1. 9/4/20151 Archived Information Reforming the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act: A 2001 Assessment Michael Timpane Peter Reuter

2. 9/4/20152 Background SDFSCA is mature –Response to crack crisis in 1986 –Expanded from drugs to violence/safety in 1994 Reauthorization was coming up in early 2001 Grant to DPRC to assess options –draft report completed

3. 9/4/20153 The Conundrum Emotionally powerful issue –parents fear of harm to their children in school Congress wants to appear responsive Generates symbolic pork –program administratively hamstrung by design Schools accept responsibility unenthusiastically –e.g. DARE as path of least resistance

4. 9/4/20154 Program is unsuccessful Not targeted at need –80 percent of school districts receive grants –median grant is $10,000 Schools choose weak projects –loose federal guidelines Minimal monitoring or evaluation

5. 9/4/20155 DPRC Project Should the Act be reauthorized or reformed? –if reformed, how Activities –focus groups with teachers and administrators –review of the literature –3 commissioned papers –Conference of federal officials, researchers and practitioners

6. 9/4/20156 Outline Current program and problems Evaluating the Administration proposal What should be done?

7. 9/4/20157 Current program Formula grant for 85 percent of funds –15 percent for federal demonstrations States primarily formula grant to districts –70 percent by enrollment, 30 percent by need Budget stuck at about $500-600 million –declining share of federal drug control expenditures Program recently strengthened

8. 9/4/20158 Schools’ choices questionable Great diversity of activities –metal detectors, counseling, field trips DARE dominant curriculum choice –evaluations show lack of effect –local political factors govern Most of the available curricula unevaluated, poorly grounded –little local expertise for selection

9. 9/4/20159 Prevention science still weak Small number of strong drug curriculum evaluations Effectiveness in broad implementation still not known Violence prevention even less explored –not a specific curriculum or intervention –imbedded in classroom and school activities –difficult to evaluate

10. 9/4/201510 Isolated Programmatically Few links to other federal education programs No relationship to national school reform movement Little collaboration with health and justice programs

11. 9/4/201511 Outline Current program Evaluating the Administration proposal What can be done?

12. 9/4/201512 Clinton Administration proposal Retains current state population formula Shift in-state allocation to need-weighted competitive process –modestly larger individual school grants – grant renewal evaluation Establish list of approved programs –research criteria for listing

13. 9/4/201513 Criteria for evaluating reform proposals Demonstrated effectiveness in reducing drug use and violence in schools Targeting of Resources Accountability Evaluability Administrative Feasibility and Cost Improving Program Capacity

14. 9/4/201514 Assessing Administration proposal Effectiveness: positive Targeting of resources: insignificant Accountability: positive Evaluability: positive Administratively: very negative Improving program capacity: insignificant

15. 9/4/201515 Outline Current program Evaluating the Administration proposal What can be done?

16. 9/4/201516 Should SDFSCA be continued? Lack of defined mission –blatant political purpose –expansion to violence further muddies the waters No evidence of effectiveness Federal role in other academic content areas more limited An option: limit federal role to R&D, training, dissemination

17. 9/4/201517 Arguments for continuation Popular support and political consensus Program improving –more discretionary authority –increasing links to other activities and programs Administration proposal can be strengthened

18. 9/4/201518 Options for strengthening Administration proposal More targeting to schools with greatest needs Shift from state formula to federal discretionary grants –greatly increase size of individual grants Create requirements for matching state and local efforts Require planning and co-operation with other programs Expand federal capacity for research, training and national evaluation