-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/d387b98de04f3a54cec25703e5747b33.pdf
5256eb4a5c19254bf37f5ea33545ec61
PDF Text
Text
School Safety
Coordinated Grants
•.
Potential elements of comprehensive approach to school safety that could be supported by
grants from ED,Justice and HHS:
school-based programs
parents -- support, groups, parenting skills
prevention programs
law enforcement programs
counseling and intervention
mentoring
community-based programs
•
Grants/programs that could be coordinated w/o significant legislative/regulatory hurdles
•
Other grants/programs to consider
•
Types of coordination:
FY99
working with sites already receiving multiple grants; providing T A for coordination
FY 2000
single application process
coordinated technical assistance
joint announcement/separate applications
evaluation
�Record Type:
To:
Record
Michael Cohen/OPD/EOP, Jonathan H. SchnurIOPD/EOP, Tanya E. Martin/OPD/EOP, Christa
Robinson/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject: Ed Event Real People
Per Paul Begala, we are putting together a list of real people (e.g., not electeds) who have
introduced the President at education. events (or who have written letters to the President that you
know about) and whose stories really exemplify why we are working so hard on:
1. School Construction (e.g., a student or teacher or a principal etc. from a school where classes
are held in trailers, or walls are falling. down).
~
2. Standards (e.g., a student, teacher, principal or parent re: high expectations, etc, )
3. Class Size/1 00,000 teachers (parent esp. would be good).
We need to pull this together ASAP, so any help you could give us would be most appreciated
�Interagency Initiative to Reduce School Violence
Draft Concept: 8/26/98
Recent incidents and the upcoming White House Conference on School Violence provide
a unique opportunity for this Administration to implement a coordinated program to reduce
school violence in 15-20 communities. Over the next two years we can demonstrate the
difference federal agencies, working together, building upon our existing experience with
conununity-based initiatives, coordinating our existing funding, and applying our best
.
,
knowledge, can make on a distinct and critical social issue. The joint initiative, which could be
announced at the White House Conference, would demonstrate the commitment of the federal
agencies to making schools, and the environment around them, safe for young people to learn
and grow.
Over the lifetime of the Clinton Administration, a number of interagency 'efforts have'
been implemented that seek to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children, families and
communities. From each of these efforts, lessons about implementing these initiatives have been
learned and documented. Evaluation results, process summaries and preliminary findings from
these and private efforts collectively fonn a sound basis and methodology for the federal
agencies to collectively impact the issue of school violence. This impact can only be brought
about when the federal government's various efforts are combined in a coherent targeted
strategy.
The goal ofthe proposed joint initiative is to focus the lessons leamed of this
Administration to improve the way the federal governril~t supports state and local government
in meeting the educational and safety needs of children, including the needs of their families and
communities. The initiative would allow the various federal agencies to blend existing
appropriations and discretionary dollars into one composite solicitation which would be issued in
Fall 1998. Some funds could be transferred to key partner agencies to minimize constraining
regulations that might be associated with certain funds. Funded activities might include, but are
not limited to:
•
Programs for parents that improve their parenting skills) provide support groups, and
increase parent-child interactions funded through the Department ofHea.lth and Human
Services.
•
Job training. placement and creation supported through the Department of Labor.
School·based programs. alternative schools. after school and safe passage escort
program's that target truancy, school failure, violence, teen pregnancy, anti-social
behavior, and drug and alcohol abuse supported through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUn), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and Department of Education·s.Twentieth
Century Learning Centers. America Reads and Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.
�u" ,. ;,: ti, <J"
•
II
t.j) 11. 1;': t:u ;,: u.:
.j
u I ;,: U ::I ,J
U,J ·J1)/
Arts based prevention programs, youth leadership and service learning andyouth
employment sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, Department of Labor
and Corporation for National Service.
Law-enforcement programs such as community policing, police liaisons to community
schools, tracing guns taken from juveniles, arbitration/mediation programs supervised by
law enforcement representatives, gang and gun prevention and intervention, School
Resource Officers and school-law enforcement links supported by COPS and ATF.
~'
I
Counseling and intervention services involving parents, families, and juveniles in
managing stress, conflict resolution, and reducing violent behavior supported through the
NIMH, SDFS and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
Mento ring supported by OJJDP's Juvenile Mentoring Program_
•
Extension programs focused on safety and learning supponed by the Department of
Agriculture.
•
Comprehensive community mobilization provided by local youth/family service systems,
school-business pannerships, community forums, and educational activities for the entire
commWlity supported by ONDCP's Drug Free Communities, CSAP, the Departments of
Commerce, Housjng and Urban Development and Treasury and OJIDP's Title V
Community Prevention Grants.
The initiative would pool up to $45 million to support 15 cominunities at $3 million each. In
addition, each agency would be responsible for providing training and technical assistance to the
commWlities in their area of expertise.
Three million dollars would be set aside for evaluation. Specifically, the evaluation would track
the individual projects and examine the impact ofthe overall program as well as certain projects.
It is anticipated that each community would implement a range of interventions and approaches
which would vary from one community to another. The initiative and its evaluation would serve
to assess the effectiveness of these various interventions and approaches.
The significance of this initiative is that, instead of requesting new financial support for a new
initiative with 2.S years remaining in the Clinton Administration, we can do a lot by coordinating
what we already have in place and committing adequate resources in a coordinated way to make
a difference. By providing one application for mUltiple programs - something communities
have long requested from us, focusing attention and resources on the critical issue of school
violence, and evaluating our progress, the joint initiative win respond to what we know
communities need and take us in the direction the federal government must necessarily go.
2
�\l
J
J
J
J
. J
J
J
J
J
J
i
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
. J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
j
�u " " ~ ti,
::J 0
II
t. V 11. 1 ~ !- .i..~
~ U":
.j U
I
;.;
U ::J .J
•
•
Law-enforcement programs such as community policing, police liaisons to conununity
, schools, tracing guns taken from juveniles, arbitration/mediation programs supervised by
law enforcement representatives, gang and gun prevention and intervention, School
Resource Officers and school-law enforcement links supported by COPS and ATF.
•
Counseling and intervention services involving parents, families, and juveniles in
managing stress, conflict resolution, and reducing violent behavior supported through the
NIMH, SDFS andoOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).
•
Mentoring supported by OJJDP~s Juvenile Mentoring Program.
•
,o.
Arts based prevention programs. youth leadership and service learning and youth
employmen.t sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, Department of Labor
and Corporation for National Service.
Extension programs focused on safety and learning supponed by the Department of
Agriculture.
•
Comprehensive community mobilization provided by local youth/family service systems,
school-business partnerships, conununiry forums, and educational activities for the entire
commurutysupported by ONDCP's Drug Free Communities, CSAP, the Departments of
Commerce, Housing and Urban Development and Treasury and OJJDP' s Title V
Community Prevention Grants. '
I
The initiative would pool up to $45 million to support 15 communities at $3 million each. In
addition, each agency would be responsible for providing training and technical assistance to the
communities in their area of expertise.
Three million dollars would be set aside for evaluation. Specifically. the evaluation would track
the individual projects and examine the impact of the overall program as well as certain projects.
It is anticipated that each community would implement a range of interventions and approaches
which would vary from one community to another. The initiative and its evaluation would serve
to assess the effectiveness of these various interventions and approaches. .
