MENU TITLE: Challenge Activities Program Areas- Challenge Activity H.
Series: OJJDP
Published: Fall 1995
16 pages
31,406 bytes

Challenge Activities
Program Areas

Challenge to the States

The 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 added
Part E, State Challenge Activities, to the programs
funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The purpose of Part
E is to provide initiatives for States
participating in the Formula Grants Program to
develop, adopt, and improve policies and programs
in 1 or more of 10 specified Challenge areas.

Challenge Activity H

Developing and adopting policies and programs
designed to serve as alternatives to suspension and
expulsion from school.

Addressing Disciplinary Problems: Suspension and
Expulsion

Suspension and expulsion are increasingly being
used to combat crime and violence in America's
schools. In October 1993, President Clinton visited
Carlmont High School in Belmont, California, to
praise the school's zero tolerance policy for guns
and to sign an Executive Memorandum on
implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994
and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Act.1 "Zero tolerance is a common sense policy,"
the President said. "Young people simply should not
have to live in fear of young criminals who carry
guns to schools."2

Congress has also addressed the problem of school
violence in Goals 2000, the Educate America Act. It
states that by the year 2000, every school in
America will be free of drugs and violence and will
offer a disciplined environment conducive to
learning.3

A growing number of education officials are
confronting students caught with weapons with a
strict new edict: one strike and you're out.4 With
States at risk of losing Federal funds if they do
not adopt mandatory expulsion rules for students
caught with guns, the trend is clear.

Beginning this year, all public schools in Michigan
must expel first- through fifth-graders caught with
a weapon. Fresno, California, school officials are
instituting a similar policy, starting in fourth
grade. Students in Broward County, Florida, now can
be expelled simply for threatening violence.5

Traditionally, schools have used suspension or
expulsion to punish students with disciplinary
problems and to maintain an atmosphere in which
learning can take place. According to the U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights
projected national data, in 1992 there were
2,353,722 children suspended from public schools.
Of these suspended children, 1,201,409 were white;
792,739 were black; 295,967, Hispanic; 38,785,
Asian; and 24,733, American Indian (Office of Civil
Rights, 1992). In the National School Boards
Association (NSBA) survey published in 1993, 78
percent of school districts surveyed reported the
use of suspension as a means of preventing violence
in the schools. More districts used suspension than
any other alternative. Expulsion was the fourth
most widely used alternative, with 73 percent of
districts reporting its use,6 but its rank is
moving upward. In Fairfax County, Virginia, cases
of expulsion increased sharply from 14 in the 1985-
1986 school year to 133 in 1993-1994. Of more than
1,200 third- through twelfth-grade students
surveyed by Metropolitan Life, 15 percent reported
that they had been suspended or expelled from
school at some time. Half of these students had
poor grades, and one in four lived in a
neighborhood with some or a lot of crime.7 The
District of Columbia recently approved its first
year-long expulsion policy for students caught with
weapons. Previously, schools largely relied on
month-long suspensions (more than 500 in 1993-
1994).8

School districts may use in-school or out-of-school
suspension, or some combination of both. The
continuum of options ranges from timeout areas, to
use of conflict resolution techniques, to onsite
suspension, to complete expulsion--the last fast
becoming the option of choice when students bring
weapons to school.9 Community-centered schools may
offer an alternative to students who have been
expelled, have truancy problems, or cannot function
in regular school programs. These schools provide
individual attention, academic and social skill
building, and community and family support.10 

The newest expulsion laws, such as Michigan's, do
not require the school system to create alternative
programs for students caught with weapons. This has
raised questions about whether more emphasis should
be put on trying to rehabilitate students who are
expelled. On the other end of the spectrum, New
Jersey officials created alternative education
sites in every county just for expelled students;
in San Diego, more than 300 expelled students were
sent to alternative programs during the first year
of the city's zero tolerance policy.11

