Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
July 13, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 5263 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY July 13, 1999 WILLIAM MODZELESKI SENATE HEALTH,
EDUCATION, LABOR & PENSIONS ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
REAUTHORIZATION
BODY:
Testimony of William
Modzeleski U.S. Department of Education before the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions July 13, 1999 Good morning. I am pleased to
appear before the committee today on behalf of Secretary Riley. As you know,
much work needs to be done to ensure that every child has the opportunity to
attend a school that is safe, disciplined, and drug-free, and to learn the
skills necessary to avoid alcohol and other drug use as well as to resolve
conflict in a non-violent manner. We look forward to working closely with the
Committee to ensure that the programs administered by ED help meet the needs of
schools, communities, and families. THE PROBLEM While the tragic shootings
occurring in schools across the Nation in the past two years command our
continued attention and concern, national data about the problems of school
violence and drug use provide some encouraging signs. For example, consider
that: -A 1997 study found that ninety percent of public schools reported no
incidents of serious violent crime to the police and a little less than half (43
percent) of schools reported no crime' at all. -In 1996, children aged 12-18
were twice as likely to be the victim of a serious violent crime in the
community as they are in school (26 per 1,000 in community versus 10 per 1,000
in school). -Overall, over the, past five years, school crime generally has
decreased. Between 1993 and 1998, the overall school crime rate for children
aged 12-18 declined from 164 crimes per 1,000 to 128 crimes per 1,000 students.
-In the 1996-1997 school year, 6,093 students were expelled for bringing a
firearm to school. Preliminary data for the 1997-1998 school year indicate that
this number is decreasing - and the Centers for Disease Control's Youth Risk
Behavior survey indicates that fewer students brought weapons to school in 1997
than in 1993. - After six years of steady increases, drug use among students has
begun to decline, and attitudes regarding drug use are improving. The proportion
of students reporting use of illicit drugs during the 12 months prior to the
1998 Monitoring the Future Survey declined at all three grade levels measured
(8th , 10th and 12th grade), although alcohol use remains high. The largest
problem for schools-in magnitude-is not Violent crime but discipline issues and
non-violent crime. For example, approximately 62 percent of all crime involving
students is theft. Despite the tragic incidents that occurred in the last two
years in Colorado, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi, school-
associated violent deaths remain extremely rare events. Furthermore, preliminary
data from a joint EDICDC prevention survey indicate that, even with the recent
increase in the number of school incidents involving multiple homicides, the
number of students who are homicide victims in schools has been gradually
decreasing since ED and the CDC conducted its first School Associated Violent
Death Study in 1996. The study conducted for the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 school
years, determined that: -In those two school years combined, 63 students ages 5
through 19 were murdered at school and 13 committed suicide at school.
Nationwide, during roughly the same timeframe, a total of 7,357 children ages
5-19 were murdered and 4,366 committed suicide, both in and out of school.
-Firearms were responsible for a majority (77%) of all school- associated
violent deaths during the period (including students, teachers and others).