.
The significance ofthis initiative is that, instead of requesting new financial support for a new
. initiative with 2.5 years remaining in the Clinton Administration. we can do alot by coordinating
what we already have in place and committing adequate resources in a coordinated way to make
. a difference. By providing one application for mUltiple programs -- something communities
have long requested from us, 'focusing attention and resources on the critical issue of school
violence, and evaluating our progress, the joint initiative wi1l respond to what we know
communities need and take us in the direction the federal government must necessarily go.
2
��Tanya E. Martin
08/27/98 04:41 :00 PM
}
Record Type:
To:
.
Record
Michael Cohen/OPD/EOP, Leanne A. Shimabukuro/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject: Working Group on Coordinated Grants
Below are the suggestions from Ricki Seidman and Bill M on who we should invite to the initial
meeting on the coordinated safety grants. They left a few decisions for us:
(1) OMB they suggested starting towards the top and inviting Sylvia Mathews, as opposed to all
the various PAD/branch chiefs. (Seems like that might make this a broad mix of staffing levels at
the meeting) Mike, .any thoughts on who we should invite from OMB?
(2) Treasury Leanne, Ricki thought that you might have some guidance as to who in Treasury to
invite that would be in a position to get this moving in that agency.
In some instances where they were unsure of where to go, they invited the Chief of Staff. For
consistency reasons, should we invite all COS from the agencies below? Or ask all COS to attend
with whatever program person they want to bring?
I will work
Education
t~
get this scheduled for early
n~x~
week, as soon as I hear your thoughts on the list.
Bili M, Charlotte Gillespie, Ann. O'Leary ..
HHS -- Ann Rosewater
HUD -- John Gallen (COS)
ONDCP -- Dan Schecter
. COPS -- John Hart
. Labor -- Lee Saterfield (COS)
AG -- Chief of Staff
OMB -- Sylvia Matthews
Treasury -- ??
�I
--'-~--r:-:-I'~-------'---------~-----~--~-
~_-~--.l~_-_l4J_-\1U£ - -:3<.o.j\.,'~~~O
•
>
,
- _~_'_ _ _ _ _._ __
'
: f
;:pI
,
, ,
.
'
_
I
I"~
.
'.
------~.- ! - . ; . - - - - - - _ . --~---~·------~------I
,
.,
_ _ _ _ _ "_.. .-!-..o.c_._ _. _ ._ __
�I' ,
I·
I
1
i
I;
i!
I
I., :
,
.
I ,
lS -;){j) ,s-~-=-=---J_ _ _ _ __
---@
•
I,
~~~~~ -~~-----------~~_\JW~~\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----,--_ _ __
==--
;'
,
i
:;,-J:.9~'
Q~\S'____ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
-(9I,s. ~
;:
-----~--~~~,
~"
.1_
~-~F------------------------
____~-------~~w-~3~,----~---------~
I
--------i-:.,..,-;- - - - - - , - -\-1_~
i
~~_Cfvv\.=.-!.....:!.!.~~~:...:-~ - - - - - - - - - -
-'
=--=--l>--'-=j-:
;;-;;-~;;;;;:::::::::::::;;==--;;-;;-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==--4~,--=
----~::~,~l-~~~1~ ~-'----------------~--
i
:
�"
,
,
"I
,I
,"
"":'\.
/__~_.-~J~~~
\
--:;.7,'
~~~~'~(_~'.~,
____~____~~____________
1
'
,
,
"
,-
G9- ,~
,
I
~
CW(~t-
~~~~-~
~lA'~~ --
V\~ '~
:;1
I
'
'
I
~~
'I
~
~~'~"",6 ecA
'I
;,1
'I
,,
, ,I
:,!
./
~f.6~ .-- £~~ ~li ~\-, €vr ~VV\'
,~
- l~_c£_~~~t.
,
, :1
;
1
"
,
"
"
£ ,Nu~
I
,
:
~
-)w-t:~
- 41
.;.
i
~.
..
"
I
tb £ Li /r
l
)
,}o~~
re~
(Q..Q.lc:-'-
~
\-l
~
.sLl
~'
v'
~
~\'-
JEdH_l
"
I
-'----
-
- '{\Qw~
"
:;
.
- l~\'At~
,
.'--
{d.. ~
k'
CI
I
,
~.
"
,
~
~LJ
'~j~'~~T-~
~J.
,~~.A.
,
I
,
,
-
,-g~~ ""
'
cvAJ-' --- ~l~,J=
_~
~
--~-~- ,- --CY'~:
~
~~-;-\:
-,
, c;,
'U,
I;K
---J---~/~~-
,
---'
Iii'
,·1
,
~-----.--.~
~y'"
rete
~~
-C~J ~
-<.M,.
c
lw ~otcl..
PU(A.{'-.\. --~,t
I
"
Of.AI'
�I'
,I
.j!
I,I
I
I' '
I!:~
_ _- l- -'I~I
\
S:Jl,S /1-r:-----~-----------~I~::,------------~~~~---~~ ~=~____________~____________
11 i
! i,
,
,
i' '
______-+!~:____~_-~~~~ ~~~-~'~~L--------------------___
;:
J,
I:
i, :
~
j
!
I, '
I'
I, '
"
I:'
:
[
Ii'
,
,
!II
,'
I'i:
,I!
I' •
i!
~
!
~
.'
..
'
Ii'
i' :
"
'
"
,,,
1.
,
,
"
'
,
, i
.
'"
~ sl.
�'I
"
'I
I
,
-
c~
-7
:::::J~
----' \...L'
- iJ" iIi1r1
I
~u. lc;'-~
;'i
'"
i'l
~~t--
do
eM.,
-
-
~~
A
:
,
"
"
e;.\,J,
"
(9~
I
"
I
\,.LV-
"
:
(g ~v's
,!
,
'(,.
.~
~(i.JL
- ::rv.!.~ I. 6-<. V'~/_'t-~~
"
'i
I"it
C Sv \:.~ (,ok
~CM\~c;..
i ,(
';1
'
-
v.-
~\\U
'\.-L ~)
I
-
,
ff'.
~ JI
,I
~l~~_(\R~\~t ' '(k.Jk,..,
,I
i
"
: '!
I
:,,
1:1
,!
,
"
"
~~
,
,
:
-----0\ ~'J\(~w>
- ~\,t \.},\l ,,\~~,
(
"
,
"
~ ~~
,
- ~~~_ " cA~Cx,k: "
,
.
I
~ h'
'
, - 5;:1'
l
~
'l
ft
~ ,~",'
"
:
'J
-"
~ --~ . ~i~ ~.l.
l
"
~(;\r\t-, ,
~cY,
l(/- .......
'
~~\~
~\A
,~
.f,
"
,
..
'ct~'~
#
I : ~
-
~'
"
,
I
I.!
,
1,1
,
,
-
"
,
�I:
, .'
I'
1
,
I '
. Ii:,
,
I'
I
i
!;
!
!
i: :
I
, '
i: .
