State Boards of Education 1012 Cameron Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 800-220-5183 Endnotes 1. National School Safety Center. 1993 (September). "School Safety Update." National School Safety Center News Service, p. 1. 2. National School Boards Association, 1993. "Violence in the Schools: How America's School Boards Are Safeguarding Our Children." Alexandria, Virginia. 3. "Tiny Knife Sets Off Big Debate Over Right To Attend School." Education Daily 28, August 8, 1995 (166): 1-3. ------------------------------ Conflict Resolution Too many of our young people are caught up in conflicts every day that they do not know how to manage -- teasing, jealousy, and physical aggression. Juvenile delinquency and violence are symptoms of youth's inability to manage conflict in their lives. Teaching youth how to manage conflict in a productive way can help reduce incidents of violent behavior. Conflict resolution education is a beneficial component of a comprehensive violence prevention and intervention program in schools and communities. Conflict resolution education encompasses problem solving in which the parties in dispute express their points of view, voice their interests, and find mutually acceptable solutions. Conflict resolution education programs help the parties recognize that while conflict happens all the time, people can learn new skills to deal with conflict in nonviolent ways. The programs that appear to be most effective are comprehensive and involve multiple components such as the problem- solving processes and principles of conflict resolution, the basics of effective communication and listening, critical and creative thinking, and an emphasis on personal responsibility and self- discipline. According to William DeJong, a lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health, "The best school- based violence prevention programs seek to do more than reach the individual child. They instead try to change the total school environment, to create a safe community that lives by a credo of non- violence and multicultural appreciation."1 Most school violence-prevention programs include conflict resolution education. Effective conflict resolution education programs can: o Enable children to respond nonviolently to conflict by using the conflict resolution problem- solving processes of negotiation, mediation, and consensus decisionmaking. o Enable educators' ability to manage students' behavior without coercion by emphasizing personal responsibility and self-discipline. o Mobilize community involvement in violence prevention through education programs and services, such as expanding the role of youth as effective citizens beyond the school into the community. Four Common Strategies for Approaching Conflict Resolution Experts identify four school-based conflict resolution strategies that can be replicated in other settings. These are commonly referred to as: (1) Peer Mediation, (2) Process Curriculum, (3) Peaceable Classrooms, and (4) Peaceable Schools. The Peaceable Schools model incorporates the elements of the other three approaches. In all four approaches, conflict resolution education is viewed as giving youth nonviolent tools to deal with daily conflicts that can lead to self- destructive and violent behaviors. It is up to each local school district to decide how conflict resolution education will be integrated into its overall educational environment. The expectation is that when youth learn to recognize and constructively address what takes place before conflict or differences lead to violence, the incidence and intensity of that situation will diminish.The program examples provided below empower young people with the processes and skills of conflict resolution. However, youth need to know that conflict resolution does not take precedence over adult responsibility to provide the final word in a variety of circumstances or situations. Conflict resolution has a place in the home, school, and community, but it can only supplement, not supplant, adult authority. Peer Mediation Approach Recognizing the importance of directly involving youth in conflict resolution, many schools and communities are using the Peer Mediation approach. Under this approach, specially trained student mediators work with their peers to resolve conflicts. Mediation programs reduce the use of traditional disciplinary actions such as suspension, detention, and expulsion; encourage effective problem solving; decrease the need for teacher involvement in student conflicts; and improve school climate. An example of a Peer Mediation program is We Can Work It Out, developed by the National Institute for Citizenship Education in the Law and the National Crime Prevention Council. The program promotes mediation, negotiation, or other non-litigating methods as strategies to settle unresolved confrontations and fighting. One Albuquerque elementary school principal reported, "We were having 100 to 150 fights every month on the playground before we started the New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolution's Mediation in the Schools Program. By the end of the school year, we were having maybe 10 (fights)."2 Other elementary schools using the same Peer Mediation approach to conflict resolution education reported that playground fighting had been reduced to such an extent that peer mediators found themselves out of a job. Process Curriculum Approach Teachers who devote a specific time -- a separate course, a distinct curriculum, or a daily lesson -- to the principles, foundation abilities, and problem-solving processes of conflict resolution are implementing the Process Curriculum approach. The Program for Young Negotiators, based on the Harvard Negotiation Project, is representative of this approach. Participating students, teachers, and administrators are taught how to use principled negotiation to achieve goals and resolve disputes. This type of negotiation helps disputants envision scenarios and generate options for achieving results that satisfy both sides. In a North Carolina middle school with more than 700 students, conflict resolution education was initiated. The school used the Peace Foundation's Fighting Fair curriculum and a combination of components from various conflict resolution projects. After a school year, in-school suspensions decreased from 52 to 30 incidents (a 42-percent decrease), and out-of-school suspensions decreased from 40 incidents to 1 (a 97-percent decrease).3 Peaceable Classroom Approach The Peaceable Classroom approach integrates conflict resolution into the curriculum and daily management of the classroom. It uses the instructional methods of cooperative learning and "academic controversy." The Educators for Social Responsibility curriculum, Making Choices About Conflict, Security, and Peacemaking, is a peaceable classroom approach to conflict resolution. The program shows teachers how to integrate conflict resolution into the curriculum, classroom management, and discipline practices. It emphasizes opportunities to practice cooperation, appreciation of diversity, and caring and effective communication. Generally, peaceable classrooms are initiated on a teacher-by-teacher basis into the classroom setting and are the building blocks of the peaceable school. Studies on the effectiveness of the Teaching Students To Be Peacemakers program, a Peaceable Classroom approach to conflict resolution, show that discipline problems requiring teacher management decreased by approximately 80 percent and referrals to the principal were reduced to zero.4 Peaceable School Approach The Peaceable School approach incorporates the above three approaches. This approach seeks to create schools where conflict resolution has been adopted by every member of the school community, from the crossing guard to the classroom teacher. A peaceable school promotes a climate that challenges youth and adults to believe and act on the understanding that a diverse, nonviolent society is a realistic goal. In Creating the Peaceable School Program of the Illinois Institute for Dispute Resolution, students are empowered with conflict resolution skills and strategies to regulate and control their own behavior. Conflict resolution is infused into the way business is conducted at the school between students, between students and teachers and other personnel, between teachers and administrators, and between parents and teachers and administrators. In an evaluation of the Resolving Conflict Creatively Program in four multiethnic school districts in New York City, teachers of the Peaceable School