1 / 18

Archived Information Reforming the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act: A 2001 Assessment

Archived Information Reforming the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act: A 2001 Assessment. Michael Timpane Peter Reuter. 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

yuri
Download Presentation

Archived Information Reforming the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act: A 2001 Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Archived InformationReforming the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act: A 2001 Assessment Michael Timpane Peter Reuter

  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. Outline • Current program and problems • Evaluating the Administration proposal • What should be done?

  7. 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. 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. 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. Isolated Programmatically • Few links to other federal education programs • No relationship to national school reform movement • Little collaboration with health and justice programs

  11. Outline • Current program • Evaluating the Administration proposal • What can be done?

  12. 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. 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. Assessing Administration proposal • Effectiveness: positive • Targeting of resources: insignificant • Accountability: positive • Evaluability: positive • Administratively: very negative • Improving program capacity: insignificant

  15. Outline • Current program • Evaluating the Administration proposal • What can be done?

  16. 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. 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. 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

More Related