In an attempt to describe the level of problem behavior in schools, learn about the measures that schools are taking to prevent problem behavior and promote safety, and to examine the use of funds allocated through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), the U.S. Department of Education initiated the Study on School Violence and Prevention, was a cooperative effort between the Department of Education and the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. In this second report, an intensive level study was conducted to gather extensive qualitative and quantitative information from a purposive sample of 40 public secondary schools. The quantitative information represents each school with fairly high precision and the qualitative information provides details and insights that are typically unavailable with surveys. Key findings from the study were divided into four sections: (1) disorder in schools; (2) efforts to prevent problem behavior; (3) planning; and (4) distinguishing middle schools with different levels of disorder. Overall, in regards to disorder in schools, the study found that the vast majority of the schools had relatively low levels of serious crime, the fear of disorder did not seem to interfere with the learning process, and schools used similar discipline procedures but differed in how they recorded and used incident data. Efforts to prevent problem behavior were described in four categories: prevention activities, school security, school discipline practices and policies, and school climate. The types of school-level planning structures varied across schools. All the schools had at least one school-level planning structure that regularly assessed the need for reduction or prevention of problem behavior. In comparing schools across the high and low disorder groups along various characteristics, middle schools were compared based on having higher levels of disorder than high schools. Results indicated that school and community characteristics were seen as important. In addition, higher disorder schools tended to have higher levels of poverty, unemployment, and other risk factors and have more programs targeting the prevention of problem behavior. In comparison low disorder schools were characterized as having strong principals, school staff that viewed themselves as team workers, actively involved teachers, and positive relationships among staff and students. A limitation of the study is that the sample varied little on the measures of safety used for the intensive level limiting the ability to compare and contrast characteristics in safe and unsafe schools. Tables and appendix