approach to conflict resolution reported a 71-percent decrease in physical violence in the classroom and observed 66 percent less name calling and fewer verbal insults.5 Other changes in student behavior reported by the teachers included greater acceptance of differences, increased awareness and articulation of feelings, and a spontaneous use of conflict resolution skills throughout the school day in a variety of academic and nonacademic settings. Conflict Resolution Education in Other Settings The usefulness of conflict resolution programs is not limited to traditional school settings. These programs are also a meaningful component of safe and violence-free juvenile justice facilities and alternative education programs. In these settings, conflict resolution programs are introduced not to replace but to supplement existing disciplinary policies and procedures. When opportunities are created to learn and practice conflict resolution principles and strategies in these settings, youth may receive positive life skills and acquire behaviors to carry with them throughout their lives. No longer do they need to feel that a crosswise look or a cutting remark requires a physical challenge that can lead to violent outcomes. They learn to control their anger and to react in a nonconfrontational manner to diffuse the situation. When youth practice conflict resolution principles and skills on a regular basis, they begin to experience greater satisfaction in their lives. The Youth Corrections Mediation Program of the New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolution teaches youth and staff in juvenile justice facilities communication skills and combines the conflict resolution curricula with mediation. This program has a reintegration component in which families negotiate agreements for daily living before the juvenile offenders return home. The program emphasizes the need to model and practice communication and the problem-solving processes of conflict resolution. By providing alternatives to resolving conflicts, the program gives youth a model for positive expression and the peaceful resolution of problems. An evaluation study of the program reported a 37-percent decrease in disciplinary infractions among youth mediators compared with 12-percent for youth not trained as mediators. This study also found that the recidivism rate among youth trained as mediators was 18-percent lower during the first 6 months after returning to the community than for a control group not trained in mediation.6 The knowledge and skills of conflict resolution give these former offenders the tools to defuse or resist conflict situations and get along better with family, friends, teachers, supervisors, and fellow students or fellow employees. Taking what they have gleaned back into the community and family settings is often the biggest challenge young people face with conflict resolution training, especially when others are not similarly trained. A number of conflict resolution education programs have either originated in the community and moved into the school or moved from the school into the community. Regardless of their origin, the programs enhance the quality of life in the home, school, and community. Parent and community conflict resolution education programs build on and complement the school program. These programs provide common vocabulary and problem-solving processes that serve as critical linkages for youth who have been trained in conflict resolution in schools. Community Mediation Centers Community mediation centers are located in more than 400 communities across the country. These centers, which are typically nonprofit community- based agencies, use trained community volunteers to provide a wide range of mediation services to youth and adults. Through these centers, mediation has been applied in common conflict situations found in the community, schools, and families, such as gangs, business complaints of juvenile loitering, school suspensions, truancy, and parent/child relationships, as well as in juvenile justice settings. Community mediation centers also offer training in conflict resolution processes and skills that may be used effectively in personal and professional life for all age groups. Nationwide community mediation centers have collaborated with law enforcement, schools, and other youth-serving agencies in developing and implementing community-based comprehensive violence prevention and intervention programs. A listing of local community mediation centers is available from the National Association for Community Mediation. (See contact information under "Resources.") Conclusion The effective conflict resolution education programs highlighted above have helped to improve the climate in school, community and juvenile justice settings by reducing the number of disruptive and violent acts in these settings; by decreasing the number of chronic school absences due to a fear of violence; by reducing the number of disciplinary referrals and suspensions; by increasing academic instruction during the school day; and by increasing the self-esteem and self- respect, as well as the personal responsibility and self-discipline of the young people involved in these programs. Young people cannot be expected to promote and encourage the peaceful resolution of conflicts if they do not see conflict resolution principles and strategies being modeled by adults in all areas of their lives, such as in business, sports, entertainment, and personal relationships. Adults play a part in making the environment more peaceful by practicing nonviolent conflict resolution when minor or major disputes arise in their daily lives. Resources Providing guidance on conflict resolution education programs, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the Department of Justice, in partnership with the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program of the Department of Education, has developed a guide entitled Conflict Resolution Education: A Guide to Implementing Programs in Schools, Youth-Serving Organizations, and Community and Juvenile Justice Settings. The guide is designed to be a tool for teachers, administrators, school board members, school site-based management teams, and youth- serving and juvenile justice professionals to use in their strategic planning for implementing conflict resolution education programs that meet their specific needs. It also includes a reading list and annotated lists of conflict resolution programs by approach, resources, and trainers with contact information.In addition to the guide, OJJDP has a videotape from a satellite teleconference on conflict resolution education, which was based on the guide. Experts and practitioners in conflict resolution discussed the benefits and importance of teaching youth the skills to resolve disputes without violence. Model programs across the country were showcased. To receive a copy of either the guide or videotape, contact OJJDP's Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. For information on local community mediation centers, contact the National Association for Community Mediation at 1726 M Street, NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036 or at 202-467-4769, and by fax at 202-466-4769. For information on establishing conflict resolution programs for schools and a list of best practices, contact Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202, 202-260-3954. Endnotes 1. DeJong, W. 1994 (Spring). "School-Based Violence Prevention: From the Peaceable School to the Peaceable Neighborhood." Forum 25:8. 2. Smith, M. 1996. "Strategies to Reduce School Violence: The New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolution," In A.M. Hoffman, ed., Schools, Violence, and Society. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, p. 256. 3. Powell, K.M., L. Muir-McClain, and L. Halasyamani. 1995. "A Review of Selected School- Based Conflict Resolution and Peer Mediation Projects." Journal of School Health 65:10, 429. 4. Johnson, D. and R. Johnson. 1995. "Teaching Students To Be Peacemakers: Results of Five Years of Research." Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 1:4, 424. 