The Problem

More than a generation of research has shown that violent outcomes for children, families, and communities are often the result of complex risk processes. Antisocial behaviors of children and adolescents at highest risk arise from the interaction of multiple environmental and individual antecedents that may begin early in the child's life. Included in these antecedents are (1) stressful family environments, (2) lack of parenting skills in the family, (3) alienation between family andschool and other community institutions, (4) individual characteristics of the child, and (5) community characteristics (e.g., neighborhood disorganization, lack of resources, dangerous physical environments).

The interaction of these factors, among others, may result in the onset of aggressive behaviors, behavior problems at home, and the continuation and escalation of problems with peers and teachers when the child reaches school age. Unless interrupted (or prevented), antisocial behavior can persist throughout the school career and into adulthood. Risk may intensify in middle school and through adolescence, as the physical, cognitive, social, and emotional changes of puberty and school transitions occur. Risk may be exacerbated by exposure to negative peer pressure and environments in which few protective factors are available. Children and youth exposed to these risks are more likely to engage in interpersonal violence and other antisocial behavior, substance use and abuse, and risky sexual behaviors leading to increased risk for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy; to be depressed and/or anxious; to exhibit suicidal behaviors; and to fail academically.

The complexity of the processes that put children and youth at risk for violent and self-destructive outcomes makes intervention and treatment challenging. The Initiative is based on the premise that to prevent school violence, a collaborative effort that takes into account the complex interaction of environmental and individual risk factors must be put in place. This approach is new and complicated; the process of evaluating the initiative will be challenging.

Approach

The Initiative draws on the best practices of the education, justice, social service, and mental health systems to promote a comprehensive, integrated framework for use by communities in addressing school violence. This comprehensive framework includes:

• Establishing school-community partnerships.

• Identifying and measuring the school violence problem.

• Setting measurable goals and objectives.

• Identifying appropriate research-based programs and strategies.

• Implementing programs and strategies in an integrated fashion.

• Evaluating the outcomes of programs and strategies.

• Revising the comprehensive plan on the basis of evaluation information.

The Initiative seeks to ensure that grantees develop and implement comprehensive strategic plans to prevent violence and support healthy development. Plans must be developed by communitywide partnerships and must include attention to six interrelated elements:

• School safety.

• Alcohol and other drug and violence prevention and intervention programs.

• School and community mental health preventive and treatment intervention services.

• Early childhood psychosocial and emotional development programs.

• Education reform.

• Safe school policies.

These elements must be incorporated in an integrated fashion such that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Evaluating the processes and outcomes of this kind of complex initiative presents special challenges. Although all sites will share some common elements and indicators, every site will design and implement different combinations of evidence-based programs/interventions. Likewise, the precise combination of community partners, and their collaborative relationships, will differ across sites. Thoughtful, innovative approaches, carried out in conjunction with local evaluators, will be needed to capture both the unique characteristics and the generalizable outcomes of these efforts.

This Initiative provides a unique opportunity for learning how community collaborative efforts develop, function, and facilitate change within community institutions and within individuals. Capturing this information in a meaningful and systematic way is a complex task. For instance, by definition the unit of analysis is not the individual, but the community. Community change, not just individual change, is an intervention goal. Examples of additional challenges include (1) the inability to randomly assign entire communities, (2) difficulty in establishing causal connections because of the complex and fluid nature of community interventions, and (3) the need to accurately capture critical community events not directly related to the intervention. The evaluation design must address these (and other) challenges in order to answer the critical question: What was the impact of the Initiative on school crime and violence and on the provision of programs and services leading to healthy childhood development?

Local Evaluation

All sites are required to participate in a national evaluation that will collect and analyze data on a common, cross-site set of core indicators. Each site will also perform site-specific evaluations to document and assess program development and implementation at the local level, including how well the program(s) and/or services are implemented, how closely the implementation matches the comprehensive communitywide strategy's goals, and how much of the program(s) and/or services participants actually receive. In addition, a subset of sites will be selected to participate in intensive, detailed analyses that can be used to inform policy, science, and programs at both the local and national levels.

The primary responsibilities of the local evaluator will include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Help the site strategically plan activities that will achieve program goals and objectives.

• Work with the national evaluator to ensure the collection of high-quality core data.

• Design and implement a process evaluation of the local program with assistance from the national evaluator to show results achieved, as appropriate. The purpose of the process evaluation is to describe how program activities were implemented and whether goals and objectives were met. The local evaluator is required to share implementation data and reports with the national evaluator.

• Provide the site with data that can be used to make adjustments in service delivery and improve the overall program.

• Design and conduct a site-specific outcome evaluation to determine whether an intervention is producing its intended effects.

National Evaluation of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students Initiative	Due Date: July 21, 1999