Detailed Information on the
Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants Assessment

Complete dissemination of uniform data set and development of publication that summarizes best practices in collecting, reporting, and using data to manage prevention programs.

Post State-level performance data on progress toward meeting performance targets on the program website.

Work with Congress during the upcoming reauthorization to authorize a more effective vehicle for school-based drug and violence prevention.

Collect and report data on the extent to which program funds are being used to support high-quality, research-based strategies at the local level.

Implement a project with States to develop a uniform data set that they can use as a model in meeting the requirements of the Uniform Management Information and Reporting System in ESEA Title IV.

Measure: The percentage of drug and violence prevention programs/practices supported with SDFSC state grants funding that are research-based.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of SDFSC-funded research-based drug and violence prevention curriculum programs that are implemented with fidelity.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of students in grades 9-12 who were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property during the past 12 months.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of students in grades 9-12 who used marijuana one or more times during the past 30 days.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of students in grades 9-12 who had five or more drinks of alcohol in a row (that is, within a couple of hours) one or more times during the past 30 days.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of students grades 9-12 who were in a physical fight on school property one or more times during the past 12 months.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of students grades 9-12 who carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property one or more times during the past 30 days.

Explanation:

Measure: The number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring visits.

Explanation:

Measure: The number of days it takes States to respond satisfactorily to findings in the monitoring reports.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act State Grants Program is to support programs that (1) prevent violence in and around schools; (2) prevent the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs; (3) involve parents and communities in drug and violence prevention activities; and (4) are coordinated with other community efforts and resources to foster a safe and drug-free learning environment that supports academic achievement.

Evidence: The program is authorized by the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA), Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The program purpose is contained in Section 4002.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program is designed to provide resources to State and local educational agencies and community-based organizations to support youth drug and violence prevention services. The need for substance abuse and violence prevention services, particularly in school settings, is clear and current.

Evidence: While rates of youth drug use and violence have generally been trending down over the past few years, both of these issues remain significant social problems. For example, in 2002, students between the ages of 12 and 18 were the victims of some 1.9 million nonfatal crimes at schools. This total included 740,000 violent crimes (simple assaults and serious violent crime), of which 150,000 were serious violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, aggravated assault, or robbery). These figures represent student victimization rates of 45/1000 for nonfatal crimes; 28/1000 for violent crimes; and 6/1000 for serious violent crimes. (National Crime Victimization Survey: 2003) Victimization can having lasting effects, including depression, loneliness, and adjustment difficulties. Students who are victims are also more prone to truancy, poor academic performance, and dropping out of school. (Indicators of School Crime: 2005) Recent data about illicit drug use among youth 12-17 suggest that about one child in ten used an illicit drug in the month prior to the survey. (National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health: 2004) More than 70% of deaths in the United States for persons ages 10-24 result from four causes - motor vehicle crashes, homicide, suicide, and unintentional injuries. Results from the most recent Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System survey (2003) demonstrate that in the 30 days preceding the survey, many students engaged in behaviors that increase the likelihood of death from those four causes. For example, more than 30% had ridden with a driver who had been drinking alcohol, 45% had drunk alcohol, 17% had carried a weapon and 22% had used marijuana.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: While the Federal government supports a variety of programs designed to address problems related to youth drug use and violence, SDFSC State Grants is the Federal government's primary vehicle for supporting school-based drug and violence prevention activities. Some HHS programs provide support for direct drug prevention services via a block grant mechanism, but those programs do not focus primarily on prevention. For example, SAMHSA's Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant provides funding to single State agencies, but States are required to reserve only 20 percent of funding for prevention purposes, and those limited prevention funds are targeted heavily on community-based priorities. Another priority substance abuse program, Drug-Free Communities, provides small grants designed to support community collaboration around issues related to preventing drug use, but the funds cannot be used to support direct services. Some States and local educational agencies also provide support for school-based drug prevention and/or violence prevention programs, but in many cases, SDFSCA funds are the only funds available for prevention activities. In the most recent available data released in 2000, 42% of rural districts reported receiving no other prevention funds, and 45% of districts in the high-poverty quartile indicated that they received no other funds to support prevention programs.

Evidence: Progress in Prevention: Report on the National Study of Local Educational Agency Activities under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: While the program has design advantages (for example, significant flexibility for States and localities to use funds to meet a broad range of local needs), the thin distribution of funds prevents many local administrators from designing and implementing meaningful interventions. About two-thirds of all school districts receive allocations of less than $10,000, amounts typically too small to mount comprehensive and effective drug prevention and school safety programs.