5. Metis Associates, Inc. 1990. Resolving Conflict Creatively Program: 1988-89 Summary of Significant Findings. New York: Metis Associates, Inc. 6. Smith, M. 1996. "Youth Corrections Mediation Program: Fact Sheet." Albuquerque: New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolution, 2. ------------------------------ Mentoring In Schools Most adolescents are on the healthy path to productive adult lives. There is evidence, however, that 25 percent of adolescents are at significant risk of veering off that path because they frequently engage in behaviors with negative consequences, such as alcohol or other drug abuse, sexual activity with its potential for sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, truancy, delinquency, or violence. Another 25 percent of adolescents, who engage in fewer of these behaviors, are at moderate risk.1 A 1992 study conducted by the Carnegie Foundation determined that only 60 percent of an adolescent's nonsleeping time is taken up by school, homework, chores, meals, or employment. Many adolescents spend the remaining 40 percent of their nonsleeping time alone, with peers without adult supervision, or with adults who might negatively influence their behavior.2 A recent study found that 27 percent of eighth-graders spent 2 or more hours alone after school and that low-income youth were more likely than others to be home alone for 3 or more hours.3 Similarly, the Study of Causes and Correlates of Delinquency, sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), found the influence of peers and lack of supervision by parents to be strong risk factors in the causes of delinquency.4 It is not surprising, therefore, that most acts of juvenile delinquency take place at the close of the school day, when opportunities for constructive activities are too often unavailable. While these are disturbing trends, there is growing belief that mentoring can, in many instances, help young people change direction and do better academically and socially. Mentoring has been defined as a sustained, close, developmental relationship between an older, more experienced individual and a younger person, with the goal of building character and competence on the part of the protege. Usually the relationship involves regular contact over a sustained period of time and involves mutual commitment, respect, and loyalty. Mentors need not be experts in drug prevention, remedial tutoring, antisocial behavior, or family counseling. Studies have shown that individuals who gain the trust of youth through interaction and time can have great influence on their lives. Users' Guide to Establishing Mentoring Programs The planning stages of developing a mentorship program are very important. Because mentor programs are built on shared trust and respect of the people involved, much care should be given to its implementation. The following steps are loosely based on those developed by the National Association of Partners in Education, a nonprofit organization in Alexandria, Virginia, which has extensive experience in school-community and school-business partnership programs. Coordination and assessment. A small team or group of individuals or staff must work together to plan and execute an effective program. This group must assess the need for mentors and determine what resources are available in the community. In addition to volunteer mentors, assistance in the areas of training, sponsorship of travel, provision of meeting space, and media and communications could be helpful. Setting goals and objectives. For a mentor program to be successful, it must have well-defined goals and measurable objectives. One of the first tasks for the team is to determine what the program's goals and objectives should be. These can vary from broad goals to specific, structured ones. For example, while many school-based mentoring programs focus on upgrading social and academic skills, programs in the past have specified increasing career awareness or a greater understanding of civic responsibility. Recruiting mentors and mentees. The focus of the program should determine the types of individuals to be recruited. Traditionally, there has been a shortage of mentors in most programs. To ensure an adequate number of mentors, they can be recruited through a school's volunteer office, a company's director of public relations, and community organizations that sponsor volunteer programs. Targeted recruiting in local colleges or universities, local newspapers, TV and radio stations, and local businesses is also a good tactic. Senior citizens can be exemplary mentors and may be contacted through senior citizen organizations like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Selecting mentors and mentees. Eligibility screening for participation in mentorship programs could include an application process and review, face-to-face interview, and a reference check for mentors with written eligibility requirements for program participants. It is a good idea not only to get parental consent, but to involve parents to the maximum extent possible by sharing the program's goals and objectives and keeping them informed of specific events. If the mentoring programs have activities off school grounds, careful history checks of applicants are needed. Training mentors. It is recommended that each mentor be trained before he or she is paired with a mentee. Sessions should be used to clarify the program's goals and focus on providing insight into the way young people behave and communicate. Methods for effectively communicating with mentees and their parents and lessons on adolescent development are useful topics for training. Ongoing feedback sessions allow for targeted training and assistance, as well as provide mentors an opportunity to compare notes. Pairing or matching. While most programs use surveys that explore shared interests and hobbies to determine which individuals make good pairs, choosing a good match is as much an art as it is a science. Studies are inconclusive as to whether individuals from similar socioeconomic, racial, or ethnic backgrounds make the best pairs. Flaxman and Ascher believe that more subtle characteristics like caretaking or nurturing styles, energy levels and approach to adventure, or rigidity versus a tolerance for ambiguity and conflict may be better indicators of why relationships flourish or falter.5 When a bad match does occur, steps should be taken to reassign both parties. Organizers must be prepared to deal with other obstacles that may arise, including serious issues of behavior such as violence, drug use, extreme depression, or suicide threats by the young person. Keeping enthusiasm alive. Many mentoring programs fail due to poor participation or absenteeism on the part of the mentor or the mentee. To minimize "dropouts," some programs have pooled mentors so that two or more sets of mentoring pairs meet together. Sometimes dropouts occur due to a lack of initiative on the young person's part or unrealistic expectations on the part of the mentor. Some of these issues can be solved by discussions with the mentor's supervisors or additional periodic training. Enthusiasm can be maintained by frequent interaction among mentors, public recognition ceremonies, positive publicity, and parental participation. Evaluating the program. While program staff naturally prefer to direct resources into the operations of a mentoring program, rather than into its assessment, formal evaluations are an important component in determining which methods or decisions have been successful and should be replicated. They also serve as positive reinforcement to both volunteers as well as the coordinating team. Ideally, evaluations should be planned at the outset of a program and be completed by a third party. However, data that will be used as program variables can be collected along the way. Some examples are length of meetings, location of meetings, length of mentoring relationship, and significant events. Promising Practices There are numerous examples of mentoring programs throughout the country that are sponsored by schools, communities, social and religious organizations, and private corporations. The resource section lists several publications that include a variety of examples. The two mentoring programs listed below have proven effective over time and in evaluations. "Bigs in Blue" is an innovative mentoring program developed by the Big Brothers/Big Sisters mentor program of Warren County, New Jersey. It matches at-risk youth with police officer mentors. They employ prevention and intervention strategies to help youngsters from chaotic home environments cope with peer pressure, succeed in school, and make career decisions and sound lifestyle choices. Evaluations completed by parents, volunteers, and youth indicate reductions in delinquency and court involvement and improvement in school attendance, behavior, and grades.6 Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago, Illinois, the largest