In the NSBA survey, suspension and expulsion were
found to be only moderately effective. As one
respondent said, "Allowing a kid to sleep late,
watch television, and spend a day unsupervised is
hardly a punishment for most students." Another
respondent noted, "Suspensions do not work.
Students don't care whether they are suspended or
not."12 Unfortunately, schools may suspend or expel
students with disciplinary problems rather than
address the underlying causes of their behavior.
These disciplinary tactics will often reinforce the
students' negative behavior and stack the deck
against low-income and minority students.
Exclusionary practices, such as suspension,
expulsion, and transfer, can perpetuate racial and
class stratification because a disproportionate
number of urban African-American and Hispanic
students come from circumstances that interfere
with productive school behavior.13 Research has
shown that the indicators used by school
disciplinarians to identify at-risk students place
those students at risk of dropping out of school.
Out-of-school suspension or expulsion may also
increase the chances that at-risk students will
become involved in daytime crime. School officials
have often made arbitrary decisions to suspend or
expel students for off-campus offenses. The
decisions made in several lower Federal and State
court cases indicate, however, that students cannot
be excluded from school for off-campus crimes
unless they pose a threat of danger to those at the
school.14

In-school suspension (ISS) is a popular alternative
to out-of-school suspension or expulsion. A survey
of New York school districts found that 97 percent
of senior high schools surveyed had some type of
ISS program.15 In-school suspensions have the
advantage of barring students from regular
classrooms while requiring their attendance in a
special classroom where they can continue with
their school work. Suspended students may move to
another classroom, a separate suspension room, or a
separate campus and still be counted as present for
the purposes of school attendance.

ISS rules must be reasonable, not punitive.
Students should know the rationale for the
restrictions and should not view the program solely
as a method of punishment.16 A fully documented
written statement of circumstances should given to
the staff, the student, and parents, and the
student should be afforded minimal due process
rights under Goss v. Lopez.17 For example, the
California guidelines for safe schools recommend
that administrators keep accurate and detailed
suspension and expulsion records, including teacher
referrals, school security referrals, and
disciplinary or counseling responses, as well as
suspension, transfer, and expulsion letters.18 One
to 3 days is sufficient for suspension in most
cases. A review of the student's progress should be
made for any stay longer than that. Ideally, the
suspension program should work with parents,
provide equal or superior instruction for the
student, and offer counseling, support services,
and followup when possible.19

Although most ISS programs emphasize discipline and
partial exclusion, they can offer an option, if
used carefully and conscientiously, that lies
between detention and out-of-school suspension. One
study revealed that alternative programs were
successful only insofar as they increased students'
social involvement and attachment to school.20 In
light of this, some school districts have
successfully modified traditional suspension or
expulsion programs.

Promising Programs

The programs that follow are just a sampling of
promising approaches being implemented across the
country. Contact information for these and other
programs is listed in the Resource Section at the
end of this paper. Most of the programs are
described more thoroughly in School Safety (Winter
1995), which focuses on model alternative programs
that work.21 As noted in that issue by Ronald D.
Stephens, Executive Director of the National School
Safety Center, alternative opportunities for
disruptive youth may vary from district to
district, but most have the following
characteristics in common:

o Lower student-to-staff ratio.

o Carefully selected personnel.

o Strong leadership.

o Early identification of student risk factors and
problem behaviors.

o Districtwide support of the programs.

o Intensive counseling/mentoring.

o Pro-social skills training.

o Emphasis on parental involvement.

o Very strict behavior requirements.

o Curriculum based on real-life learning.

Forest Lake Area Youth Services Bureau Suspension
Program. This program is offered to students as an
alternative to suspension from school. It provides
a supervised and structured environment for
students during suspension, which prevents further
problems that could occur while a student is out of
school unsupervised. The program gives students and
families access to additional services available
through the Youth Services Bureau, such as
individual and family counseling. They may also be
referred to outside agencies for appropriate
services.

Students are referred to the suspension program by
school administration. The Youth Services Bureau
sets up an intake session for the student and
parents to meet with an outreach worker. They
discuss the student's functioning in school, at
home, and in the community. Together, they set
goals for the student in a "Plan for Action"
contract, which is used to monitor his or her
progress upon returning to school. During their
suspension period, students report to the Youth
Services Bureau during school hours and are
expected to work on school assignments, read books,
or work on activities arranged by staff. They also
complete daily evaluations of their progress, which
are submitted to their school when they return.

Contact:
Barbara Swanson
Forest Lake Area Youth Services Bureau
407 South Lake Street
Forest Lake, MN 55025
612-494-3685

Buechel Metropolitan, Louisville, Kentucky. The
Jefferson County Public Schools in Louisville,
Kentucky, created Buechel Metropolitan as an
alternative school for students who are suspended
or expelled from regular school because of
disruptive behavior. Buechel can service a maximum
enrollment of 300 middle and high school students.
To earn their way out of Buechel, students must
maintain an 85 percent attendance record, receive
no out-of-school suspensions, pass the majority of
their classes, and receive staff approval to return
to their assigned school.