Evidence: Title IV, Part A of the ESEA ; "Options for Restructuring the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act." RAND Drug Policy Research Center 2001.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Under the statute, States allocate funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) based 60 percent on LEA shares of ESEA Title I funding and 40 percent on enrollment. There is no targeting of funds based on prevalence or incidence of drugs or violence.

Evidence: Title IV, Part A of the ESEA.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Department has established seven long-term performance measures for the program. The performance measures are (1) the percentage of drug and violence prevention programs/practices supported with SDFSC State Grant funds that are research based; (2) the percentage of SDFSC-funded research-based drug and violence prevention programs/practices that are implemented with fidelity; (3) the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property during the past 12 months; (4) the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who used marijuana one or more times during the past 30 days; (5) the percentage of students grades 9-12 who had five or more drinks of alcohol in a row one or more times during the past 30 days; (6) the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who were in a physical fight on school property one or more times during the past 12 months; and (7) the percentage of students grades 9-12 who carried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club, on school property one or more times during the past 30 days. These measures examine the extent to which program funds are used for high-quality, research-based strategies and also link to program purposes (reducing drug and alcohol use and violence among students).

Evidence: Measures tab in the PART.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: A study currently underway will provide baseline data for the two measures which examine the extent to which program funds are used for high-quality, research based prevention strategies. ED will establish targets for these measures as soon as the baseline data are available. ED has collected baseline data for the five remaining measures and has established ambitious targets for them through 2011. For example, the target for the measure of students in grades 9-12 who were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property is a reduction of 4 percentage points by 2011; and the target for the measure of students in grades 9-12 who were in a physical fight on school property one or more times during the past 12 months is 2 percentage points reduction by 2011. These targets may appear modest; but given that, historically, prevalence rates of drug use are approaching all-time lows and the most recent data for youth violence show small increases from 2003 to 2005, the targets for 2009 and 2011 are ambitious and challenging. At the same time, trend data for the alcohol use rate and the rate of students carrying a weapon on school property indicate these targets are realistic. For example, between 2001 and 2003, the alcohol use rate decreased by 2 percentage points and the rate of students carrying a weapon actually increased by three-tenths of one percentage point.

Evidence: Measures tab in the PART.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The annual performance measures for this program are the same as the long-term program goals enumerated in the response to question 2.1. These measures are discrete, quantifiable and measurable. Data for them come from two sources. Data for the two performance measures relating to program quality (specifically, to the use of research-based programs/practices and the fidelity in implementation of these programs/strategies) will be collected periodically by the Department. The 2005 data for these two measures are being collected via a nationally representative sample of school districts and schools. Data on the prevalence of youth drug use and violence are collected biennially from CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS), which surveys a nationally representative sample of students in grades 9 - 12. These data help the Department monitor progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals for five of the annual performance measures.

Evidence: Measures tab in the PART.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: A study currently underway will provide baseline data for the two measures which examine the extent to which program funds are used for high-quality, research based prevention strategies. ED will establish targets for these measures as soon as the baseline data are available. ED has collected baseline data for the five remaining measures related to the prevalence of drug use and violence in schools and has established ambitious and realistic targets for them for 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. These measures include the percentage of students using or being exposed to illegal drugs and alcohol at school, and reductions in fights and weapon possession at school. The targets for these measures are ambitious because they call for continued reductions in youth drug use and violence, even though prevalence rates of youth drug use are approaching historically low rates and recent data show small increases in youth violence occurred between 2003 to 2005.

Evidence: Measures tab in the PART.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: States, local recipients, and the Department of Education report on program performance. ED reports data for the program's established performance measures. State and local recipients identify and establish performance measures for the drug and violence prevention activities supported under the program. The program's authorizing statute establishes a planning framework for the program ("principles of effectiveness") that requires both State and local recipients to assess need, establish related performance measures, select interventions based on scientific research, and assess progress and modify activities as appropriate. States provide annual information about progress toward their identified performance measures. The most recent available information, submitted in April 2005, reflect results from 22 States (other States reported baseline data to be used to set targets). Generally, States identified indicators in five broad categories - indicators related to alcohol use, tobacco use, illegal drug use, weapons possession, or other indicators related to violence prevention.