public housing development in the country, has implemented a Mentoring and Rites of Passage program designed to assist adolescents in their transition to adulthood. Mentors meet with groups of 10-15 youths of similar ages at least twice a week and address such areas as self-concept, communications and decisionmaking, and cultural heritage appreciation. Evaluations of participants are conducted every 6 months to track their interpretation of standard social interactions and situations, self-reported violent behavior and self-concept, hospital visits related to violence, and calls to the police about violent events in the housing project.7 Research and Evaluation A 1995 evaluation of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters mentoring program conducted by Public/Private Ventures provides evidence that mentoring programs positively affect young people. Those between the ages of 10-16 in the mentoring program were less likely to start using drugs and alcohol and were less likely to be violent. In addition, the study found that participants had improved their school attendance and performance, experienced positive attitudes toward completing school work, and improved their peer and family relationships. The impact was even greater among minority participants: Male and female minority participants were approximately 70 percent less likely to initiate drug use, and female minority participants were 54 percent less likely to initiate alcohol use.8 A 1990-1991 New York City School Volunteer Program evaluation found that participants in their program made significant progress in reading and math, as judged by both teachers and volunteers. They also showed improved self-confidence and a better attitude toward school.9 Resources The Department of Justice, through OJJDP, is providing funding to 41 mentoring programs under the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP). An evaluation of the JUMP is being conducted currently to determine its effectiveness and lessons learned in preventing delinquency. For more information on these mentoring programs and the evaluation, contact OJJDP at 202-307-5914. U.S. Department of Education. One on One, A Guide for Establishing Mentor Programs. Washington, D.C., 1990. This guide discusses the nuts and bolts of establishing a mentor program, from needs assessment and working with parents to evaluating the program. It also includes examples of successful programs and suggestions on selection, training, and tracking mentors as well as on recruiting participants. Bryan, Samuel; Ahoun, Nilofer; and Garcia, Jill. Know Your Community: A Step by Step Guide to Community Needs and Resource Assessment. Chicago: Family Resource Coalition, 1996. A practical guide for communities and program directors that includes surveys, questionnaires, and focus group questions. Flaxman, Erwin and Ascher, Carol. Mentoring in Action: The Efforts of Programs in New York City. The Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, April 1992. Examines the operation of 21 youth mentoring programs in New York City. Walker, Gary and Freedman, Marc. Social Change One on One, The New Mentoring Movement. The American Prospect, July-August 1996. Endnotes 1. Dryfoos, J.G. 1990. Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention. London: Oxford University Press. 2. Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. 1994 (April). A Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Out-of-School Hours. New York: Carnegie Foundation. 3. National Center for Education Statistics. 1990. National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: A Profile of an American Eighth Grader. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. 4. Thornberry, T.P., D. Huizinga, and R. Loeber. 1995. The Prevention of Serious Delinquency and Violence: Implications From the Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Delinquency. In J.C. Howell et al., eds. Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5. Flaxman, E. and C. Ascher. 1992 (April). Mentoring in Action: The Efforts of Programs in New York City. New York: Ford Foundation. 6. Barnes, L. 1992 (Fall/Winter). Police Officers at Heart of Bigs in Blue Program. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America. 7. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1996 (March). Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 8. Tierney, J.P., J.B. Grossman, and N.L. Resch. 1995 (November). Making A Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 9. Klein, S. 1991 (October). 1990-1991 Survey of Program Effectiveness Among Volunteers and Teachers. Prepared for the New York School Volunteer Program, Inc. Stockbridge, MA: Sue Klein Marketing Consultant. ------------------------------ Information Sharing and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Schools are often called upon to provide information regarding current or former students to a variety of individuals and organizations. For example, social service agencies, law enforcement agencies, youth-serving organizations, and health agencies often seek information concerning students to whom they are providing services. While the sharing of information contained in records systems (education and law enforcement records) maintained by the school is critical to the effective delivery of services, it cannot be done indiscriminately because Federal laws restrict the release of information contained in a student's education records. Enacted in 1974, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the privacy interests of students and parents through standards designed to discourage abusive and unwarranted disclosure of a student's education records. FERPA provides parents access to education records and limits nonconsensual disclosure. Failure of an educational agency or institution to comply with FERPA can result in the loss of Federal funding. Many State and local educational agencies and institutions narrowly interpret FERPA in their information release policies. Educators frequently decide to err on the side of caution by establishing policies recognizing a generalized right to privacy with regard to all information on students. Unfortunately, overly restrictive policies pose significant obstacles to meaningful information sharing between agencies. The Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) amended FERPA to permit educators, pursuant to a State statute, to disclose information to State and local officials, as long as the disclosure concerns the juvenile justice system. As a result, schools in States that have passed such statutes may now disclose information on students to other local and State agencies. For example, the State of Florida enacted legislation requiring the State's Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) to establish an early delinquency intervention program with the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, district school board personnel, the office of the State's Attorney, the office of the Public Defender, and community service agencies that work with children. The Florida law specifies the type of information the cooperating agencies are to share with the DHRS and directs specified agencies and persons to cooperate with law enforcement agencies with regard to releasing information about juvenile offenders. Frequently Asked Questions What is FERPA? FERPA is a Federal law that affords parents the right to have access to their children's education records, the right to seek to have the records amended, and the right to have some control over the disclosure of information from the records. When a student turns 18 or enters college, the rights under FERPA transfer to the student. What is an "education record"? FERPA defines "education record" as a record that contains information directly related to a student and that is maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for such agency or institution. The following types of records are examples of education records: report cards, surveys and assessments, health unit records, special education records, or information about parents maintained by a school. What type of information is included in an education record? FERPA does not address the types of information a school may or may not maintain in education records. Rather, FERPA affords parents and eligible students rights with respect to any education records maintained by an educational agency or institution. However, as noted above, the term "education record" is very broad and, with limited exceptions, includes most information that schools maintain on