Buechel's staff is the key to its success.
Everyone--from the bus driver to the principal--is
committed to helping students succeed. Buechel
provides a highly structured, disciplinary program
with clearly defined and consistent consequences
for inappropriate behavior. In addition, a variety
of incentives and field trips are offered for
improved attendance, grades, and behavior. What
works at Buechel? Discipline, positive
reinforcement, community involvement, structure,
and the staff's ability to change attitudes.

Contact:
Maurice Risner
Buechel Metropolitan High School
1960 Bashford Manor Lane
Louisville, KY 40218
502-473-8316

Raymond Telles Academy, El Paso, Texas. The Raymond
Telles Academy was built to address the problems of
potential dropouts from the El Paso Independent
School District. All who attend the academy follow
the district's management plan, which sets forth
specific rules of conduct and general behavioral
requirements, and provides sanctions against
students not following the rules and regulations.
The students range in age from 12 to 19 years and
were recommended for expulsion from their regular
schools for a variety of offenses. 

The academy operates on a strict point and level
system. Students earn points for appearance,
attendance, grades, and behavior. As students learn
to comply with these four essentials, they begin to
move up from level one to level four. When they
reach level four, they are eligible for
consideration to return to their assigned schools.
The entire program is bolstered by intensive
counseling and parental involvement.

Contact:
Charles F. Hart, Jr.
Raymond Telles Academy
320 South Campbell
El Paso, TX 79901
915-542-0336

Tri-A, St. Louis, Missouri. After 10 years as an
effective alternative for students with serious
behavior problems, St. Louis Public Schools' Tri-A
Outreach program expanded to a second location for
the 1994-1995 school year. Tri-A stands for
assessment, assignment, and adjustment. Potential
enrollees, including expelled students and
dropouts, are assessed, assigned to the program,
and provided with individualized instruction and
counseling. Nearly all of the staff members
teaching and administering the Tri-A program have
asked for the assignment, after building impressive
records in dealing with at-risk students at regular
schools.

With the cooperation of area businesses, the
effectiveness of Tri-A has been augmented in recent
years by the use of work-study programs, which
build a larger sense of responsibility in the
students. Summer programs for at-risk students also
have helped reduce the probability of Tri-A
students dropping out between semesters.

Contact:
Larkin Williams
Madison Tri-A Academy II
1118 South Seventh Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63104
314-231-1778

Lapham Park Assessment/Support Center, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. When it first opened in January 1984,
Lapham Park was considered a "last chance" for
students before expulsion. Its population grew to
include a great number of students coming back to
Milwaukee Public Schools from incarceration and
residential treatment, as well as those returning
from expulsion and administrative transfers for
violent behavior or weapon possession.

The most comprehensive of Milwaukee's alternative
education programs, Lapham Park provides students
with many varied and positive school experiences in
a caring and nurturing environment that is
conducive to personal well-being. Students attend
six classes. Reports to parents are issued every 6
weeks at conferences; a minimum of three
parent/guardian conferences are required each
semester. Each student is assigned a psychologist
and a guidance counselor, who work with both the
student and the parent. All students are assigned
through the Department of Student Services and are
returned to regular schools or programs after
completing the Lapham Park program.

Contact:
Dorothy Johnson
Lapham Park Assessment and Support Center
1758 North Ninth Street
Milwaukee, WI 53205
414-263-5070

Palm Beach On-Line High School, Florida. The Palm
Beach County School District found a unique
alternative for expelled and adjudicated students.
A combination of computer-assisted instruction and
telecommunications provides students uninterrupted
access to coursework from any remote location.

For disruptive students whose conduct prohibits
attendance in a regular program, the remote access
enables students to either maintain their
educational services and progress or complete a
substance abuse program while off campus. The
program is based on individual need under the
philosophy that the bottom line is helping kids.
On-Line High School is in operation 24 hours a day,
360 days a year, and offers 90 courses.