I '
-~~=!~~~~~~~~~~-
I;:
----~~I;l-~---Jl-------------r---------------------~----
______-+~__~======~~_____ ,~~l----------------~---::
\-
I' .
i: :
.
c/
~7~'--:--------
_JJ_~_o"_~~c!_J~~--.:.'----'s-~~ )J:. . . : :-~-r·. . . ,-c------.,.---.~
___
;:..l--'
, .
; i
, .
b
.
�THE WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCHOOL SAFETY
PLANNING MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 11, 1998
I.
Conference program outline
II.
Breakout sessions wi Cabinet Members and What Works panel
•
morning sessions
•
afternoon panel -- what works
•
III.
.Cabinet Affairs issues
Satellite broadcasts -- non-conference content
IV. Meeting with representatives of communities recently impacted by
. school violence.
V.
Policy issues planning update
. Annual Report on School Safety
announcements of policy - rs-\J: '--"~grants - ~ '" \.L\--L- .
other deliverables .
VI .
Leg issues
. VII. Selection of participants and guests
VIII. Reception -- including other funding issues
IX.
Press and Communications issues
X.
Scheduling issues
�-~~
September 1, 1998
WORKING DRAFT
Proposed Program for White House Conference on School Safety
October 15, 1998
Theme:
Reaching Out: Safe & Healthy Families, Safe & Healthy Children, Safe & Healthy
Communities Create Safe School Environments
Registration
{:
.
Four Welcoming and Morning Breakout Sessions with Cabinet Members
1)
Systemic Educational Approaches (ranging from quality of education issues, such
as small class size, adequate screening for learning disabilities, etc. to traditional
discipline approaches such as school uniform policies and truancy prevention)
2)
Early Warning SignslMental Health Interventions/Crisis Response
. 3)
4)
Law Enforcement Partnership and Multi-Agency Community Approaches (will
also include discussion of gun policy)
Root CauseslEarly Childhood Development (will include discussion offamily
envjronments and parenting skills, early exposure to violence, etc.)
Morning Panel
3-4 minute MTV-produced video featuring youth perspective
VP remarks
Presidential Remarks (prefaced by remarks from other principals, introduced by a youth
and an educator)
Panel (pOTUS, VPOTUS, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Gore)
Panelists would include (looking for twofers):
Expert #1
(quantify problem)
Expert #2
(root causes)
Youth
Law enforcement Official
Parent
Juvenile Court Judge
. . ..
�T eacherfi>rincipaVSuperintendent
Mayor or other local elected official
Clergy
Structure of session also provides for audience participation. Complete program is
downlinked by satellite to (#tbd) cities. Uplink sites (SF)?
LUNCH .
. Featuring informal remarks by some combination ofVP, First Lady, Mrs. Gore,
AFTINEA leadership
AFTERNOON PANEL
Focusing on what works, cabinet·members would present brief summaries of morning
breakout sessions. First Lady will then lead conference participants in a wide-ranging
discussion focused on solutions.
Teleconference on Best Practice School SafefJl Strategies
Off-site conference participants would receive satellite transmission. Short videos
(approx. 8 min. each) will introduce two or three model school safety strategies that
amplify the first Annual Report on School Safety. Panel composed of one or two experts
on each strategy will answer phoned-in questions imdrespond to comments. First Lady,
Reno or Riley could participate in some way tbd. Could take place concurrently with
afternoon panel or at time determined·to be most convenient to. off-site participants..
�BREAKOUT SESSIONS
I.
Education & Safety
([!l1\~ ~~t~ .~vG-
S.U
While 90% of our schools do not experience serious violence issues, all teachers
, are confronted with the need to maintain discipline and order in the classroom, and
they are often the first-line enforcers of school safety policies. This breakout group
will focus on keeping schools safe and disciplined. The topics to be explored
include:
'
•
Developing and implementing fair and clearly communicated school discipline
and safety policies
Safety and discipline are prerequisites for learning
Responsibilities of staff, students and parents/families in creating safe
schools
Effective strategies schools have taken, such as school uniform and
anti-truancy policies, to create safe and orderly environments.
Support the federal government can provide in creating safe and
orderly learning
environments.
Records and information sharing to help educators to deal with
students
~~
~~cr
•
Keeping students connected to a responsible adults
Need for guidance counselors, small classes, smaller schools, and
mentors.
Creating mechanisms for students to express concerns
Links to community
•
Effective means of reducing and/or dealing with instances of weapons being
brought into schools - zero tolerance
II.. Early Warning Signs/Mental Health Intervention/Crisis Response'
•
What to look for -- the early warning signs of violence
Are educators adequately equipped to identify early warning signs? If
not, how could they be trained better? What steps can be taken to
avoid stigmatization of students?
What steps can be taken to assure good communication between
parents, teachers, others, when warning signs are identified?
How can educators build trust with children to ensure that they will
tell a responsible adult when another child exhibits warning signs?
�•
What to do before -- mental health interventions
How widespread is the problem of inadequate mental health services?
What can schools, States, and communities do when services are
. inadequate, and how can they build their capacity to meet needs?
What is the appropriate federal role to improve the provision of mental
health
services? .
•
III.
What to do after -- crisis. response .
Did the communities where the multiple school homicides took place
have crisis response plans?
Did those plans make a difference in the communities' response?
What would they do differently?
Model crisis response plans
Federal role in crisis response
[' (\. c..
~
. School and Community Partnerships with Law Enforcement
rloth! F.s L
The group would discuss the importance of involving local law enforcement in
developing a community response to creating safer schools~
•
Working with law enforcement to create safer learning environments
. Using principles of community policing and problem-solving
approaches to involve students in developing strategies to reduce
crime and fear in schools;
How do different school systems work effectively with law
enforcement?
.
Use of school resource officers to act as liaisons between local police
departments and schools;
Enforcing youth curfews
Keeping kids off the streets through after school programs'
•
Youth and firearms
tracing guns used by youth in crimes
child safety locks
•
Model partnerships and strategies with law enforcement
Examples include Charlotte, NC and Boston, MA.
IV. Causes of Youth Violence
This panel would discuss the root causes of school violence by focusing on broader
societal issues that increase the level of violence amongst children and youth,
�which is often manifested in acts of violence in school.
•
Violence during early development
.
whether children who experience violence during their early
development -zero to three - themselves become more violent,
•
Role of family structure
whether the less time parents have with their children as well as the
increasing rates of single-parenthood affect rates of violence,
Violence in the media
•
•
Role of strong communities in ensuring that children are safe
whether communities that experience collective efficacy, defined as
the degree to which adults will intervene in the lives of children, are
more safe
�/
!
i
"
What Works Panel:
The First Lady would lead a round~table discussion with 8 to 10 people who are
knowledgeable about effective strategies to keep our children safe. The panel
would take place in the East Room before the invited guests and would be
broadcast to 500 satellite downlinks; at the end of the discussion, the panelists
would take questions from both the guests and the downlink sites. The goal of the
panel is to address ,the question of what we can do, both in the larger community
and as individuals, to address the problem of youth violence that is plaguing so
many of our sqhools. Throughout the discussion, the panelists would view
three-minute videos that would show the effective program and strategies in action.
Those in the discussion would include: program administrators, who can share
effective strategies and tools for replicating them; non-profit, community-based
organizations and local governments, who are involved in innovative strategies to
coordinate services; and academics, who can discuss the latest research and their
evaluations of both successful programs and strategies ..