-Both victims and offenders tended to be young (median ages, 16 and 17 years
respectively) and male (82.9% and 95.6% respectively). -The deaths occurred in
communities of all sizes in 25 different States. -Students in secondary schools,
students of minority racial and ethnic backgrounds, and students in urban school
districts had higher levels of risk. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SDFSCA Before I
discuss the Administration's proposal for reauthorization of the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), I believe that it is important
to provide some brief background information about the program's history and how
it operates, and to identify some significant issues related to the program's
administration. The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program was first
authorized in 1986, as the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA). The
program was one of a number of prevention, treatment, and interdiction programs
that Congress enacted that year in response to high rates of alcohol and other
drug use rates among student populations, and the burgeoning crack epidemic as
highlighted by the tragic death of basketball player Len Bias. The DFSCA made
funds available to Governors and State and local educational agencies to
implement drug prevention programs. Previously, ED had funded only technical
assistance activities related to drug prevention, at a total of about $3 million
annually. State educational agencies (SEAS) and Governors received $200 million
in fiscal year 1987, the first year of funding for the OFSCA. Funding increased
steadily, peaking at $624 million in Fiscal Year 1992. While these appropriation
levels are undeniable evidence of the concern and commitment of the Congress
about the issue of adolescent drug use and violence, average per-pupil funding
under the program has been in the range of $5 to $9. In 1994, the SDF5CA was
reauthorized as part of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act
(ESEA). The most significant change was the authorization of
violence prevention activities. This focus on school safety was based upon a
growing awareness that some of our schools were not as safe as they should be,
and that schools needed to expand the types of prevention and early intervention
activities they were engaging in, if schools were to be safe, disciplined, and
drug-free. Since many of the issues related to drug and violence prevention are
interrelated, the revised SDFSCA was intended to have school districts develop
integrated programs that addressed student 'risk factors' that cut across
alcohol and other drug use as well as violent behavior. It was assumed that
while some school districts would develop programs that were specifically
tailored to violence prevention, and some to drug prevention, most would use
their SDFS funds to support programs and activities that addressed both issues.
Local educational agencies have responded to this broadened programmatic
authority with an expansion in the types of programs they are implementing.
addressing various aspects of safety and as well as drug prevention, such as
drug prevention instruction, counseling, conflict resolution, peer mediation,
violence prevention curricula, hate crime curricula, mentoring programs,
after-school activities, truancy programs, anti-bullying programs, gang
prevention programs, hiring of security officers, and installation of metal
detectors. The 1994 reauthorization also continued to focus responsibility for
decision-making concerning program expenditures at the State and local levels.
To improve program accountability, LEAS are now required to conduct needs
assessments of their drug and violence problems, establish measurable goals for
the programs they implement, and assess their progress toward meeting those
goals. State educational agencies are also authorized to disapprove LEA
applications for funds that they believe do not best meet the purposes of the
SDFSCA. HAVE THESE EFFORTS BEEN SUCCESSFUL? A significant question that needs to
be addressed as we consider reauthorization of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
program is whether the strategies being implemented by school districts-many as
a result of the expanded authority provided under the SDFS Program in 1994-have
been effective. Does the program work? Are schools safer? Is there less alcohol
and drug use because of this program? Over the course of the past several years
there has been much discussion about the program, including some criticism. For
example, a 1998 report in the Los Angeles Times identified some examples of
activities being implemented at the LEA level that are highly unlikely to
produce demonstrable improvement in youth drug use or violence. I would respond
by saying that, while criticism of the program is warranted in some situations,
it should not be generalized to the entire program. To gain a broader, more
representative perspective, let's review a 1997 General Accounting Off ice
study. Congress asked GAO to review several issues: accountability measures that
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act requires at the Federal,
State and local levels; activities the Department of Education uses for
overseeing State and local programs; how SEAs ensure local programs' compliance
with the Act; and how Safe and Drug-Free funding is specifically used at the
State and local levels. As part of this study, the GAO also investigated some
specific allegations about misuse of program funds. GAO's report, issued in
October 1997 (Safe and Dog-Free School Balancing Accountability With State and
Local Flexibility), stated that while there was a problem in data collection
(the lack of uniform information on program activities and effectiveness may,
however, create a problem for federal oversight), they found that states and
localities were delivering a wide range of services, had established
accountability mechanisms, and 'appear to be operating in ways consistent with
the act.' (p926) The report also found that the allegations concerning
inappropriate uses of program funds had been appropriately examined and resolved
by ED or State educational agencies. A 1998 study by ED's Office of Inspector
General (OIG) of the program looked at State and local school district processes
for developing measurable goals, allocation of funds to local school districts,
whether local school district expenditures were supported by and consistent with
approved plans, and whether the program places an administrative burden on
States and districts. OIG staff visited four States and six local school
districts in each of those States. Based on the results of those site visits,
OIG concluded that: -State and local district processes for developing
measurable goals generally complied with the SDFSCA, although not all SEAs
ensured that their local districts had outcomes-based performance indicators.