Evidence: Measures tab in the PART; State data from Consolidated State Performance Reports, Part II, 2005.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: ED is supporting a national study to determine the extent to which local educational agencies are implementing research-based drug and violence prevention programs, and if those programs are being implemented in a manner consistent with the original research-based model. Programs were identified as research-based through a thorough review of the literature on drug, alcohol, and violence prevention programs. This study will provide important data to respond to questions about compliance with perhaps the most important of the SDFSCA principles of effectiveness - reliance on programs based on scientifically based research. This evaluation will also provide baseline data covering the 2004-05 school year for two of the program's seven performance measures and will provide important data that program managers can use to tailor monitoring and technical assistance activities. ED expects to have initial data available from this study in 2007, and plans to conducting a follow-up study to collect similar data for the 2007-08 school year. Additionally, the Institute of Educational Sciences, in coordination with the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS), has begun a rigorous impact evaluation, based on the advice of outside research experts and practitioners, of a promising school-based violence prevention program. This major evaluation will provide important data in an area in which relatively little on effectiveness is available.

Evidence: "Study of the Implementation of Research-Based Programs and Practices to Prevent Youth Substance Abuse and Violence", Westat, Inc. (GPRA study) http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/resources/studyplans.html (IES Study).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Budget requests for the program are not explicitly tied to accomplishment of the performance goals. Annual budget requests are not derived by estimating needs to achieve long-term outcomes, and costs are not specifically attributed to individual program goals. However, the Department's budget submissions show the full cost (including S&E) for all programs.

Evidence: Annual congressional budget submission.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: ED has developed performance measures for the program, commissioned a study of research-based programs to collect data for two of these measures, and set targets for five of these performance measures. Remaining strategic plannnig concerns primarily revolve around collecting high-quality outcome data from States about their progress under the program, and around the collection and use of data to manage prevention initiatives. Projects initiated by the Department in this area include a competitive grant program to provide support to States to improve data quality and the use of data to manage prevention programs, and the development of a uniform data set to address these strategic concerns. Under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) National Programs, the Department has awarded a total of 17 grants during the past two fiscal years to State partnerships designed to improve the quality of data related to youth drug use and violence, as well as the use of data in managing State and local prevention programs. ED also awarded a contract at the end of fiscal year 2004 to support the development, in conjunction with the States, of a uniform data set that addresses the statute's Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) requirements. The data set will hopefully increase comparability of data being collected by States, and facilitate development of required Congressional reports by forming the basis of data elements, definitions, and code sets for State performance reports.

Evidence: List of grants awarded at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpstatemanagement/awards05.html; http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpstatemanagement/184r04grants.doc. "Improving the Quality and Use of Data in Managing Youth Drug and Violence Prevention Programs" contract, Westat, Inc.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department collects performance information from States through semi-annual performance monitoring calls, periodic site visits, and the review of annual performance reports; however, ED has not yet collected the baseline performance data necessary to set meaningful, ambitious performance targets for all of the program's performance measures. Using information gathered from the performance calls and the review of performance reports the Department is able to assess compliance with program requirements, to monitor performance, and to make decisions about priorities for site visits. ED also uses the information collected from its monitoring efforts to identify topics that require targeted technical assistance for grantees as well as to identify promising practices that can be shared with other States. For instance, through monitoring activities ED is collecting data on how SEAs are issuing waivers to LEAs to implement innovative programs that may not meet the standard (under the statute) of being a program based on scientifically based research. We are able to use these data to identify best practices for the SEA review and issuance of these waivers and to use these best practices to offer timely technical assistance to those SEAs facing challenges in implementing the waiver process. While annual performance data are not comparable across States, they are credible, for management purposes, for looking at State identified performance targets and progress made by States in addressing their respective performance targets. Also, in the past two fiscal years the Department has awarded 17 grants to State agencies to support the advancement of strategies for developing, expanding, or enhancing the capacity of State and local educational agencies to collect, analyze, and use data to improve the quality of drug and violence prevention programs administered in the States. As part of its effort to identify and manage risk, OSDFS has developed a "watch list" that identifies and records information about grantees (for both formula and discretionary grant programs) that exhibit potentially significant problems in fiscal and programmatic management. Data collected from monitoring contacts, performance reports, site visits, and audit findings are used to evaluate and manage possible risks. This watch list is used to closely monitor and offer timely technical assistance to grantees that are experiencing problems that could lead to a possible designation as a high-risk grantee.