While the following iss,ue areas are likely to be discussed by the panelists, this is
not an exhaustive list:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mentoring programs to reduce violence
Early intervention strategies, such as family strengthening programs
The role of the media in promoting at-risk behaviors
Prevention of serious anti-social behavior in adolescence
. Neighborhood cohesiveness as a prevention strategy
Comprehensive ;;Inti-juvenile crime strategies on the local level
Strategies to replicate effective at-risk prevention programs throughout the
country
This cross-section of panelists would represent expertise from earliest childhood
delinquency prevention through aggressive teenage intervention.
�WmTE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCHOOL SAFETY
October 15, 1998
.{LJearning cannot occur unless our schools are safe and orderly places where teachers can teach and
children can learn. Wherever there is chaos where there should be calm, wherever there is disorder where there -
should be discipline, make no mistake about it, it's not just a threat to our classrooms... , it is a threat to the
strength and vitality ofAmerica.... We have to do more... I will host the first ever White House Conference on
School... to find new solutions to this profound challenge. "
-- President Clinton, July 20, 1998
H ••
White House Conference on School Sa"fetJ!
On October 1~, 1998, the President will host the White House Conference on School SafetY. To mark
this important day, the President will proclaim October 15, 1998 National School Safety Day. The
Conference,will be a day-long event in the East Room of the White House that will include an important
policy address by the President, participation by the Vice Presiden~, First Lady and Mrs. Gore, workshops, a
morning panel discussion, and a listening and discussion session with participants that will explore best
practices and model school safety strategies. The Conference will include communities recently affected by
school shootings and will, be linked by satellite to communities and schools across the country.
Although schools remain among the safest places for America's young people, even one incident of
violent crime in a school is too many. The Conference's goals include: building on the existing body of
knowledge about young people and aggressive or violent behavior; listening and learning from students,
parents, teachers, law enforcement arid other experts about safety and discipline in schools; sharing best
practices and exploring new solutions; and developing strategies to put these safety models in place in
schools across the nation. The White House Conference on School Safety will work toward finding
solutions to this challenge: How do schools,families and communities work together to make sure that
every child is safe in every school in America.
.
The President Will Announce New Initiatives Promoting Discipline and Safety in Schools
At the Conference the President will announce a number of new initiatives to help schools and
communities prevent and respond to violence and promote order and discipline in schools. In addition, the
President will issue the first Annual Report on School Safety, which will include: an analysis of all existing
national school crime data and an overview of state and local school crime data; examples of schools and
strategies that are successfully reducing school violence, drug use, and class disruption; actions that parents
can take locally to combat school crime, including a local safety checklist; and resources available to
schools and communities to help create safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools.
Conference Participants
-
-
The President, Vice President, First Lady, and Mrs. Gore will be joined by the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Members of Congress, a number of
state and local officials and approximately 100 other Conference participants. Participants will include:
students, parents, teachers, principals, school superintendents, members of law enforcement, experts from
the medical and psychological fields, clergy and religious leaders, and other community representatives.
.
-
For More Information
Contact the White House Conference on School Safety at 202-456-6351.
�Main Panel. Recommendations:
Law Enforcement Official:
1)
CA chief(e.g., Long Beach, Salinas)
2)
School Resource Officer -- Ron BroWn,
or Gil Gallegos, Deputy Chief, NM
~;rent~uzanne
Wilson, 'onO$bilro, 'victim parent .
Experts:
1)
,.
David Kennedy, Program in Griminal Justic~ PoliccYMgmt.,Harvard College, (guns,
gangs~ targetted deterrence)
2) '~ox, Dean, Colleg0-6f.
. Crirniiia:l ~e, Northeastern Unu.eIsit}!'.
...
.
-
3) .
Jeff Cole, UCLA, media violence
tu--~.
.
Juvenile Court Judge! Prose~utor:
1)
Harry. Shorstein, District Attorney, Jacksonville,FL
~ fj\cA" -\- . .
.
~V'- '?~
.
'
.
Clergy:
1)
Reverend Euguene Rivers, Boston'
o
.
Youth:
~l)
Cedric Jennings, student;. Brown University (subject in A Hope in the Unseen, Ron'
Suskind)
."
.
·,'1
Teacher:
Paducah teacher
�PrincipaVPrincipaVSuperintendent: .
1)
Jamon Kent, Superintendent, Springfield Schools
..
~~ ...
.~
MayorlLocal elected official:(Get recs from IGA)
1)
Dee dee Cordadini, Mayor, Salt Lake City, UT (US Conference of Mayors)
Child Psychologist: (Get rees for Mrs. Gore) .
1)
KevinDwyer, Principal Investigator, National Association of School Psychologists
(author of Early Warning Guide)
�BREAKOUT SESSIONS
I.
Education & Safery---
S
+.
~~Crf(y·~·J
While 90% of our schools do not experience serious violence Issues, all teachers are confronted
. ,
.
with the need to maintain discipline and order in the classroom, and they are often the first-line
. enforcers of school safety policies. This breakout group will focus on keeping schools safe and
disciplined. The topics to be explored include:
•
Developing and implementing fair and. clearly communicated school discipline and safety
policies
Safety and discipline are prerequisites for learning
Responsibilities 'of staff, students and parents/families in creating safe schools
Effective strategies schools have taken, such as school uniform and anti-truancy
policies, t? create safe and orderly environments.
Support the federal government can provide in creating safe and orderly learning
environments.
.
.
,
Records and information sharing to help educators to deal with students '
7
•
Keeping stUdents connected to a responsible adults
Need for guidance counselors, small classes, (:imaller schools, and mentors.
Creating mechanisms for students to express concerns
.
Links to community
•
Effective means of reducing and/or dealing with instances ofweapons being brought into
schools - zero tolerance
II. Early Warning SignsIMental Health Intervention/Crisis Response
•
What to look for -- the early warning signs of violence
Are educators adequately equipped to identifY early warning signs? If not, how
could they be trained better? What steps can be taken to avoid stigmatization of
students?
What steps can be taken to assure good co.mmunication between parents, teachers,
others, when warning signs are identified?
How can educators build trust with children to ensure that they will tell a
responsible adult when another child exhibits warning signs?
•
What to do before -- mental health interventions
How widespread is the problem of inadequate mental health services?
What can schools, States, and communities do when services are inadequate, and
how.can they build their capacity to meet needs?
�,What is the appropriate federal role to improve the provision of mental health
services?
•
What to do after -- crisis response
Did the communities where the multiple school homicides tQok place have crisis
response plans?
Did those plans make a difference in the communities~ response? What would
they do differently?
Model crisis response plans
Federal role in crisis response
III.
School and Community Partnerships with Law Enforcement
The group would discuss the importance of involving local law enforcement in developing a
community response to creating safer schools.
•
Working with law enforcement to create safer learn.ingenvironments
Using principles of community pol~cing and problem-solving approaches to
. involve students in developing strategies to reduce crime and fear in schools;
How do different school systems work effectively. with law enforcement?
Use o{school resource officers to act as liaisons between local police departments
and schools;
Enforcing youth curfews
Keeping kids off the streets through after, school programs
•
Youth and firearms
tracing guns used by youth in crimes
child s~ety locks
•
Model partnerships and strategies with law enforcement,
Examples include Charlotte, NC and Boston, MA.