-Funds were allocated to States and local districts in a manner consistent with
requirements, and expenditures were reviewed and were consistent with approved
plans, although some local districts activities were not linked to their
identified needs. -States and large local school districts did not perceive that
the program was a burden to administer or operate. Smaller districts did
indicate that the program was a burden and had to use local funds to supplement
program expenses. -States' processes to award "greatest need' funds (the Act
requires SEAs to award 30 percent of their funds to not more then 10 percent of
LEAs with the greatest need for additional resources) were consistent with
program objectives, although OI6 felt that LEAs should be held more accountable
for achieving results with those funds. The program's current administrative
framework also provides significant challenges to Federal, State and local
administrators. The Secretary is committed to implementing Federal education
programs in a manner that effectively balances State and local flexibility with
accountability for program results. This approach is consistent with our
promulgation of the SOFS Principles of Effectiveness last year. These Principles
require SDFSCA subgrant recipients to use objective data to identify their
needs, establish measurable goals for their programs, implement programs of
demonstrated effectiveness, and assess their progress toward achieving their
State goals. The Principles seek to preserve flexibility and minimize burden for
local school officials while putting in place a simple framework that focuses on
high-quality programs and results. Through this action, States and school
districts are required to carry our activities consistent with the principles:
operating programs that the research has shown to be effective is not an
optional use of program funds. MAJOR ISSUES REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATION,
MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATION OF THE SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS PROGRAM We believe
that many aspects of the Departments strategy to help students achieve and meet
high educational standards are a critically important part of comprehensive
efforts to ensure that students are safe, healthy, and drug-free, and many
activities that will help achieve this goal am included in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act reauthorization proposal. Based on evaluation studies,
State performance reports, surveys of local school districts, and monitoring and
other administrative activities, we have identified a number of significant
areas of concern regarding the SDFSCA, and the following information focuses
most heavily on that program. We have carefully considered these issues and
developed our reauthorization proposal to respond directly to the challenges
this program is facing. We believe that with changes proposed in the
reauthorization bill, we can make schools safer, and help further reduce rates
of alcohol and drug use among students. The major issues we identified and the
strategies we propose to address those issues include: Funds are awarded in
amounts too small to permit the implementation of comprehensive, research-based
programs. Currently, approximately 97 percent of all school districts receive
Safe and Drug- Free Schools funds. Funds are awarded on a formula basis to all
school districts that complete an application for funding. While this permits
most school districts to receive some funding for drug and violence prevention
initiatives, it dilutes funding to such a degree that a majority of school
districts do not receive enough funds to develop and implement the types of
comprehensive efforts that are necessary to combat drug use and violent behavior
effectively. Fifty-nine percent of all school districts receiving SDFSCA funding
receive less than $10,000. This amount is inadequate to develop comprehensive
approaches needed to prevent youth drug use and violence. As a result, school
districts are likely to implement the kinds of prevention programs they can
afford, not the ones that their students deserve. Response: The Administration
is proposing that SDFSCA funds be awarded competitively within States. Our
proposal would require a State educational agency to award funds to no more than
half of its local educational agencies, based upon need and quality of
application. However, we recognize that in some States more than half of LEAs
may be implementing high-quality, effective programs, in these situations States
would permitted to funds more LEAs if they provide justification. This
allocation proposal may be the most contentious and difficult in the
reauthorization proposal, because it means that some districts that have been
participating in the program would -not continue to receive funding. While we
recognize that some disruption would be involved in not awarding funds to every
school district, we believe that targeting funds to those districts most in
need, and requiring districts to use their funds for programs and strategies of
proven effectiveness, is the strategy most likely to produce demonstrable
success for our children, schools and communities. Continuing the current
practice of spreading funding so broadly is unlikely to result in the kinds of
program improvements that need to be made. Our reauthorization proposal also
authorizes additional funding for an enhanced training and technical assistance
capacity at the State level, which would serve all of the States LEAs, not just
those receiving 5DFSCA grant awards. Recognizing that some LEAs with the most
significant drug and violence prevention problems may lack the capacity to
develop high-quality plans for addressing these issues, SEAs would be authorized
to use up to 10 percent of their funding to make non- competitive grants based
solely on need. SEAs would be required to provide additional support to LEAs
receiving these awards to ensure that they develop the capacity to submit
competitive applications for funding in the future. Funds often used to support
programs and activities that are not effective. Another criticism of the SDFSCA
State Grants program is that LEAs have selected, and SEAs have approved,
programs and strategies that are not likely to reduce drug use or violence. We
believe that this problem is closely related to the relatively modest size of
grants received by the majority of school districts. The problem is exacerbated
because the volume of research related to effective drug use and violence
prevention programs is not as extensive as we might wish and the results of the
existing research have not been readily available to local practitioners.