Evidence: Consolidated State Performance Reports, OSDFS Monitoring Plan; http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpstatemanagement/awards.html.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: As part of the President's Management Agenda, ED has implemented EDPAS (Education Department Performance Appraisal System) an agency-wide system that links employee performance to progress on strategic planning goals. Performance agreements hold managers accountable for meeting established deadlines for awarding grants and for managing their programs through monitoring, technical assistance, and data collection activities that are designed to focus on measuring and raising program performance. ED's OSDFS holds grantees accountable using an established schedule of regular monitoring activities which examine grantee fiscal and performance responsibilities. Through topic-focused monitoring calls, site visits, compliance reviews, audit reports and reviews of fiscal management, grantees are evaluated for performance. In addition, program monitors are expected to regularly monitor a grantee's drawdown activity to determine whether any cause for concern exists. Using the Department's Grants Administration and Payment System (GAPS), monitors are able to view a grantee's expenditure of funds. Grantees are contacted if excessive drawdowns occur, or if grant funds are not expended within a reasonable period of time. Grantees that do not meet Federal requirements are required to implement improvement plans and corrective actions, and can have conditions placed on their grant awards or have grants delayed for serious or persistent failure to comply. Requests to reinstate grants funds for liquidation after the grant has expired are carefully considered in the context of the ED's recently implemented policy in this area. Grantees must provide detailed information about the circumstances requiring reinstatement and describe corrective actions to ensure that future requests for reinstatement will not be necessary.

Evidence: EDPAS agreements; OSDFS Monitoring Plan; GAPS reports.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Funds are obligated by the Department for all recipients with approved plans at the Federal level by July 1 of each year. These obligations are recorded in the Department's Grant Award Payment System (GAPS). State and local recipients have up to 27 months to obligate these funds. OSDFS staff routinely reviews grantees' expenditures through monitoring and by reviewing drawdowns in GAPS to ensure consistency with programmatic specifications and to identify and address potential problems in the liquidation of obligations. Unexpended balances from prior years have been substantially reduced in the last two years (less than 1 percent each year of the amount obligated). Aggregate State and local expenditures are reported by States to the Department via GAPS. All grants under the program are subject to the requirements of OMB Circular A-133 (Single Audit Act). Audits referred to ED via the Federal Audit Clearinghouse process are resolved carefully and in a timely way. Required grantee corrective actions are reviewed by ED staff. Monitoring protocols for State-level grantees include questions that check for internal control processes that link approved planned expenditures to actual expenditures.

Evidence: GAPS/ORACLE/FMSS reports; Audit Accountability Resolution Tracking Systems (AARTS); Monitoring protocols.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: ED has adopted, compiled baseline data, and established targets for the following two efficiency measures for this program: (1) the number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring visits; and (2) the number of days it takes States to respond satisfactorily to findings in the monitoring reports. The Department is also engaged in several activities designed to improve program efficiency and the collection of data on alcohol, drug and violence prevention among children through its Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) and EDFacts initiative. This initiative is a collaborative effort among the Department, SEAs, and industry partners to improve the quality and timeliness of education information. The project will provide timely performance data to education decision-makers and grant managers, streamline the data collection process, and reduce the burden of grant reporting.

Evidence: Measures tab in the PART.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Significant collaboration efforts with other programs/activities that share similar and goals and objectives are an important part of program management efforts. CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health has provided a non-reimbursable detailee to OSDFS for the past several years to help support a coordinated response to a variety of school-health related issues, including youth substance abuse and violence. ED has also worked collaboratively with CDC to develop studies concerning rates and characteristics of school-associated violent deaths. The Department is also coordinating with other Federal agencies, including the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, on the development of common performance measures. For example, in developing the uniform data set for the SDFSC State Grants program, ED has included information that will help States respond to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services National Outcomes Measures (NOMs) for prevention programs. ED is also coordinating the implementation of the "Safe Schools/Healthy Students" (SS/HS) initiative (competitive grants to LEAs for comprehensive drug prevention, violence prevention, and mental health services) with SAMHSA and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

Evidence: IAA with CDC re: detail; SS/HS website at http://www.sshs.samhsa.gov.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Department regularly monitors grantees for activities under this program, and States are required to conduct annual audits of their education programs. No substantial internal control weaknesses have been reported by auditors. Few audit problems related to use of funds are encountered. Those audits referred are resolved carefully and in a timely manner. By monitoring grantees for excessive fund drawdowns and excessive unexpended fund balances, as well as emphasizing risk assessment, the Department is providing a strong framework for effective financial management. Technical assistance and guidance are provided to all grantees to mitigate the need to request the reinstatement of expired funds. Financial information obtained through GAPS is accurate and timely.