IV. Causes of Youth Violence
This panel would'discuss the root causes of school violence by focusing on broader societal
issues that increase the level of violence amongst children and youth, which is often manifested
in acts of violence in school. .
'
•
Violence during early development
.,
whether children who experience violence during their early development - zero
. to three' -'themselves become more violent,
•
Role of family structure
whether the less time parents have with their children as well as the increasing
�.4
•
•
rates of single-parenthood affect rates of violence,
VioI(;nce in the media
Role of strong communities in ensuring that children are safe
whethercommul).ities that experience collective efficacy, defined as the degree to
which adults will intervene in the lives of children, are more safe
�~uu;,;
Interagency Initiative to Reduce School Violence
Draft Concept: 8126198
Recent incidents and the upcoming White House Conference on School Violence provide
a unique opportunity for this Administration to implement a coordinated program to reduce
school violence in 15-20 communities. Over the next two years we can demonstrate the
difference federal agencies, working together, building upon our existing experienc'e with
community-based initiatives, coordinating our existing funding, and applying oUI best
knowledge, can make on a distinct and critical social issue. The joint initiative, which could be
announced at the White House Conference, would demonstrate the commitment of the federal
agencies to making schools, and the environmentaround them,safe for young people to learn
and grow.
)
.,
Over the lifetime of the Clinton Administration, a number of interagency efforts have'
been implemented that seek to improve'outcomes for disadvantaged children, families and
communities. From each of these efforts, lessons about implementing these initiatives have been
learned and documented. Evaluation results, process summaries and preliminary findings from
these and private efforts collectively form a sound basis and methodology for the federal
agencies to collectively impact the issue of school violence. This impact can only be brought
about when the federal government's various efforts are combined in a coherent targeted
strategy.
The goal ofthe proposed joint initiative is to focus the lessons learned of this
Administration to improve the way the federal government supports state and local government
in meeting the educational and safety needs ofchildren, including the needs of their families and
communities. The initiative would allow the various federal agencies to blend existing
appropriations and discretionary dollars into one compo.site solicitation whlch would be issued in
Fall 1998. Some funds could be transferred to key partner agencies to minimize constraining
regulations that might be associated with certain funds. Funded activities might include~but are
not liniited to:
'
-
Programs for parents that improve their parenting skills, provide support groups, and
increase parent-child interactions funded through the Department ofHealth and Human
Services.
- J o b training. placement and creation supported through the Departrn.ent of Labor.
-
School-based programs, alternative schoolS. after school and safe passage escort
programs that target truancy, school failure, violence, teen pregnancy, anti-social
behavior, and drug and alcohol abuse supported through the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), Center for Substance Abuse Prevention '(CSAP), Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and Department of Education's Twentieth
Century Leaming Centers, America Reads and Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.
I
�Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program Options Paper Summary
A.
What should the purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program be?
Recommended Option:
Create a program that focuses on the creation of safe and disciplined learning
environments and passageways to school.
B.
How can accountability for SDFSCA funds be improved?
Recommended Option:
Balance flexibility with increased accountability by including ,additional
provisions designed to focus ,attention on effective practi~es that address needs
identified through the collection of data. (For example, proposed activities
would need to be directly related to the purposes of the legislation; be consistent
with the Principles of Effectiveness; be part of a comprehensive school safety
plan; require data collection and annual reporting of data; and involve parents,
community members, and students in planning and implementation.)
C.
How should SDFSCA funds be distributed to SEAs and LEAs?
Recommended Option:
Continue to allocate a portion of funds to SEAs, but require SEAs to distributed
funds to a limited number of LEAs based on competitive criteria including
demonstration of need and quality of program implementation planned.
D.
What should the role of the Governors Program be?
Recommended Option:
Maintain the funding stream, but modify the purpose, goal, and authorized activities
for the program to link more closely with the SEA/LEA program. (For example, funds
might be used to support the purchase of mental health services for disruptive or
violent students, or to establish case management procedures/protocols for education,
social services, and juvenile justice officials.)
�Title IV -- Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
A.
What should the purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program be?
Discussion
The Safe Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was authorized as Title IV of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The program existed from 1987 to 1994 as the
Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, and was reauthorized in 1994 as the Safe and Drug
Free Schools and Communities Act. The reauthorization made it possible for grantees to ust(
program funds for programs designed to prevent youth'violence as well as drug use. Since its
inception the program has awarded over $6 billion dollars to governors, State educational
agencies, 10Ced educational agencies, institutions of higher education, and community-based
organizations.
Because of the high profile nature of the issues being addressed by the program, it has been
controversial, attracting supporters and detractors. Supporters contend that the program is the
only source ,of funds that many school districts have to support drug and violence prevention
programs for their students, that the program is very flexible, and that program funds can be
. used in conjunction with resources from other sources to create a wide variety of prevention
programs based upon the needs of a particular school district. Detractors argue that funds
provided under the SDFSCA have been used to support activities that have little long-term
effect on changing attitudes or behaviors of students, and that the expenditure of billions of
dollars has had minimal effect on changing drug use habits of students; despite the efforts of
the program, drug and alcohol rates remain unacceptably high among adolescents and school
violence continues to be a grave concern.
Research and evaluation studies, as well as information analyzed from various reports on the
operation of the SDFS Program, indicate that the program has both significant strengths as
well as weaknesses. Major strengthens of the program are that it:
--is the only Federal program that provides resources to LEAs to address problems
related to drug and alcohol use and violence.
, "
--enables schools throughout the country to develop a variety of drug and violence
prevention and early intervention programs.
--supports a number of programs, e.g. 'Life Skills Training Program, that have been
demonstrated through resea.t;'ch and evaluation'to be effective in reducing alcohol and
drug use. It has also supported a number of programs e.g., Peacebuilders, that have
been demonstrated to be effective in reducing crime and violence in school.
Weaknesses include:
--funding is often too limited to permit implementation of comprehensive,
�research-based programs.
--grantee programs are not always properly implemented.
--grantee programs selected are not always based on research or sound evaluations.
--programs have not always kept pace with changing needs of schools· and students.
--the program's successes have not been taken to scale.
--program's purpose has not been clearly articulated.
This last issue--the purpose of the program--is the threshold question for the reauthorization
process. If a program is to be successful, . its goals and objectives need to be not only clearly
articulated but also reasonable. Unfortunately, the SDFSCA may not meet either of these
tests.
The SDFSCA was established to "support programs that meet the seventh National Education
Goal by preventing violence in and around schools· and by strengthening programs that prevent
the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs ... " Under the existing statute, funds can be
distributed to a variety of groups and organizations, for a wide variety of activities, to benefit
a variety of populations. For example, the statute:
provides that most funds be award to LEAs but also authorizes the Governor's program
to award grants/contracts to community groups, parent groups, youth serving
organizations, other public entities, and law enforcement organizations.
authorizes funds from the SDFS Program to be used for: training parents, law
enforcement officials, judicial·officials, social service providers about drug and
violence prevention, comprehensive health education; early intervention; developing
and implementing community-based drug and violence prevention programs;
after-school activities; comprehensive health education; mentoring; rehabilitation
referral; pupil services; service learning projects; safe zones of passage; drug and
violence education programs; and school security programs.
requires that Governor's Program recipients give a priority to services for children and
youth not normally served; popUlations that need special services or additional
resources such as preschoolers, youth mjuvenile detention facilities, runaway or
homeless youth, school dropouts, and pregnant teenagers.