Because many States are unable to devote even one full-time staff member to
administering the program, the capacity to provide effective technical
assistance to local school districts is also limited. When these factors are
combined with the pressure to focus limited instructional time on activities
designed to improve student achievement on State assessments, it is not
surprising that local officials don t always select comprehensive,
research-based programs and strategies. Response: ED recognizes that decisions
regarding what programs to select properly belong at the local level. However,
we also recognize that the flexibility to select programs must be balanced with
a focus on results. Accordingly, we are proposing that the Principles of
Effectiveness, currently established under our rule-making authority, be
codified as part of the SOFS reauthorization. the principles would require SEAs,
LEAs, and Governors receiving SOFS funds to do four things: conduct an
assessment of their alcohol, drug, and violence prevention problems: set
measurable goals and objectives; use their SDFS funds for research-based
programs; and periodically conduct evaluations to ensure that their goals and
objectives are being met. Incorporating the principles into the legislation.
coupled with requirements to target resources on areas of demonstrated need,
establish results-based performance measures, and publicly report progress
toward meeting the States performance measures will help ensure that SDFS funds
are used to support only sound effective alcohol, drug, and violence prevention
and early intervention programs. An added benefit of our proposal to award funds
competitively is that it would give States greater freedom to guide local
choices and focus support on activities that have a clear and direct
relationship to drug and violence prevention. Our proposal would also require
that local school districts develop comprehensive school safety plans as part of
their application for an SDFSCA grant. As mentioned earlier, the reauthorization
proposal also would provide additional resources to States to help their local
school districts and communities develop the skills and capacity needed to
ensure that they implement programs and activities that are most likely to
produce real results. The State and Local Educational Agency program and
Governor's program am focused on achieving different purposes. The Safe and Drug
Free Schools program is the only program at ED that provides grants to the
Governors of each State. Twenty percent of each State s allocation is awarded to
the Governor. Under current law, these funds are to be used to support programs
for children and youth who are not normally served by State or local educational
agencies, or populations that need special services or additional resources
(such as preschoolers, youth in juvenile detention facilities, runaway or
homeless children and youth, pregnant and parenting teenagers, and school
dropouts.) As a result, the Governor's program has not always been well
coordinated with the State Educational Agency's program. Funds from one program
have not been used to support or buttress the efforts of the other program:
instead, they have frequently operated as separate activities. Funds from the
Governor's program are also more likely to duplicate the efforts of some other
Federal programs that are focused on providing support for drug or violence
prevention for juvenile offenders, residents of public housing authorities, and
out-of-school youth. Response: To ensure that the two programs-the SEA and the
Governor's program--are both focused on the -creation of safe, disciplined and
drug-free learning environments, we are proposing that the Governor's funds be
used to support community efforts that 'directly complement the efforts of local
educational agencies to foster drug-free, safe, and orderly learning
environments in and around schools.' To be eligible for a grant from the
Governor's program, an applicant would provide an explanation of how grant
activities will complement or support the efforts of one or more local
educational agencies or schools within a local educational agency to provide a
drug-free, safe, and orderly environment. Our proposal also requires the SEA and
Governor to jointly use amounts reserved for State-level activities (not less
than 10 percent of each allocation) to plan, develop, and implement
capacity-building, technical assistance, and accountability activities that are
designed to support the effective implementation of local drug and violence
prevention activities throughout the State and that promote program
accountability and improvement. Governors and State educational agencies would
also submit a joint application to the Department of Education for SDFSCA funds.
