U.S. Targets Drugs, Violence in Schools

Spurred by last year’s spate of schoolyard shootings, federal officials committed $300 million in new grants Thursday to school districts that can demonstrate effective ways of combating violence and drugs.

The program will provide up to $3 million per year for three years to 50 public districts that, through an application process, can put together a comprehensive strategy in areas such as gang intervention, school security, mental health treatment and mentoring.

The overall rate of crime in schools has actually decreased slightly nationwide over the last five years, but worries over the state of American education--along with tragic shootings in schoolyards from Oregon to Kentucky--have made fighting violence and drugs a passionate cause.

“Communities are coming together across the nation to provide services for children,” Atty. Gen. Janet Reno said in announcing the program. She hailed the initiative as an “unprecedented partnership” between three Cabinet-level departments--Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services--in an effort to streamline the cumbersome funding process and get resources to those students most in need of help.

But specialists in the field were somewhat dubious. “These are important issues, and we ought to applaud them,” said University of Michigan professor Maris Vinvoskis, who has studied educational policy issues extensively.

But, he said, given the federal government’s spotty track record in the area, “there’s every reason to be skeptical about whether this is going to do what they say it’s going to do. . . . Why should I believe it this time?”

In the past, federal school programs with similar aims sparked criticism for devoting billions of dollars with virtually no strings attached. In the name of safe and drug-free schools, funds were used for things such as Disneyland tickets, puppet shows and resort weekends for community leaders.

But federal officials vowed that this latest program will ensure higher standards of accountability because districts will have to compete for the money. “Schools that come in with programs that aren’t sound and effective are going to be knocked out,” said Bill Modzeleski, the Department of Education’s point man for the program.

In applications due June 1, districts seeking funds will have to provide documentation on key problem areas--such as drug and alcohol use, weapon possession, truancy and suicidal behavior--and map out a plan for combating these problems. The plan must demonstrate cooperation with outside groups, such as police, mental health and juvenile justice officials.

The program will award up to $3 million a year to urban school districts, $2 million to suburban districts and $1 million to rural and tribal districts. Initial grants will last three years.

Modzeleski pointed to the Los Angeles Unified School District as a place that could benefit from the program. A successful application might propose improving conditions in problem schools in South-Central Los Angeles by employing more truancy officers and keeping schools open longer for after-school programs, said Modzeleski, who visited the district a few weeks ago.

He stressed that districts must rely on methods that have been proved effective by existing research. A district that wanted to spend all its money on metal detectors, for instance, would face rejection because “research has shown that’s highly ineffective.”

L.A. Unified spokesman Brad Sales said linking federal funds to proven programs is “a welcome and needed” step and that Los Angeles will certainly apply.

At Drug Strategies, a Washington research group that has given failing marks to many federal education-funding programs, vice president Rosalind Brannigan said she is encouraged by the initiative.

Setting up a competitive application process and establishing clear expectations for districts is a break from many of the earlier programs that failed, she said.

“It’s a step in the right direction. . . . People are being put on notice that these programs have to be proven to work,” Brannigan said. But ensuring that districts abandon popular but often ineffective community drug and violence programs, she added, “could be like turning the Queen Elizabeth. It would take a lot of institutional effort.”