During its first year, On-Line High School served
87 students. As a direct result, 28 were able to
graduate on time. In many cases, flexible contracts
between schools and students defined expectations
and responsibilities. Costs are negligible since
readily available standard modems, phone lines, and
low-power computers are used. The program requires
only one instructor per network server. Best of
all, many students who had failed in the regular
classroom setting experience success working at
their own pace and tracking their accomplishments
one course at a time.

Contact:
David Brann
On-Line High School
School District of Palm Beach County
Suite A-242
3314 Forrest Hill Boulevard
West Palm Beach, FL 33406-5869
407-434-8350

Long Beach Alternatives to Expulsion. Juvenile
offenders in Long Beach have a new alternative to
the California Youth Camp or returning to the
streets: jobs and mandatory continuation of high
school classes. The Alternatives to Expulsion
program involves the juvenile court judges, the
district attorney's office, the police and
probation departments, the Board of Education of
the Long Beach Unified School District, the City of
Long Beach, and the Los Angeles County Office of
Education. It also enlists the Long Beach
Conservation Corps and the Job Training Partnership
Act (JTPA) to provide two antidotes to crime: jobs
and education. The key to the program is community
partnership.

Students involved in a variety of disruptive
offenses are suspended, appear in juvenile court,
and are offered a choice that beats the streets or
incarceration. Students enroll in alternative
classes and then work 4 hours a day in a job, where
they earn a stipend. Working and studying lasts
either one semester or a full year, depending upon
the length of the expulsion and the seriousness of
the offense.

Contact:
Steve Fish
Alternatives to Expulsion Long Beach Unified School
District
701 Locust Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90813
310-436-9931, ext. 1620

Moving Forward Program, Pensacola, Florida. The
Moving Forward Program of the Escambia County
School District is designed as a positive
alternative for students in grades 9 through 12 who
are disruptive in a traditional school setting. The
program is a collaborative effort of the school
district and the 100 Black Men of Pensacola, Inc.,
a nonprofit organization of businessmen, attorneys,
physicians, dentists, educators, and other
professionals who are dedicated to improving the
quality of life for community youth. Program staff
include a full-time coordinator/counselor, a
teacher, and program/intake specialists. Volunteer
mentors work with students on an individual basis,
and satellite services are provided by a principal
and a psychologist. Requiring a minimum stay of 4
weeks, the program provides intensive academic
support and counseling.

Contact:
Ronald Taylor
Moving Forward Program
Escambia County School District
1700 West Jackson Street
Pensacola, FL 32501
904-435-3263

Other Approaches

Some researchers believe that an in-school
suspension plan should not be the first response to
a disciplinary problem, but that energy should be
directed toward understanding the cause of the
problem. Many schools have begun to experiment with
innovative approaches to discipline problems in
schools, particularly those that involve violent
conflicts. Conflict resolution, peer mediation, and
law-related education are alternatives that have
been used successfully in some districts. Mediation
and conflict resolution programs offer viable
alternatives to suspension and expulsion that
address students' needs rather than removing them
temporarily or permanently from the school setting.
Utilizing these types of programs has enabled many
school districts to reduce suspensions by 50 to 70
percent.22 Examples of established conflict
resolution, peer mediation, and law-related
education programs follow. Additional projects and
organizations that support these approaches are
listed in the Resources section.

Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP), New
York City, New York. Begun in 1985 by the New York
Public Schools and Educators for Social
Responsibility, RCCP is considered one of the most
promising antiviolence programs in existence. This
program has an in-class mediation component that
teaches young people to resolve conflicts
peacefully. It now serves 70,000 young people in
180 schools throughout New York City. This
comprehensive program includes all K-12 students--
those at risk, and those not--as well as parents
and administrators. The program shows children how
to handle conflicts nonviolently through
perspective taking, cost-benefit analysis,
decisionmaking, and negotiation. Another dimension
of the program is peer mediation, which trains
selected groups of students in mediation skills so
that they can serve their schools as conflict
managers. A recent evaluation by Metis Associates,
Inc., found that more than 80 percent of both
teachers and students stated that they had been
helped by mediators. RCCP is now being piloted in
four other school systems in Alaska, California,
Louisiana, and New Jersey.23

Project SMART (School Mediators' Alternative
Resolution Team), Brooklyn, New York. This
school-based mediation program teaches mediation,
recruits mediators, conducts multicultural
awareness training, mediates conflicts, and
provides followup on all cases to determine whether
all parties are complying with the agreement. Since
Project SMART began in 1983, more than 230 students
and 64 adults have completed the 24-hour training,
and more than 6,300 students have attended
seminars. SMART mediators have helped resolve
nearly 775 disputes. Suspensions for fighting have
decreased dramatically.