students. Who controls or manages an education record? Each educational agency or institution determines which officials are responsible for maintaining education records and for ensuring that parents are afforded their rights under FERPA. What is a "law enforcement unit record"? A "law enforcement unit record" is a record that is maintained by a law enforcement unit of the school or school district that was created by that law enforcement unit for the purpose of law enforcement. What is a "law enforcement unit"? A "law enforcement unit" is an individual, office, department, division, or other component of a school or school district, such as a unit of commissioned police officers or noncommissioned security guards, that is officially authorized or designated by the school district to (1) enforce any Federal, State, or local law or (2) maintain the physical security and safety of schools in the district. Larger metropolitan school districts, such as the Houston (Texas) Independent School District, employ commissioned police officers who have the responsibility of enforcing laws. However, many smaller school districts do not hire commissioned police officers but rather officially designate an individual in the district with the responsibilities of a law enforcement unit. What information can be shared from a law enforcement unit record? FERPA does not prohibit the sharing of information from a law enforcement unit record. A record such as a crime or incident report that is created and maintained for a law enforcement purpose is not protected from disclosure by FERPA. Although a student's education records may be shared with a school's law enforcement unit, the law enforcement unit may not disclose the education records without prior parental or student consent (if the student is 18 years or older) or under a specified exception in FERPA. What information from an education record can be shared with (1) other law enforcement entities and (2) non-law enforcement entities? Subject to certain exceptions, FERPA provides that schools must obtain written consent from a parent or guardian before disclosing education records to a third party. However, there are several exceptions to this general rule. One exception allows a school to disclose information from a student's education records to appropriate authorities in connection with an emergency in order to protect the health or safety of a student or other individuals. Another exception allows a school to disclose information from a student's education records in compliance with a lawfully issued subpoena or court order. Generally, before complying with a subpoena or court order for education records, a school must make a reasonable effort to notify the parent. However, a school need not notify the parent if the subpoena or court order has been issued for a law enforcement purpose and the court or other issuing agency orders that the existence or contents of the subpoena not be disclosed. Nothing in FERPA prevents a school official from disclosing to local law enforcement authorities information that is based on that official's personal knowledge or observation and not from an education record. Schools may also disclose any information on a student, without the parent's prior written consent, to officials of another school where the student seeks or intends to enroll. Additionally, Federal, State, and local educational authorities may be provided information on students in connection with an audit or evaluation of Federal or State-supported education programs or with the enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements that relate to those programs. Does FERPA permit schools to work effectively with juvenile justice system agencies to address juvenile violence and delinquency? Yes. As previously noted, FERPA allows schools -- while maintaining compliance with the law -- to play a vital role in a community's efforts to identify at-risk and delinquent youth and provide services before a child becomes involved in serious and violent crime. As more and more States establish programs for the sharing of information designed to serve students as part of a juvenile justice system, the emphasis on neighborhood school participation in interagency information- sharing agreements will increase. FERPA need not be a barrier to this progress toward proactive information-sharing networks. How can a school obtain technical assistance on FERPA? The U.S. Department of Education and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Department of Justice, are working together to develop and publish a guidebook entitled FERPA: Schools and Interagency Communication for Delinquency Intervention and Prevention for educators and juvenile justice professionals who are interested in developing interagency information-sharing agreements. The guidebook is designed to eliminate areas of ambiguity and provide clear guidance for allowable information sharing while maintaining State and local compliance with FERPA. The Family Policy Compliance Office in the U.S. Department of Education is responsible for administering FERPA. Any educational agencies or institutions with specific questions on FERPA needing technical assistance or desiring inservice training may contact the Family Policy Compliance Office, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202- 4605. Additionally, institutions may contact the office by e-mail at FERPA@ED.Gov or by calling 202-260-3887. ------------------------------ Effective Data Collection for Safe Public Schools Exemplary Practices Schools and school districts around the Nation vary widely in whether and how they collect and track data on incidents of student violence and discipline. However, without accurate and consistent data to analyze, it is difficult for educators, parents, and communities to draw conclusions on the impact of any policy relating to safer public schools, much less to determine which schools are doing a good job and where resources should be concentrated. To help communities address this vital need, the following examples of exemplary data collection strategies being used by certain school districts in the country have been compiled. These examples may assist local education agencies looking for better methods of information gathering to develop a system that best suits their needs. Elements of a Good Data Collection Strategy As more and more school districts recognize the benefits of accurate data, they will want to share "best practices." One of the best suggestions for school districts to begin a data collection process is to talk with other school districts with similar information needs. The school districts should also: o Start with a clear and concise policy regarding discipline, conduct, and safety in the school. o Involve parents, law enforcement, youth service agencies, lawmakers, and other community members in the development of a data collection strategy. o Make any automated system easy to learn and use. o Establish parameters with the community of data users. For example, establish whether the system will record weapons violations by combining all weapons violations under one category, by identifying firearms versus knives versus explosives, or by distinguishing among types of firearms. o Explore State statutes or regulations regarding data collection and release of information. o Ensure student privacy by deleting any student identifier, such as name or social security number. (A section in this guide, "Information Sharing," further explores the topic of student records and privacy). o Review data periodically to ensure data integrity; a system is only as good as the information included. o Take every opportunity to use the information in a positive and constructive manner, emphasizing intervention and prevention. Norfolk Public School District Norfolk, Virginia SMART Program The Norfolk Public School District's School Management and Resource Teams (SMART) program was funded by a joint grant from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. The Norfolk effort establishes a team for each school and decentralizes responsibility for discipline to those teams. Part of the SMART program includes an Incident Profiling System (IPS) that is a simple- to-use, computerized tracking system available in each of Norfolk's schools. Data are collected on the nature of the violation, location of the incident, and the disciplinary action taken. Student names are not included. Using this data, school teams identify three primary patterns of disruption within their school, report to the district level, and