We feel that these actions will result in a Governors Program that is more
directly linked to the efforts of the State Educational Agency, concentrates
resources on the task of creating safe, disciplined, and dru.9-free learning
environments, and produces more comprehensive drug and violence programs that
effectively link the efforts of schools districts with the efforts of their
communities. Youth expelled for bringing firearms to school can be returned
without any mental health assessment. Each year thousands of youth are expelled
for bringing a firearm to school, (in the 1996-1997 school year 6,093 students
were expelled). The Gun-Free Schools Act requires that schools expel for one
year those students and refer them to appropriate law enforcement authorities.
While requiring expulsion for one year, the Gun-Free Schools Act permits youths
that are expelled for possession of a firearm to be educated in an alternative
placement. It also permits LEA official's to modify the expulsion requirement on
a case-by-case basis. Response: We believe that the lives of teachers and other
students are being unnecessarily jeopardized unless we require that students who
carry firearms to schools undergo a thorough mental health assessment. Our
reauthorization proposal for the Gun-Free Schools Act would require that any
student who possesses a firearm at school be referred to the criminal justice or
juvenile justice system (as in current law), and also be 'referred to a mental
health professional for assessment as to whether he or she poses an imminent
threat of harm to himself, herself, or others and needs appropriate mental
health services before readmission to school.' We ore also proposing that any
student 'who has been determined by a mental health professional to pose an
imminent threat of harm to himself, herself, or others receive appropriate
mental health services before being permitted to return to school.' Provisions
in Title )a of our reauthorization proposal would also require school districts
to provide for appropriate supervision, counseling, and educational services to
students who are suspended or expelled from school. There is an excellent
example of how this process can work, currently operating in the Boston Public
Schools. Boston Public Schools currently require that all students caught
carrying a gun or other weapon to school be referred to the Boston Public
Schools Counseling and Intervention Center for a mental health and education
assessment. Students are not returned to their school until a complete
assessment of their needs has been made and a plan developed to support the
student. Although the public is extremely concerned about school violence and
youth drug use, information about the nature and extent of both problems, and
the prevention activities being implemented to address them, are not widely
available. Most of the information the public receives about its schools and
students comes from press reports. While the issues of school violence and youth
drug use have received a tremendous amount of news and other media coverage,
many of these stories do not point an accurate or comprehensive picture of local
schools or of student behavior in our individual communities. Response: ED is
proposing that school safety, alcohol, and drug- related issues, including 'the
incidence of school violence and drug and alcohol abuse and the number of
instances in which a student has possessed a firearm at school,' be included in
annual State-level Report Cards, District Report Cards, and School Report Cards.
ED believes that sharing consistent and accurate information with the public
about alcohol and drug use and violent incidents among students will improve the
publics understanding of the problem confronting schools and students, encourage
increased parental and community involvement, and provide information that can
be used to assess progress toward meeting State, LEA, and school drug and
violence prevention goals. When the news is good, parents and community members
can take some comfort. And when serious incidents occur, a well- informed public
will be in a better position to help bring about positive changes for their
schools and to make appropriate decisions regarding children s well being.