Temple-LEAP (Temple-Law, Education, and
Participation), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This
project of the Temple University School of Law
teaches conflict resolution through the prism of
law-related and civic education (LRCE) to help
people of all ages and backgrounds to get along. It
views conflict resolution as an essential feature
of LRCE; law is an important method by which
society attempts to regulate conflict and prevent
violence. Temple-LEAP provides public and private
schools, community groups, juvenile justice
programs, and other agencies across Pennsylvania
and the surrounding region with LRCE-based violence
prevention training and education materials.
Temple-LEAP promotes conflict resolution education
for students of all ages and encourages the
development of cross-age community experiences with
a violence prevention focus. Temple-LEAP's conflict
resolution work is built on the belief that
training in this area provides individuals with an
understanding of themselves, others, rules, laws,
and the legal system.

Conclusion

Designing programs that offer viable alternatives
to permanent suspension and expulsion is no easy
task. As noted by the National School Safety
Center, a long-term solution will require educators
and administrators to work with parents, law
enforcement officials, and the community to
implement the best strategies to alleviate violence
in our nation's schools.24 The programs described
here offer hope, and they may serve as models for
other districts to take up the challenge.

Resources

Programs

Alternative to Expulsion Program, Cleveland Public
Schools, 1380 East Sixth Street, Cleveland, OH
44114; Susan Peters, Program Administrator: 216-
523-7993.

Baltimore County Public Schools, Towson, MD 21204;
410-887-4310.

Behavior Change Program, Broward County Public
Schools, 600 Southeast Third Avenue, 10th Floor,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301; 305-765-6271.

Benson Union High School District, P.O. Box 2030,
Benson, AZ 85602; 602-586-2213, ext. 616.

Chesterfield Communities In Schools, P.O. Box 10,
Chesterfield, VA 23832; 804-560-5706.

City-As-School, Buffalo Alternative High School,
D'Youville College, 320 Porter Avenue, Buffalo, NY
14201; 716-888-7185.

Children's Creative Response to Conflict, P.O. Box
521, 523 North Broadway, Nyack, NY 10960-0271; 914-
353-1796.

Clark County School District, Alternative Education
Division, 2701 East St. Louis Avenue, Las Vegas, NV
89104; 702-799-8625.

Community Board Program, 1540 Market Street, Suite
490, San Francisco, CA 94102; 415-552-1250; Fax
415-626-0595.

DeKalb County School System, Student Relations,
School Psychologist, 3770 North Decatur Road,
Decatur, GA 30032; 404-297-1200.

Educators for Social Responsibility, School
Conflict Resolution Programs, 23 Garden Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138; 617-492-1764.

Fairfax County Public Schools, Alternative Schools,
Belle Willard Administrative Center, 10310 Layton
Hall Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030; 703-246-7780.

Fulton County School System, 786 Cleveland Avenue
SW., Atlanta, GA 30315; 404-763-6790.

Houston Independent School District, Hattie Mae
White Administration Building, 3830 Richmond
Avenue, Houston, TX 77027; 713-892-6300.

John H. Martyn High School, 1108 Shrewsbury Road,
Jefferson, LA 70121; 504-833-3711.

Mesa County Valley School District 51, 310 North
Seventh Street, Grand Junction, CO 81501; 303-242-
4350.

New Chance Program, Don Bosco Center, Kansas City
School District, 531 Garfield, Kansas City, MO
64124; 816-691-2900.

New Start Program, Granite School District, 4055
South 2300 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84124; 801-273-
2161.

Northdale Magnet Academy, 1555 Madison Avenue,
Baton Rouge, LA 70802; 504-383-1812.

Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP), 163
Third Avenue, Room 113, New York, NY 10003; 212-
387-0225.

Safe School Initiatives, New Jersey State
Department of Education, CN 500, Trenton, NJ 08625;
609-292-0321.

Zero Tolerance Program, San Diego City Schools,
4100 Normal Street, Annex 8, San Diego, CA 92103;
619-293-8420.