work together to recommend solutions for improvement. Benefits. This school district believes that the SMART process has contributed to a steady decline in the number of incidents as well as in the seriousness of the incidents. The data collected in IPS allow month-by-month tracking and year-over- year comparison to be done quickly. The data also become the basis for interacting with other agencies like the juvenile courts and have resulted in targeted police monitoring of truancy. During parent conferences, teachers can access a student's record in the IPS (which also includes class schedules, test scores, and grade point average), allowing for a holistic approach to student progress. More Information: Bill Delk Director of Pupil Personnel 804-441-2811 Dade County Public Schools Miami, Florida SPAR System Dade County Public Schools use a computer system called School Police Automated Reporting (SPAR) to record incidents of violence involving students. Once an incident occurs on a school campus, on school-sponsored transportation, or even off- campus, the school notifies the Dade County Public Schools (DCPS) Police Department. The DCPS Police enters the incident information into the SPAR system, and a unique SPAR number is assigned. By assigning a SPAR number to each incident of violence, the system links the district's data base for student discipline with that of the local schools' computers. Each school has access to the SPAR number as well as to the information entered, and makes disciplinary decisions. The schools are responsible for updating the system with any relevant information on the incident. The SPAR system enables teachers and authorized persons to obtain "batch" or profile reports that can identify student demographics and incident details such as number of students involved, type of violation, location of incident, and type of disciplinary action taken. A summary report is submitted annually to the Florida Department of Education. Benefits. SPAR's ability to produce so many different types of reports aids security personnel and administrators in developing individual school security plans. More Information: E.O. "Red" McAllister Chief of Police 305-754-9630 Anaheim Union High School District Anaheim, California IPS The Anaheim Union High School District is the designated West Coast Resource Site for school districts interested in implementing the SMART (School Management and Resource Team) program. As part of this program, the Incident Profiling System (IPS), which operates on the school district's computers, is used by each school to record all disciplinary infractions and criminal acts, including law violations and education code violations. The IPS generates reports describing patterns of disruptions and crimes. Data are reviewed by teams at all school sites each month and are used to problem-solve as well as to set goals and determine solutions for the sites. The district's SMART committee reviews the data based on a districtwide concern for monitoring activity and developing prevention strategies. Data are used on a regular basis by site administrators to monitor student behavior and to develop intervention, support, or disciplinary plans. Benefits. IPS helps the school district to: o Obtain objective incidence data that indicate the levels of safety in schools. o Analyze data in order to eradicate race and gender disparities in referrals and suspensions. o Reduce paperwork. o Precisely identify and target specific problems. o Strengthen the school improvement process. o Collect informal incident reports, enabling a proactive approach to discipline. More Information: Bob Montenegro Safe Schools Administrator 714-999-5655 Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools Nashville, Tennessee AIMS System Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools use the Automated Information Management System (AIMS) to record data and create reports on student violations. When an incident of violence occurs in this system, the principal makes a verbal report by telephone to the school's director of administrative services. From the director's office a typewritten account of the incident, called an Infogram, is created to alert the Board of Education about the matter. Eventually, the principal completes a Student Incident Report, which compiles the details and the outcome of the violation. Once the disciplinary action to be taken is determined, secretaries at each school enter actions taken with reason codes into AIMS. School personnel download the information each attendance period into the mainframe, from which printouts of suspension data may be obtained. Based on the information entered into AIMS, various types of reports can be generated. For example, suspension data can be retrieved from AIMS according to school, grade, gender, race, or any other variable already in the system. More Information: Joseph Anderson Director of Safety and Security 615-259-8747 Detroit Public Schools Detroit, Michigan AIMS The Detroit Public Schools use the Automated Information Management System (AIMS) for processing code of conduct violations that warrant suspension, transfer, or expulsion. Once a student's guilt is established, AIMS assigns a unique identification code to the incident and codes the incident type, location, disciplinary action taken, and any other pertinent information. In addition to reporting all incidents of violence to the Student Code of Conduct Office, serious incidents, which include assaults that require medical attention and those that result in arrest, are also reported to the Public Safety Office. Detroit's system allows school personnel to generate year-to-year comparisons and reports by month, semester, or school year. Reports may also be categorized by district, area, gender, grade level, and school. Benefits. By keeping a record of students who are in the suspension track, AIMS ensures due process of rights for students and parents. This is important because no student may be transferred out of her or his school without justification and proof from AIMS that all other options and interventions have been exhausted. Resources For those school districts interested in comparing their statistical information to national data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) at the Department of Justice attached a School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 1988. Based on students ages 12-19 enrolled in a school program leading to a high school diploma, the information includes student demographic characteristics, violent and property victimization data, fear of crime measures, drug and alcohol availability, weapons use, and school security measures. The BJS report based on this study, School Crime, is available from the BJS Clearinghouse (800-732-3277) or may be downloaded from the BJS World Wide Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/). The data file used to produce the report may be obtained on diskette from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data by calling 800-999-0960, or from their World Wide Web site (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/ nacjd/home.html). A replication of this study, funded by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) was attached to the NCVS in 1995 and is currently being processed and analyzed. Measures are similar to those included in the 1988 study but provide expanded information on weapons prevalence and use, measures of gang presence and activity, and school characteristics derived from NCES files. The reports should be available in early 1997. ------------------------------ Resources Federal Clearinghouses The Federal Government funds a variety of clearinghouses. Each clearinghouse usually deals with a specific topic (e.g., drug abuse, delinquency) or Federal agency. These clearinghouses distribute a variety of materials: program models, grant information, research and evaluation findings, newsletters, and funding announcements. Clearinghouses can usually refer callers to other Federal clearinghouses and to non-Federal foundations and associations dealing with the same subject matter. Housing and Urban Development Drug Information and Strategy Clearinghouse P.O. Box 6424 Rockville, MD 20849 Telephone: 800-578-3472, 301-251-5222 Fax: 301-251-5767 National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) P.O. Box 2345 Rockville, MD 20847 Telephone: 800-729-6686, 301-468-2600 Fax: 301-468-6433 Child Abuse and Neglect Clearinghouse 3998 Fair Ridge Dr., Suite 350 Fairfax, VA 22033 Telephone: 800-394-3366, 703-385-7565 Fax: 703-385-3206 