School districts am not fully prepared to respond to a major crisis. It has
become increasingly clear that crises that affect schools, students, and their
families do occur, often times in the least likely times and places, and that
schools are not prepared to deal with the aftermath of such events. Whether it
is shootings such as those that occurred in Littleton, Colorado; Springfield,
Oregon; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Pearl, Mississippi, and Paducah, Kentucky, or
multiple deaths that occurred as a result of drug overdoses such as those that
occurred in Orange, County Florida, schools are called upon to immediately
reassure students, teachers, administrators, and family members that they will
be safe and secure in school, and to provide longer-term services to those
students, teachers, and administrators who are struggling to cope with the
tragedy. Often school districts lack the financial and human resources to deal
with the consequences of such a tragedy and, as a result, provide inadequate or
even no services. Not dealing with the consequences of these tragedies can
result in poor academic performance, and high rates of absenteeism, disruption,
and depression. Response: Our proposal would authorize a program that would
provide support for short- and longer-term services to local school districts in
which the learning environment has been disrupted due to a violent or traumatic
crisis. Project SERV (School Emergency, Response to Violence) would provide
assistance to school personnel in assessing a crisis situation, providing mental
health crisis counseling, and maintaining increased school security. Funds could
also be used to support training and technical assistance for State and local
educational agencies, mental health agencies, law enforcement agencies, and
communities to enhance their capacity to develop and implement crisis
intervention plans, as well as to identify and disseminate the best practices of
school and community-related plans for responding to crises. The issues of
school safety and youth drug prevention do not exist in isolation. To ensure
safe and orderly learning environments, we must also attend to other important
issues related to academic achievement and school climate. Several other ED
initiatives are vital to our prevention efforts. Class size reduction, school
construction, high school reform, GEAR UP, character education and Elementary
and Secondary Education Act programs that focus on high standards and quality
teaching all play a role in creating a school experience for our Nation's
children that will help them grow and thrive. Over the past several years we
have become increasingly aware of the fact that creating safe, disciplined, and
dru.9-free learning environments and keeping students dru.9-free is not a simple
process and it cannot be done without the help and support of the entire
community, including students and their parents, law enforcement, businesses,
clergy, youth-serving organizations, and the health and mental health
communities. During the past year we have worked with the Departments of Health
and Human Services and Justice to develop a model that reflects this
comprehensive, collaborative approach to the creation of safe schools and
healthy students. The Safe Schools-Healthy Students Initiative is designed to
provide students with comprehensive, integrated services designed to promote
healthy childhood development. The three departments combined have agreed to
contribute nearly $300 million over a three-year period toward the initiative,
with an additional $80 million available from the Office of Community Oriented
Policing at the US Department of Justice for the hiring of school-based law
enforcement officers. Through a streamlined, single application process,
successful applicants will receive support from the collaborating agencies for
up to three years. Awards under this initiative will range from $3 million per
year for urban districts to $2 million for suburban and $1 million for
rural/tribal districts. The Safe Schools-Healthy Students Initiative is designed
to help communities integrate existing and new services and activities into a
comprehensive approach to prevention activities. This comprehensive approach
will respond to community needs and reflect an overall vision for the community.
Through an integrated approach, these services and activities will help young
people develop the social skills and emotional resilience necessary to avoid
drug use and violent behavior and establish a school environment that is safe,
disciplined, and alcohol and drug free. Applications for this initiative were
due on June 1, 1999. Interest in this initiative has been overwhelming, with
approximately 450 applications received from local educational agencies. We
anticipate making awards to approximately 50 communities. Successful applicants
will be announced by August 31,1999. I believe that this model holds
considerable progress and exemplifies our vision for prevention programming in
our country. We believe that future success in creating safe school environments
is contingent upon our ability to forge successful linkages at all levels -
local, State, and Federal, as well as our ability to create comprehensive
strategies that respond to the overall needs of the community. Thank you again
for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer your questions.
LOAD-DATE: July 14, 1999 