While this very broad authority can theoretically provide great latitude and flexibility to
design and implement programs to meet specific local needs, in many jurisdictions it has led to
the development and implementation of an assortment of untested programs which have had
minimal impact on changing behaviors or creating safer environments for learning.
Recommended Option
Create. a program that focuses on the creation of safe and disciplined learning
environments (and passageways to school).
�Pros
o
Sharpens the program's focus and limits it to issues that are more susceptible to
improvement through implementation of school-based strategies
o
Meshes well with current concerns expressed by the public and Congress about
school environment and safety
o
Relates to other education reform issues, such as smaller class size
o
Indirectly can positively impact other behaviors such as drug use
o
Even though activities designed to prevent drug use in school or limit
availability of alcohol and other drugs on school campuses would be permitted,
less emphasis would be placed' on this priority area.
o
Could be viewed as reducing resources available through the primary Federal
vehicle for preventing youth drug use at a time when data indicates that rates
remain at unacceptably high levels
Cons
Rationale
This recommendation sharpens the focus of the program while offering schools an opportunity
to address a reasonably broad range of concerns that impact on safe learning environments.
Implications
This recoinmendation would significantly change the SDFS Program. Traditionally, SDFS
Program funds have been used by school officials primarily to fund programs which are
geared to change the behaviors of a small group of individuals, e.g., program may focus on
fifth or sixth graders and target drug use or violent behavior. Under this option, the program
would utilize a "school-wide" approach.. School districts would be required to target entire
schools and/or school districts (not just individual classes). Any school that receives funds
under the program would be required to develop a "Safe School Plan" that would detail the
activities to be implemented to ensure that it is a safe, disciplined, and drug-free learning
environment. This plan would also be a required part of the schoolwide (Title I) plan for
schools.
The school would become the unit of analysis rather than the individual. Schools would be
required to use their funds to ensure that the school, school-sponsored functions, and
passageways to schools are safe, that drugs are not bought or sold as school, that gangs are not
�present, and that guns and other weapons are not brought to school.
While this approach focuses on the school building (and ensuring that it is safe), schools would
be provided considerable flexibility to ensure that they accomplished this goal. Schools would
be permitted to continue to operate programs which targeted behaviors, e.g., anger
management programs or conflict resolution programs, provided that they could demonstrate
that these efforts were essential for creating safe environments for learning. Schools however,
would be encouraged to broaden these efforts to entire school populations (school-wide
approach) rather than just to a portion of a school (just one or two grade levels).
Schools would not be able to continue to fund programs which have not been demonstrated to
have an impact on creating safe environments for learning. For example, some schools have
used their SDFS funds to educate students about the harmful effects of drug use. These
programs would not he permitted unless a school system could demonstrate that such
instruction had a positive effect on the school environment.
The change being proposed is somewhat analogous to the emphasis on schoolwide programs in
Title I. Traditionally, Title I funds were used to focus on specific children and "pull them
out" for remedial or supplemental services, rather than modify instructional approaches for the
school as a whole.
The current approach employed by schools for dealing with their alcohol, drug and violence
problems is, for many districts, similar to the "pull out" model. Selected students may receive
services or an ad hoc problem may be addressed, but only rareiy are strategically planned
services designed to create a safe, disciplined and drug-free learning environment for all
students implemented. While we need to carefully consider the lessons learned in
implementing schoolwide programs, we believe that a "system wide" approach is more likely
to yield safe and orderly school environments. that support good instructional approaches by
teachers and imprqved academic achievement for students.
Research
Research and evaluation findings available to support this recommendation include:
David Hawkins and Richard Catalano's research on risk and protective factors identifies
school as one of four important domains (along with individual, family, and community)
where factors correlate with high risk youth behaviors including violence, substance abuse,
and juvenile delinquency.
Other Options Considered and Rejected
1.
Pros
Continue the current program focus on prevention of youth drug use and violence.
�o
Would be more likely to gamer support from ONDCP and NGOs (such as
CADCA and Join Together) whose mission is limited to alcohol and other drug
use issues
o
Likely to be supported by existing grantees since reauthorization forums and
public comment urged a "stay the course" approach
o
Would permit schools and communities to continue to implement existing
initiatives.'
o
Would be most responsive 'to recent surveys indicating that drug use by youth
continues to rise.
o
. Doesn't provide a sharp program focus that would help improve program
accountability and hopefully congressional support for the program
o
Permits the program to continue to be held accountable for general youth
behavior (e.g. youth drug use) rather than for outcomes that can
reasonably be attained with current levels of funding (e.g. limited drug
availability/use in schools; disciplined school environment)
o
Status quo approach may not appropriately signal the significant changes that
need to take place in the current practice in the field
o
Doesn't focus resources on major problems faced by schools, including
discipline problems, disorder, and violence schools face
Cons
2.
Target school environment, culture, climate, and design. Focuses on broad'range
of issues that lead to the creation of schools that are not only safe but also
nurturing histitutions that recognize the need to address a broad range of safety,
social, health, and emotional needs of students.
Pros
o
Provides a comprehensive, non-categorical framework to help schools address
a variety of related, non-academic issues that affect the behavior and well being
offaculty and students.
o
Is tied directly to and can be supported by other education reform initiatives,
e.g., smaller class size, school construction, and by other ED programs, e.g.,
Title 1.
�reauthor.'5dr
o
Provides a framework for other Federal program initiatives, e.g., juvenile
justice reform issues.
o
Results in a program with even less focus than the current program and will
likely continue problems concerning accountability
o
Dilutes attention to drug prevention issues significantly
o
Dilutes already limited political support for the program by authorizing a
number of controversial activities or activities where consensus about Federal
role is more limited
o
Creates a program with no natural constituericy and little outside support.
Cons
B.
How can accountability for SDFSCA funds be improved?
Discussion
Under the current legislation SDFS funds can be used for a wide range of activities, from
in-class instructional activities to purchase of security hardware, and from support for before
and after-school recreational activities to staff development functions. SEAs and LEAs have
considerable flexibility in the nature of the programs they select and implement. As a result,
many LEAs use SDFSCAfunds to implement'programs and activities that, according to
research, are not likely to have an impact on preventing or reducing drug use or violence.
While the SDFS Program permits SEAs/LEAs to use their SDFSCA funds for a variety of
drug AND violence prevention activities, our observations indicate that many LEAs have used
their funds primarily to support drug prevention programs and activities. We believe that this
tendency grows from the program's origins as a "drug prevention" program, and the resulting
development of staff committed to the maintenance of existing programs and efforts. Although
passage of the SDFSCA authorized recipients to use funds for activities designed to prevent
youth violence, the combination of level funding for the program and an entrenched
bureaucracy appear to have limited the movement toward activities designed to prevent youth
violence or promote safe learning environments.