Evidence: ED audits, OSDFS Monitoring Plan.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Through regular and targeted monitoring of grantee activities, the Department routinely assesses program management by States to identify weaknesses. Over the past year, these reviews have addressed State monitoring activities, tracking of required corrective actions, and tracking States' draw-down of funds. An area recently identified for future targeted review is compliance with UMIRS requirements. The Department routinely reviews and analyzes single audit reports, as well as reports from monitoring activities, to identify trends and to develop monitoring and technical assistance strategies to reduce risk and occurrences of similar problems. For example, the Department has implemented a regular process of reviewing GAPS data to determine if States have drawn down a reasonable percentage of funds. As a result, the amount of funds remaining unspent at the end of the 27 months of availability for obligation has decreased from nearly $7 million in 2001 (nearly 2 percent of awarded funds) to less than $5 million in 2003 (about 1 percent of awarded funds). For grantees that demonstrate possible risk, the Department may provide technical assistance, require grantees to implement improvement plans, place conditions placed on grant awards, or have grants reduced or discontinued. OSDFS has also undertaken significant internal restructuring in order to reduce assignments for staff with primary responsibility for the formula program that are not directly related to oversight of formula grants. Additionally, work assignments for more senior staff in the office were shifted to focus on issues related to implementation of this program.

Evidence: ED Audits.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Department obtains extensive information about grantee activities under this program through its monitoring activities. Program staff monitor grantees at least twice annually through targeted calls which address performance and management activities, annually review performance reports, cyclically monitor compliance and performance through on-site visits, and provide technical assistance. Capitalizing on information discerned through these monitoring activities, the Department is able to assess and address possible risks and tailor site visits and technical assistance activities to enhance grantee performance. The Department also gains information about grantee use of funds from the annual Single Audits of Federal programs required to be conducted by States. Within ED, these findings are disseminated to individual program offices, which are responsible for ensuring that corrective action is taken if necessary.

Evidence: Audits, OSDFS Monitoring Plans, staff reports of monitoring activities.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: ED collects performance information from grantees in a variety of ways; however, this information is not yet available to the public. States provide data through the Consolidated State Performance Report annually, including their progress toward meeting targets for identified performance measures. Based on this information, and other data collected from States concerning school safety, ED is developing individual State profiles that consolidate information about States' progress toward meeting their performance measures; truancy rates; suspensions and expulsions for offenses related to youth drug use and violence; prevalence data related to youth drug use and violence; information about age of onset of drug use and perception of social disapproval and health risk; Gun-Free Schools Act data; and Unsafe School Choice Option data. ED plans to post these State-level profiles on its website in 2007 and will also include them in a report to Congress about this program. These data are complemented by information obtained via monitoring activities, including periodic performance calls and site visits, as described previously. In addition, the Department collects and publicly reports data on the performance measures for this program discussed in the answer to question 2.1.

Evidence: CSPR reports; GFSA reports.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: A study currently underway will provide baseline data for the two measures which examine the extent to which program funds are used for high-quality, research based prevention strategies; consequently, ED has yet to establish targets for these measures. ED has two data points for the remaining five performance measures established for this program. The Department has met its 2005 targets for the majority (three out of five) of the measures. Data for these three measures also show a steady decrease in student drug use since 2001. The other two measures show no statistically significant increase in fights or weapons carrying at school since 2001, which slightly falls short of the 2005 target of an incremental decrease in fights and weapons carrying.

Evidence: Measures Tab in PART.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: A study currently underway will provide baseline data for the two measures which examine the extent to which program funds are used for high-quality, research based prevention strategies; consequently, ED has yet to establish targets for these measures. ED has two data points (2003 and 2005) for the remaining five performance measures established for this program. While the Department has met its 2005 targets for three of the five measures, it has not met its 2005 target for 2 of the measures.

Evidence: Measures tab in the PART.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: ED has adopted, compiled baseline data, and established targets for the following two efficiency measures for this program: (1) the number of days it takes the Department to send a monitoring report to States after monitoring visits; and (2) the number of days it takes States to respond satisfactorily to findings in the monitoring reports. Baseline data show no change between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for either of these measures. The Department has set ambitious targets for improvement in future years for both of these measures.

Evidence: Measures tab in the PART.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Other formula grant programs with similar purposes and goals generally seem to face some of the same challenges identified for the SDFSCA State Grants program. For example, the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant received an Ineffective rating in its 2003 PART review, due to concerns about the formula for allocation of resources under the program and the lack of acceptable outcome measures. There is no adequate performance information for drug and violence prevention non-formula grant programs against which to compare the performance of the SDFSCA State Grant program.

Evidence:

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: A 2001 RAND study pointed to the program structure as "fundamentally flawed" because of the broad dissemination of a limited amount of funding. However, the RAND study was not designed to assess the program's overall effectiveness. A forthcoming ED study will (1) examine the prevalence of research-based prevention programs implemented by SDFSC grantees across the Nation and (2) assess the extent to which those programs are implemented with fidelity to the research on which they are based. Data for the 2004-2005 school year should be available in 2007.

Evidence: "Options for Restructuring the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act." RAND Drug Policy Research Center, 2001.