Organizations

American Bar Association, Center on Children and
the Law, 541 North Fairbanks Court, Chicago, IL
60611-3314; 312-988-5731.

Center for Civic Education, Law in a Free Society,
5146 Douglas Fir Road, Calabasas, CA 91302; 818-
591-9321.

Consortium of Universities, National Institute for
Citizen Education in the Law (NICEL), 711 G Street
SE., Washington, DC 20003; 202-546-6644.

Constitutional Rights Foundation, 601 South
Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90005; 312-663-
9057.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6000,
Rockville, MD 20849-6000; 800-638-8736.

National Association for Mediation in Education
(NAME),205 Hampshire House, Box 33635, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-3635; 413-545-
2462; Fax 413-545-4802.

National Institute for Citizen Education in the Law
(NICEL), 711 G Street SE., Washington, DC 20003;
202-546-6644; Fax 202-546-6649.

National Institute for Dispute Resolution (NIDR),
1726 M Street NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036;
202-466-4764.

National School Boards Association (NSBA), 1680
Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; 703-838-6722;
Fax 703-683-7590.

National School Safety Center, 4165 Thousand Oaks
Boulevard, Suite 290, Westlake Village, CA 91362;
805-373-9977; Fax 805-373-9277.

Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center, 1511 K
Street NW., Washington, DC 20005; 202-638-2919.

Endnotes

1 "Memorandum on Implementation of Safe Schools
Legislation," Weekly Compilation of Presidential
Documents 30(43), October 31, 1994.

2 Remarks by the President to the students of
Carlmont High School and in signing the
presidential memorandum "Zero Tolerance for Guns in
Schools." October 22, 1994. Belmont, CA.

3 NSBA. 1993, p. 4.

4 Sanchez, R. "Expulsions Becoming Popular Weapon
in U.S. Schools," The Washington Post January 20,
1995, p. A-1.

5 Sanchez, R. The Washington Post January 20, 1995,
p. A-1.

6 NSBA. 1993, p. 7.

7 The Metropolitan Life Survey of the American
Teacher, 1993: Violence in American Schools. New
York: Louis Harris and Associates, p. 54.

8 Sanchez, R. The Washington Post January 20, 1995,
p. A-1. 

9 Ibid.

10 National School Safety Center (NSSC). 1990.
School Safety Check Book. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine
University Press, p. 21.

11 Sanchez, R. The Washington Post January 20,
1995, p. A-17.

12 NSBA. 1993, p. 8.

13 Bowditch, C. 1993. "Getting Rid of
Troublemakers: High School Disciplinary Procedures
and the Production of Dropouts." Social Problems
40(4):493-509.

14 Hobbs, G.J. 1977. "In-School Punishment for
Out-of-School Offenses." Georgia Association of
Middle School Principals Journal 1(2)(Fall):54-59.

15 Foster, H.L., and H.R. Kight. 1988. A Study of
Current In-School Suspension Programs in New York
State. Buffalo: State University of New York,
Institute on Classroom Management and School
Discipline, p. 11.

16 Garibaldi, A. 1982. "In-School Suspension." In
D.I. Safer (ed.), School Programs for Disruptive
Adolescents. Baltimore: University Park Press, pp.
311-312.

17 National School Resource Network (NSRN). 1981
(April). School Discipline Handbook. Washington,
DC, p. 35.

18 California Department of Education. 1989. Safe
Schools: A Planning Guide for Action. Sacramento,
CA, p. 24.

19 NSRN. 1981, p. 35.

20 Gottfredson, D. as cited in Gaustad, J. 1992
(December). School Discipline. Eugene: University
of Oregon, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management.

21 School Safety. The National School Safety Center
News Journal. Winter 1995. Malibu, CA: Pepperdine
University Press.

22 American Bar Association. 1993. America's
Children at Risk: A National Agenda for Legal
Action. Washington, DC, p. 31.

23 DeJong, W. 1994 (August). Building the Peace:
The Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Juvenile Justice Programs, National Institute of
Justice.

24 NSSC. School Safety Work Book. 1995.

------------------------------

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention acknowledges the outstanding
contributions made by Lynn Cothern, independent
consultant, and Eileen M. Garry of the Juvenile
Justice Resource Center, in the development of this
paper.

This document was prepared under contract number
OJP-94-C-004 from the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department
of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position or
policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of
Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the
National Institute of Justice, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.