Research findings from a longitudinal study of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act
suggest that most districts were not engaged in a well-defined process of developing and
implementing their programs; few schools were found to have employed program approaches
that have been found effective in research. Currently, too many schools view a single activity
such as curricula related to drug or violence prevention, student assistance programs, or staff
training as the foundation of their drug and violence prevention strategy. Although these
�activities are essential building blocks, taken alone they do not constitute a sound foundation
for creating a safe environment for learning.
While the reauthorized SDFSCA created an application framework designed to address these
issues and improve accountability for funds by focusing on data-based needs assessment,·
establishment of goals, and assessment of progre.ss toward meeting established goals,
discussions with SEA and LEA offiCials have indicated that that effort has not resulted in the
change in practice that was hoped for.
In response to this situation, ED has developed and implemented (through rule making) some
"Principles of Effectiveness" for the program. These Principles re-emphasize the need for
recipients to conduct assessments, set measurable goals and objectives, and conduct periodic
evaluations, and combine these strategies with a new requirement to use the funds to
implement research-based programs. (The Principles do permit recipients to continue existing
program implemented with youth if they agree to evaluate them for effectiveness, as well as
allowing use of funds for activities that are unlikely to be able to demonstrate reduced drug use
or violence outcomes, such as teacher training.) Because the Principles were finalized in July·
1998, it is too early ·to determine their impact.
Recommended Option
Balance flexibility with increased accountability by including additional provisions
designed to focus attention on effective practices that address needs identified
through the collection of data. (For example, proposed activities would need to be
directly related to the purposes of the legislation; be consistent with the Principles,
be part of a comprehensive school safety plan; require data collection and annual
reporting of data; and involve parents, community members, and students in
planning and implementation.)
Pros
o
Restores balance between accountability and flexibility by requiring grantees to
focus on data about needs and research about effective activities
o
Reduces flexibility to select and implement programs at the SEA and LEA
levels, and increases burden for participating in program
Cons.
Rationale
This option was selected because it recognizes and balances the need for local control and the
development of programs based upon local needs with requirements concerning the quality of
programs implemented, data collection and reporting, and involvement of parents and
�community members.
Implications
Although this option increases burden, it would be balanced by a significant increase in
funding if the recommended option on the question of distribution of funds is selected. Under
this option, LEAs that receive funding would have to comply with additional requirements
designed to improve accountability. For example, LEAs might be required to:
--Collect, analyze, and make public incidents of school crime and disorder that occur in
school, at school related activities, or in transit to/from school. This latter requirement
--to make public incidents of school crime--would need to be done annually, and in the
form of a formal "report card" type report.
--Develop a school safety plan for every school within the district.
--Develop formal agreements with local law enforcement officials and community
mental health officials 'on the provision of law enforcement services and mental health
services.
--Develop a strategy with law enforcem6nt, social services, mental health, and juvenile
justice officials' for sharing of information while preserving confidentiality.
, Other Option Considered and Rejected
Maintain the current accountability structure, but include the requirements
contained in the Principles of Effectiveness in the reauthorized statute
,.
Pros
o
Continues the very significant degree of flexibility concerning selection of
activities at the State and local levels.
o
Relatively minor changes from new "Principles" requirements will mean less
upheaval at program implementation level.
o
Permits recipients to continue to select and 'implement programs that may not be
sufficiently targeted on reducing youth drug use or violence, or effectively
addressing school environment issues.
o
While it is too soon to, have data about the effect of the implementation of the
Principles, there are concerns about whether or not that approach will be
sufficient to change practice in the field to the degree'necessary.
Cons
�C.
How should SDFSCA funds be distributed to SEAs and LEAs?
Discussion
Currently funds (State and local) are distributed according to a formula based on relative share
of prior year Title I allocation and school-aged population data to States. State Educational
Agencies (SEAs) receive 80% of each State's allocation and must distribute at least 91 percent
of funds received to LEAs. Every LEA in the state is eligible to receive funds,and data from
. State performance reports indicate that 97 percent of all LEAs participate in the program,
either individually or as part of a consortium. While the current formula has some positive
aspects--it allows every LEA to receive some funds that can be used for drug and violence
prevention, even if the amount is small--it also means that financial support is spread so thinly
that it is difficult for LEAs to implement research-based, effective programs with the funds
provided.
'
Data indicates that as many as 60 percent of LEAs receive an allocation from Fiscal Year 1995
funds valued atless than $10,000 annually. The proportion of LEAs receiving less than
$10,000 has grown from approximately 50% of recipients in Fiscal Year 1993. While an
analysis of the data cannot conclusively demonstrate the cause for the increase, one likely
contributing factor is the provision in the 1994 reauthorization that required targeting of funds
on "neediest areas".
Data in a draft OIG report based on site visits to four states is consistent with this data. It
indicates that while small districts accounted for 61 % of LEAs receiving funding, they
received only 6 % of the total dollars available for allocation. Conversely, large LEAs which
accounted for only 2 % of the number of LEAs receiving SDFSCA funds, received 46 % of the
dollars to be allocated.
[See also discussion/options in Section D. about the SDFSCA Governor's Program.]
Recommended Option
Continue to allocate a portion of funds to SEAs, but require SEAs to distribute
funds to a limited number of LEAs based on competitive criteria including
'demonstration of need and quality of program implementation planned.. (See
discussion in Section B for details about improved accountability.)
Pros
o
Targets limited funding to LEAs that can combine a significant need for
resources with a strong, research-b~sed plan for addressing issues identified
o
Permits grant sizes to be determined by need/plan of action, not on a "head
count" of students
�Cons
o
Since number of participating LEAs would be reduced, already weak political
support for the program could shrink.
o
Would likely·require new or different expertise/capacity at SEA level
concerning substantive knowledge about prevention issues.
Rationale
This option is 'recommended because it is likely to produce significant program results on a
relatively broad scale. It also maintains significant State involvement that should encourage'
, coordination with State reform agendas and improve coordination among Federal, State, and
local resources.
Implications
While adoption of this recommendation would mean that fewer school districts would receive
funds, it would also mean that those that do receive funds would receive more funds. These
additional funds would enable school districts to engage in the development of more
comprehensive programming. This recommendation will not work effectively unless SEAs are
willing to dedicate more staff (or staff with significant knowledge of research-based prevention
strategies) to administering/managing this program. While this recommendati~n will hopefully
result in the development of more effective programming this will only occur if the SEA is
willing to help LEAs develop comprehensive strategies/plans for creating safe environments
for learning, and to assess what they have developed. If the recommended option is
implemented, a requirement mandating a certain level of SEA review
need to be
considered.
will
Research
--Data collected for ED's Planning and Evaluation Service indicates that 97 percent of all
School districts receive SDFS funds. Spreading funds out to this number .of districts results in
approximately 60 percent of a11 districts receiving less than $10,000. While this amount of
funding can be used "as leverage" to develop drug and violence prevention programs, it is
insufficient to develop a comprehensive strategy for creating safe environments for learning.
Other Options Considered and Rejected
1.
Pros·
Maintain status of the State Grants program as an "entitlement" for LEAs.
�o
Continues to make available some resources, with minimum burden, to support
program activities in virtually all LEAs
o
Absent a significant increase in funding level (to at least double the current
appropriations level), allocations are too small to permit the implementation of a
research-based approach that is likely to be effective in changing youth behavior
o
In many cases, capacity and expertise at State level isn't available to review,
approve, and adequately monitor progress of grants to virtually all LEAs
o
Inclusion of the program in consolidated LEA applications has significantly
diminished SEA ability to make determinations about the quality of
interventions selected for implementation, and their relationship to identified
needs.