National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: 800-851-3420 Fax: 301-251-5212 NCJRS serves as a single point of contact for the following offices: o Bureau of Justice Assistance o Bureau of Justice Statistics o National Institute of Justice o Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention o Office of National Drug Control Policy o Office for Victims of Crime [NCJRS also has electronic resources, which can be found in the section on Federal Online Services.] Federally Funded Resource Centers Selected listing of centers dealing with youth and crime/violence prevention: Regional Educational Laboratories Northeast and Islands Laboratory at Brown University 222 Richmond Street, Suite 300 Providence, RI 02903-4226 Telephone: 401-274-9548, 401-421-7650, 800-521-9550 States Served: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for Student Success Temple University/Center for Research in Human Development and Education 933 Ritter Annex, 13th St. and Cecil B. Moore Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19122 Telephone: 215-204-3030, 800-892-5550 Fax: 215-204-5130 States Served: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. Appalachia Educational Laboratory P.O. Box 1348 Charleston, WV 25325-1348 Telephone: 304-347-0400, 800-624-9120 Fax: 304-347-0487 States Served: Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia Southeastern Regional Vision for Education (SERVE) University of North Carolina at Greensboro 201 Ferguson Building Greensboro, NC 27403 Telephone: 910-334-3211, 800-755-3277 Fax: 910-334-3268 States Served: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina North Central Regional Educational Laboratory 1900 Spring Road, Suite 300 Oak Brook, IL 60521-1480 Telephone: 630-571-4700, 800-356-2735 Fax: 630-571-4716 States Served: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street Austin, TX 78701-3281 Telephone: 512-476-6861, 800-476-6861 Fax: 512-476-2286 States Served: Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory 2550 S. Parker Road, Suite 500 Aurora, CO 80014 Telephone: 303-337-0990 Fax: 303-337-3005 States Served: Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development and the Southwest Regional Laboratory 730 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: 415-565-3000 Fax: 415-565-3012 States Served: Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 101 SW Main Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 503-275-9500, 800-547-6339 Fax: 503-275-9489 States Served: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington Pacific Region Educational Laboratory 828 Fort Street Mall, Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813-4321 Telephone: 808-533-6000 Fax: 808-533-7599 States Served: American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei, and Yap), Guam, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers These centers, funded by the Department of Education, offer technical assistance across a broad range of educational topics, including safe and drug-free schools. Region I: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont Education Development Center, Inc. 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02158-1060 Telephone: 617-969-7100, ext.2310 Fax: 617-332-4318 Region II: New York State New York University New York Technical Assistance Center 82 Washington Square East, Suite 72 New York, NY 10003-6644 Telephone: 212-998-5110 Fax: 212-995-4199/4041 Region III: Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington, DC George Washington University 1730 North Lynn Street, Suite 401 Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: 703-528-3588 Fax: 703-528-5973 Region IV: Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc. P.O. Box 1348 Charleston, WV 25325-1348 Telephone: 304-347-0441 Fax: 304-347-0489 Region V: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center 3330 Causeway Boulevard, Suite 430 Metairie, LA 70002-3573 Telephone: 504-838-6861 Fax: 504-831-5242 Region VI: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin 1025 West Johnson Street University of Wisconsin Madison, WI 53706 Telephone: 608-263-4326 Fax: 608-263-3733 Region VII: Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma University of Oklahoma 100 ASP, Room 210 Norman, OK 73019 Telephone: 405-325-1711 Fax: 405-325-1824 Region VIII: Texas Intercultural Development Research Association 5835 Callaghan Road, Suite 350 San Antonio, TX 78228-1190 Telephone: 210-684-8180 Fax: 210-684-5389 Region IX: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah New Mexico Highlands University 121 Tijeras, NE, Suite 2100 Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: 505-242-7447 Fax: 505-242-7558 Region X: Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 101 Southwest Main Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: 503-275-9479 Fax: 503-275-9625 Region XI: Northern California Far West Laboratory for Educational Research 730 Harrison Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: 415-565-3009 Fax: 415-565-3012/2024 Region XII: Southern California Los Angeles County Office of Education 9300 Imperial Highway Downey, CA 90242-2890 Telephone: 310-922-6319 Fax: 310-922-6699 Region XIII: Alaska South East Regional Resource Center 210 Ferry Way, Suite 200 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: 907-586-6806 Fax: 907-463-3811 Region XIV: Florida, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands Educational Testing Service 1979 Lake Side Parkway, Suite 400 Tucker, GA 30084 Telephone: 770-723-7443 Fax: 770-723-7436 Region XV: American Samoa, Federated States of Micronesia, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawaii, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau Pacific Region Educational Laboratory 828 Fort Street Mall, Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: 808-533-6000 Fax: 808-533-7599 Other Resource Centers Families, Communities, and Schools Center on Families, Communities, Schools, and Children's Learning Boston University 605 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA 02215 Telephone: 617-353-3309 Fax: 617-353-8444 National School Safety Center 4165 Thousand Oaks Boulevard Suite 290 Westlake Village, CA 91362 Telephone: 805-373-9977 Fax: 805-373-9277 National Resource Center for Family Support Programs Family Resource Coalition 200 South Michigan Avenue, 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: 312-341-0900 Fax: 312-341-9361 Victims National Resource Center on Child Abuse and Neglect American Humane Association Children's Division 63 Inverness Drive East Englewood, CO 80112-5117 Telephone: 800-227-5242, 303-792-9900 Fax: 303-792-5333 Crime Prevention National Crime Prevention Council 1700 K Street, NW Second Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-466-6272 Fax: 202-296-1356 For a complete listing of federally funded Resource Centers contact: National Center for Service Integration Clearinghouse c/o Child and Family Policy Center 128 6th Avenue Fleming Building, Suite 1021 Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: 515-280-9027 Fax: 515-244-8997 Federal Online Services The Federal Government funds several online services that include information on youth crime prevention and youth development. These services are available through the Internet. PAVNET A cooperative online effort of several departments, PAVNET lists over 550 specific Federal, local, and private programs and initiatives that deal with violence prevention. via gopher: pavnet.esusda.gov PAVNET can also be accessed through the NCJRS electronic services (see below). PAVNET User's Guide is available through NCJRS at 800-851-3420. Access is free of charge. PREVLINE Managed by NCADI and funded by HHS, PREVLINE has information and materials on alcohol and drug abuse, conferences, grant announcements, keynote speeches, and press releases; provides forums and electronic mail for exchange of ideas and topics by prevention professionals. via modem: 301-770-0850 via telnet: ncadi.health.org Access is free of charge. CANnet The Child Abuse and Neglect Network allows professionals working in the fields of child maltreatment and child welfare easy access to information from the Child Abuse and Neglect Clearinghouse and the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN). Contact CANnet for a UserID: via phone: 800-394-3366 via e-mail: nccanch@clark.net National Criminal Justice Reference Services (NCJRS) Online Services JUST INFO Electronic Newsletter: listproc@ncjrs.org Information/assistance via e-mail: NCJRS general information -- look@ncjrs.org Answers to questions -- askncjrs@ncjrs.org ------------------------------ Additional Readings 1. Preventing Juvenile Gun Violence in Schools: Brewer, D., J.D. Hawkins, R.F. Catalano, and H.J. Neckerman. (1994). Review of Prevention Programs: Community Laws and Policies Related to Weapons. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc. Butterfield, G.E., and J.L. Arnette (Editors) (1993). Weapons in Schools. Malibu, CA: National School Safety Center. Comprehensive Health Education Foundation. (1994). Preventing Violence: A Framework for Schools and Communities. Seattle, WA. Massachusetts Prevention Support Services. (1994). Words, Not Weapons: A Resource Manual for School Administrators, Advisors, and Peer Leaders. Boston, MA. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (May 1996). Reducing Youth Gun Violence: An Overview of Programs and Initiatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 2. Searches for Weapons and Drugs: Cavin, J.D. (1992). "Shedding Remedies At The Schoolhouse Gate: The Severe Limitations To Section 1983 Civil Rights Actions In School Search Cases." Journal of Juvenile Law 13: 116-126. National School Safety Center (November 1994). "Conducting Student Searches Under the Law." School Safety Update. Westlake Village, CA. Rubin, D.B. (Summer/Fall 1993). "Passing Through the `Schoolhouse Gate': Constitutional Implications of Preserving Student Safety." Children's Legal Rights Journal 14 (3-4): 28-33. Van Dyke, J.M., and M. Sakurai. (1993). Checklists for Searches and Seizures in Public School. Deerfield, IL: Clark Boardman Callaghan. Wylie, N., J. Scheft, and J. Abramson. (July 1993). "Search and Seizure In Schools: Commonwealth v. Carey and Commonwealth v. Snyder." Law Enforcement Newsletter 2 (4): 6-10. 3. Drug Testing Student Athletes: Deivert, R.G. (1991). "Role of the Constitution in the Drug Testing of Student Athletes in the Public Schools." Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 36 (2): 32-41. Knapp, C.F. (1990). "Drug Testing and the Student- Athlete: Meeting the Constitutional Challenge." Iowa Law Review. 76 (107): 107-138. 4. Truancy: Dembo, R., and G. Turner. (Fall 1994). "Study of Truants Processed at the Hillsborough County Juvenile Assessment Center." Journal of At-Risk Issues 1: 38-42. Diebolt, A., and L. Herlache. (1991). School Psychologist as a Consultant in Truancy Prevention. Arlington, VA: Eric Document Reproduction Service of Paper Presented at Annual Convention of National Association of School Psychologists. Dreilinger, M. (1992) School Attendance, Truancy and Dropping Out. Huntington, NY: Bureau For At- Risk Youth. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1990). "New Approach to Runaway, Truant, Substance Abusing and Beyond Control Children." Juvenile and Family Court Journal 41 (3B): 9-49. Rohrman, D. (January 1993). "Combating Truancy in Our Schools: A Community Effort." NASSP (National Association of Secondary School Principals) Bulletin. 5. Uniforms: National School Safety Center (March 1994). "Restricting Gang Clothing in the Public Schools." School Safety Update. Tanioka, I., and D. Glaser. (September 1991). "School Uniforms, Routine Activities, and the Social Control of Delinquency in Japan." Youth and Society 23 (1): 50-75. 6. Alternative Education Programs for Expelled Students: Allen, S.D., and D.R. Edwards-Kyles. (Winter 1995). "Alternatives to Expulsion: Houston's School of Last Resort." Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems 3 (4): 22-25. Glass, R.S. (November 1994). "Alternative Schools." American Teacher 79 (3): 10-11, 18. Uroff, S., and B. Greene. (November 1991). " Low- Risk Approach to High-Risk Students." NASSP (National Association of Secondary School Principals) Bulletin 75 (538): 50-58. Wehlage, G. (Fall 1991: Special Issue). "School Reform for At-Risk Students." Equity and Excellence 25 (1): 15-24. 7. Conflict Resolution: Guerra, N.G., A. Moore, and R.G. Slaby. (1995). Guide to Conflict Resolution and Decision Making for Adolescents. Champaign, IL: Research Press Company. Hamburg, D.A. (1994). Education for Conflict Resolution. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Prothrow-Stith, D., and M. Weissman. (1996). Conflict Resolution Programs Can Prevent Youth Violence. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 8. Mentoring in Schools: Benard, B. (1992). Mentoring Programs for Urban Youth: Handle With Care. Portland, OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities. Boseman, V. (1992). Hand-in-Hand Mentor Program, Replication Manual. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. National Association of Partners in Education (NAPE). (1992). Organizing Effective School-Based Mentoring Programs. Alexandria, VA. Schneider, S. (Winter 1995). "Young Leaders Mentoring Troubled Children." Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems 3 (4): 31-33. 9. Information Sharing and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act: Laney, R. (July 1996). Information Sharing and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, and Family Policy Compliance Office, U.S. Department of Education. (October 1996). FERPA: A Guide for Educators' Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 10. School and Community Delinquency Prevention and Intervention Programs: Advertising Council, Inc., and the National Crime Prevention Council. (1995). Partner With the Media To Build Safer Communities: An Action Kit. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1996). Combating Violence and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Summary). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Costello, L. (Ed.). (1995). Part of the Solution: Creative Alternatives for Youth. Washington, DC: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, National Endowment for the Arts, and U.S. Department of Justice. Goodnow, M. (August 1996). The Gould-Wysinger Awards: A Tradition of Excellence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Kracke, K. (June 1996). YES: Youth Environmental Service Initiative. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Prevention Council. (1995). Crime Prevention Starts at Home: Setting the Stage for Community Action To Prevent Violence and Other Crimes. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Prevention Council. (1995). Three Hundred Fifty Tested Strategies To Prevent Crime: A Resource for Municipal Agencies and Community Groups. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. National School Boards Association. (1993). Violence in the Schools: How America's School Boards Are Safeguarding Your Children. Alexandria, VA. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (September 1995). Matrix of Community- Based Initiatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (November 1995). Delinquency Prevention Works. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (April 1996). Curfew: An Answer to Juvenile Delinquency and Victimization? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. President's Crime Prevention Council. (1995). Preventing Crime and Promoting Responsibility: 50 Programs That Help Communities Help Their Youth. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, GPO. Weitz, J.H. (April 1996). Coming Up Taller: Arts and Humanities Programs for Children and Youth At Risk. Washington, DC: President's Committee on the Arts and the Humanities. Wilson, J.J. and J.C. Howell. (1993). Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Witt, P.A., and J.L. Crompton (Eds.). (1996). Public Recreation in High Risk Environments: Programs That Work. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. ------------------------------ Contact Information Recognizing that each of you -- whether you are a parent, school administrator, teacher, or community or business leader -- can be at the forefront of making schools safer and more conducive to high-quality teaching and learning, we invite your suggestions on topics and issues that would be most helpful for future Information Briefs to help you implement your own programs to achieve safe and orderly schools. Please feel free to contact us at the locations listed below. Department of Education: Via Internet: SAFESCHL@ed.gov By regular mail: Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program U.S. Department of Education 600 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20202-6123 Department of Justice: By regular mail: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office of the Administrator U.S. Department of Justice 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20531