Cons
2.
Eliminate the State-administered grant program and retain all funding at the
Federal level for direct, competitive grants and leadership activities.
Pros
o
Allows ED to exert more control over development of application priorities,
and quality of applications funded
o
Appropriations levels are likely to dip significantly under this approach,
reducing the amount of the Federal investment being made to develop safe,
drug-free learning environments at a time when youth drug use and violence are
very significant problems
o
Requires significant additional ED staffing to provide appropriate oversight for
large volume of large-sized grants
Cons
D.
What should the role of the Governors Program be.?
Discussion
The SDFS Program is the only ED-funded program that provides funds to Governors. Twenty
percent of each State s allocation is provided to Governors. While some Governors select their
Department of Education to administer this pool of funding, many more designate other State
agencies to administer the funds, including single-State agencies for drug prevention, criminal
justice agencies, or health departments. The program was designed to complement the
I
�SEA/LEA program by providing resources for community-based activities that support
school-based strategies.
Recipients are to use these funds to give priority to populations not noimally served by the
SEA (e.g. dropouts, runaway teens, pregnant teens) or to youth in schools that require
additional resources or services. The statute also requires that 10% of the Governor's award
be used to support law enforcement-education partnerships. The legislation permits Governors
to use their allocation to engage in a wide range of activities. Activities permitted under the
legislation include State level planning activities, information dissemination, service-learning
projects, activities to protect students traveling to and from schools, and before- and
after-school recreational, cultural, instructional, and artistic programs that encourage drug
and violence-free lifestyles.
While information about how these funds have been used since the 1994 reauthorization is not
yet available, State performance reports, applications, and interaction with Governor's
program staff indicate that:
-- funds are often used for school-based activities, perhaps duplicating SEA/LEA
efforts;
-- funds may not be used in ways designed to foster systemic improvement or capacity
building.
Recommended Option
Maintain the funding stream, but modify the purpose, goal, and authorized
activities for the program to link more closely with the SEA/LEA program. (For
example, funds might be used to support the purchase of mental health services for
disruptive or violent students, or to establish case management
procedures/protocols for education, social services, and juvenile justice officials.)
Pros
o
Maintains a popular portion of the program while addressing major issues surrounding
implementation.
o
Provides an opportunity to work with Governors on important issues and perhaps
influence the quality of State-funded activities related to school environment.
Cons
o
Continues an initiative that has not been well integrated with other ED/OESE
activities.
�o
·0
Experience shows that effective coordination/collaboration between Governor's
designated agencies and SEAs will be difficult to achieve.
This portion of SDFSCA State Grants funding has been most closely aligned with drug
prevention activities; this option is unlikely to be acceptable to entities that view the
funding source as one primarily devoted to drug prevention activities.
Rationale
Even if the purpose of the program is modified as recommended to focus more intensively on
school environments, creation of safe learning environments requires the active support and
involvement of community-based entities, including the criminal justice system and law
enforcement, social, and mental health services providers. Given a more appropriate focus
and program requirements that link effectively to a revised SEA/LEA program, continuing
funding for these activities could provide the support to make the difference between success
and failure.
Implications .
It is likely to be difficult to convince current recipients of program funds to change the focus
of their efforts to align effectively with a revised SEA/LEA program. The change may also
result in dislocation of State agency personnel and other recipients that have traditionally
administered the Governor's portion of the SDFSCA State Grants. Implementation of this.
option may cause adverse reaction to the whole proposal from entities who view the program's
purpose as almost exclusively drug prevention.
Other Options Considered and Rejected
1.
Maintain the Program as it currently exists (with some minor modifications)
Pros
o
This portion of the program has garnered more vocal political support than the
SEA/LEA program.
Cons
o
Fails to address significant concerns about overlap/duplicatipn with SEA/LEA activities
and focus of efforts
2.
Eliminate this funding stream and move funds used for the program to
SEA/LEAs.
�Pros
o
The program is a poor match with ED/OESE's primary interests, resulting in limited
attention in "integrated/consolidated" program activities (e.g. reviews; application
processes, etc.)
Cons
o
Although more resources are needed to permit LEAs to implement research:-based
programs, it is likely that appropriations levels for the program would decline rather
than remain steady to support -increased SEA/LEA program grants.
o
Would remove aprimary source of political support for the SDFSCA
3.
Set-aside funds for crucial community activities that would complement SEA/LEA
program, but award them to the SEA, rather than th
�...
',
. ..III
,
111
\"
. tit
Ill· .
.HI ..
�2
.Z s
!Ij
, I
ii
jil
Ii
I,
,
II
I·
II
d
I
.
,
I
j
j
III
==
�"
.
,
...;.'
,.
... -: ...
..
,
-
_.
<.
-
....:
..
. j~-- ,
'Z:.~
'
--- -
~.
~-~-
",
.''.
-'
..,:. ,...
. ..
~
"
~-
.,,.1Itt
f
..
.-I
"";
--
':.:':' ,\
~'..I
~.'
........
,
,
",
f
;.
"
.f
!
".,~ >
�II
.
!d
_ _ _+;lITI_'_,_,~~
.
~~~h~Jb-'
.---:....-~~---------~--:-'----
!ll
if
.HI "
'
. ':b_J
' \; (~./ rv-o ~;rt..l)-
--cl,
<8
I;,
Iti
.":'
L~,~:.=..;....-.:.-.;....-..,....---~-~---
·,ji··k
_~_ _ _ __
hl,-=.CvYl...!:..!-.!....f.;:;;;..::cOCTYI--:::;....:.:,.;,_·'
_o'u k '~l~.!:-J----......:..------~
,·HI·
" 1
."
'.:
pi
)1
.,
"
iiI1
1;'
.
-
Hl
.
1;/
It
h
:HI
"I
Ii
J'l
It
nl
-Ii
'
,
'
.
:
.
"
.
,
.
.
�,
,
~-
'I'
·;1
•
!
.I
~~----------~~~=-
"
III'
1I
,
,ill'
'il
\,
_
_ _~;l~_.....-:...:...._,--\~V-_C/..\0._",
ill"
Ijl
:11
II
\1
1.:
II
II
Ii
I(
£
I
~r
'-Y
'
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Cohen - Subject Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36062">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Cohen held the position of Special Assistant to the President for Education Policy within the Domestic Policy Council from 1996 to 1999. Prior to being detailed to the White House, he served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Education.</p>
<p>This series of Subject Files contains materials relating to education reform, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), America Reads initiative, bi-lingual education and the ballot initiative in California which proposed to eliminate bi-lingual instruction and limit the amount of time for bi-lingual students to transition to English only, test standards, teachers, tribal schools, school safety and school violence. The records include correspondence, reports, faxes, emails, handwritten notes, schedules, publications, and memoranda.</p>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
318 folders in 24 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
School Safety - Policy Announcements [3]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Subject Files
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 18
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2012-0160-S-Cohen.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
8/12/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2012-0160-S-school-safety-policy-announcements-3
7763316